Galtung’s Conflict Triangle: Attitudes, Behavior, and Incompatibility

Conflict is everywhere. It exists in our personal relationships, communities, and between nations. But what drives conflict? Why does it escalate from tension to violence? Understanding these dynamics is essential for anyone working toward peace. In the 1960s, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung developed a powerful analytical tool that continues to shape how we understand and address conflicts today: the Conflict Triangle.

Understanding the conflict triangle 🔗

Johan Galtung’s Conflict Triangle, also known as the ABC model, presents conflict as having three interconnected elements: A for attitudes, B for behavior, and C for contradiction or incompatibility. These three components work together, and conflict can begin at any corner of the triangle.

What makes this model particularly valuable is its simplicity and flexibility. The triangle shows that conflicts don’t follow a fixed pattern. A territorial dispute might create hostile attitudes that lead to violent behavior. Conversely, hostile behavior between groups can generate negative attitudes and create incompatible goals where none existed before. This dynamic quality means that conflict transformation becomes a continuous process rather than a one-time solution.

The conflict situation: when goals collide 🔗

At the heart of every conflict lies a contradiction or incompatibility. This happens when different social units perceive their goals, values, or interests as mutually exclusive. The contradiction might involve competing claims over resources, territory, political power, or fundamental values. It could stem from disparities in wealth distribution, discrimination, or perceived scarcity of opportunities.

When a conflict situation exists but parties haven’t yet fully recognized its urgency, it’s described as latent conflict. In this stage, the underlying incompatibility is present, but awareness remains low. People might experience the negative consequences without understanding their sources or believing that change is possible. Latent conflicts are characterized by unbalanced power and low awareness, creating conditions where injustice can persist unchallenged.

Structural causes of conflict 🔗

The contradiction in conflict often has deep structural roots. Unequal distribution of wealth, restricted access to services, systemic discrimination, and institutionalized inequalities create objective conditions that fuel conflict. Without addressing these structural realities, changes in attitudes and behavior won’t be sustainable. This is why conflict resolution must go beyond treating symptoms to tackle the underlying systems that generate incompatibility.

Conflict attitudes: the emotional fuel 🔗

Attitudes represent the emotional and cognitive dimension of conflict. They include feelings of greed, anger, fear, frustration, resentment, and interpersonal tension. These attitudes become more defensive and hostile as conflict escalates, creating psychological barriers to resolution.

What makes conflict attitudes particularly volatile is their capacity for rapid transformation. In a conflict scenario, emotions like fear can quickly translate into aggressive postures. Prejudices and stereotypes take root, making it difficult for parties to see each other clearly. The challenge for conflict resolution is that parties must become aware of their own attitudes and perceptions before meaningful dialogue can occur.

Conflict attitudes aren’t just individual psychological states. They become embedded in group identities, passed down through generations, and reinforced by social structures. This is why breaking cycles of conflict requires more than changing individual minds; it demands transforming collective consciousness and cultural narratives.

Conflict behavior: actions with consequences 🔗

Behavior is the most visible corner of the conflict triangle. It consists of intentional actions designed to overcome an opponent’s resistance or force them to abandon or modify their goals. Conflict behavior manifests in three primary forms: direct violence, structural violence, and cultural violence.

Direct violence involves physical harm or coercion. It’s the most obvious form of conflict behavior, ranging from individual acts of aggression to organized warfare. Structural violence refers to harm caused by social structures that prevent people from meeting their basic needs. This includes systems that perpetuate poverty, deny education, or restrict healthcare access. Cultural violence involves beliefs, symbols, and ideologies that justify or normalize direct and structural violence.

Each type of violence corresponds to a corner of the triangle: attitudes link to cultural violence, contradictions to structural violence, and behavior to direct violence. To transcend violent conflict, all three must be addressed simultaneously. A ceasefire that stops direct violence without addressing structural inequalities and hostile attitudes will prove temporary and unsustainable.

Institutionalized distance 🔗

Conflict behavior also takes the form of institutionalized social distance, where groups create formal and informal barriers that limit interaction and maintain separation. Segregation policies, discriminatory laws, and exclusionary practices institutionalize conflict, making it part of the social fabric rather than exceptional behavior.

Adam Curle’s progression of conflict 🔗

Building on Galtung’s framework, British peace scholar Adam Curle outlined how conflicts progress through distinct stages. Curle’s model examines conflicts along two dimensions: the balance of power between parties and their level of awareness about the conflict and possible solutions.

From potential to overt conflict 🔗

Conflicts begin in a stage of low awareness and unbalanced power, which Curle identifies as potential or latent conflict. The aggrieved group experiences negative consequences but may not fully understand the sources of their grievances or believe that change is achievable. They might even accept their situation as the natural order of things.

As awareness increases while power remains unbalanced, conflict moves to the overt stage. Groups begin to recognize the injustice they face and its structural causes. This heightened consciousness often comes through education and exposure to alternative possibilities. However, without power to challenge the status quo, awareness alone creates frustration.

Confrontation and transformation 🔗

The confrontation stage involves direct action to equalize power between parties. This might include nonviolent protests, boycotts, or organized resistance. Confrontation makes it uncomfortable or impossible for adversaries to maintain business as usual, forcing recognition of the aggrieved group’s strength and legitimate concerns.

When power becomes more balanced and awareness remains high, conditions are ripe for conciliation and negotiation. Parties can work toward solutions they both find acceptable. This stage requires third-party facilitators or skilled mediators to help overcome remaining barriers and craft sustainable agreements.

Restructuring relationships 🔗

The final stage involves relationship restructuring and what Curle termed development. This goes beyond signing agreements to fundamentally transforming the relationship between parties. Conciliation helps overcome feelings of antipathy, hatred, distrust, and resentment that accumulated during the conflict. Without this emotional and relational work, agreements remain fragile and vulnerable to collapse.

Relationship restructuring creates conditions where individuals can develop their full capacities for creativity, service, and enjoyment. It establishes new social structures based on equity and mutual respect rather than domination and submission.

Why these models matter for peace building 🔗

Both Galtung’s Conflict Triangle and Curle’s progression model offer practical frameworks for analyzing and addressing conflicts. They remind us that conflicts are complex, multidimensional phenomena that require comprehensive responses. Quick fixes that address only behavior or negotiate temporary truces without tackling attitudes and structural contradictions will ultimately fail.

These models also emphasize that conflict transformation is never-ending work. Peace isn’t a final destination but an ongoing process of managing contradictions constructively, maintaining awareness of injustice, and building balanced relationships. The triangle can be applied to conflicts at any scale, from interpersonal disputes to international wars, making it a truly universal analytical tool.

Understanding conflict through these frameworks helps us recognize intervention points and appropriate strategies for each stage. Education increases awareness during latent conflicts. Confrontation equalizes power when awareness grows but imbalances persist. Negotiation becomes productive once power is balanced. And conciliation heals wounds to make peace sustainable.

What do you think? Looking at conflicts in your community or the world, can you identify which corner of the conflict triangle is most active? How might understanding the progression from latent to overt conflict help you recognize when to shift strategies from education to confrontation or from confrontation to negotiation?

References

1. https://carisuk.com/theories-i-core-theories/
2. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/07/22/application-of-galtungs-abc-model-on-the-naxalite-insurgency-of-india/
3. https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/lederach-process
4. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Peacebuilding_Manual/Understanding_Conflict
5. https://competendo.net/en/The_ABC_Triangle
6. https://medium.com/@tobias.net.au/conflict-analysis-and-peace-studies-theories-in-memory-of-professor-johan-galtung-1fb4a5c87460
7. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/Peaceful_Chg_Strats