Incompatibility Analysis in Conflicts: Galtung’s Model of Contradictory Goals

When two parties want the same piece of land, the same resources, or contradictory outcomes, we face what conflict theorist Johan Galtung calls incompatibility. This concept sits at the heart of understanding why conflicts emerge and, more importantly, how they can be resolved without violence. Galtung’s incompatibility analysis offers a framework that moves us beyond the simplistic idea that conflicts must result in winners and losers.

Understanding incompatibility as the core of conflict
Visualizing conflict through the incompatibility diagram
Moving beyond mathematical impossibility
Compromise and the division of resources
When compromise falls short
Transcendence: beyond zero-sum thinking
The creative challenge of transcendence
The role of dialogue and third parties
Confidence-building across multiple domains
From analysis to action

Understanding incompatibility as the core of conflict

Johan Galtung, widely regarded as the founder of peace studies, places incompatibility at the center of his conflict theory. In his view, conflicts arise when two or more actors pursue contradictory goals over scarce resources such as territory, money, or power. When one party’s success means the other’s failure, we have what economists call a zero-sum scenario. If one nation claims sovereignty over a disputed region and another makes the same claim, only one can prevail under traditional thinking. This creates what Galtung identifies as the fundamental contradiction that fuels conflict dynamics.

The power of this framework lies in its clarity. Rather than getting lost in complex psychological or cultural explanations, Galtung’s approach defines conflict as actors pursuing incompatible goals. This definition shifts our focus from blaming parties to understanding the structural nature of their disagreement. When resources are genuinely scarce or goals truly contradictory, conflict becomes not a moral failure but a practical problem requiring creative solutions.

Visualizing conflict through the incompatibility diagram

Galtung’s incompatibility diagram provides a visual map of possible conflict outcomes. This simple yet powerful tool plots the range of possibilities from complete victory for one party to scenarios where both parties might achieve their aims. The diagram identifies five basic positions that represent different ways conflicts can be resolved.

Position A represents one party achieving complete victory, gaining 100 percent of what they seek. Position B shows the opposite, where the other party prevails entirely. These outcomes, while clear-cut, often leave the losing party traumatized and resentful, potentially sowing seeds for future conflict. Position C marks the classic compromise, typically a 50-50 division of resources. Position E represents withdrawal, where resources might be given to a third party or simply destroyed. Finally, Position D represents transcendence, where both parties achieve their goals simultaneously through creative reframing of the conflict.

According to the TRANSCEND method manual, these five outcomes correspond to different processes: violence or adjudication tends toward positions A or B, prevarication leads to withdrawal at position E, negotiation typically results in compromise at position C, while dialogue opens possibilities for transcendence at position D.

Moving beyond mathematical impossibility

The genius of this framework lies in recognizing that conflicts need not be trapped in zero-sum thinking. While positions A, B, C, and E all operate within the constraint that the total benefit cannot exceed 100 percent, position D challenges this assumption. Transcendence asks us to reconsider the very nature of what parties seek, potentially unlocking solutions that appear mathematically impossible under the original framework.

Compromise and the division of resources

Position C, the classical compromise, represents perhaps the most common approach to resolving conflicts. When two siblings argue over an orange, cutting it in half seems fair and reasonable. Each gets 50 percent, neither gets everything, but both get something. This middle-ground approach has been the foundation of countless peace agreements, business deals, and everyday disputes.

However, compromise has significant limitations that Galtung’s analysis helps us recognize. First, not all resources can be divided meaningfully. How do you split a territory where people live, maintain their cultural identity, and conduct their lives? A divided city or nation may technically satisfy the mathematical requirements of compromise, but it often creates new problems of separation, border management, and continued rivalry. Second, compromise assumes that the resource itself is what matters most, overlooking the deeper needs and interests that may underlie each party’s position.

Consider a workplace dispute where two departments compete for limited office space. A 50-50 division might seem fair, but if one department needs collaborative workspace while the other requires quiet areas for focused work, splitting the space equally may satisfy neither. The compromise meets formal equality but fails to address what each party actually needs to function effectively.

When compromise falls short

Compromise can also create resentment when parties feel they have lost half of what should rightfully be theirs. Unlike transcendence, which aims for mutual gain, compromise explicitly accepts mutual loss. Both parties walk away having given up something significant. This may be acceptable for minor disputes, but in deep-rooted conflicts involving identity, survival, or fundamental values, accepting loss can be extremely difficult and may leave parties searching for opportunities to reclaim what they surrendered.

Transcendence: beyond zero-sum thinking

Transcendence represents the most creative and promising approach in Galtung’s framework. Rather than accepting the incompatibility as fixed, transcendence seeks to reframe the conflict entirely. This means disembedding the conflict from where it is located and embedding it elsewhere, opening up a new landscape of possibilities.

Return to the orange example. In a transcendent solution, we might discover that one sibling wants the juice while the other wants the peel for baking. Both can now achieve 100 percent of their actual goal. This is not magic but rather a deeper understanding of what each party truly needs. The conflict appeared incompatible only because we framed it incorrectly.

In international relations, transcendence might transform a territorial dispute into a joint economic development project. Instead of fighting over who controls a region, parties might create a special administrative zone where both exercise authority while focusing on shared prosperity. The Treaty of Tordesillas between Portugal and Spain represented an early attempt at such thinking, though modern transcendence would prioritize the rights and needs of local populations rather than just dividing territory between external powers.

The creative challenge of transcendence

Achieving transcendence requires what Galtung calls creativity-the ability to see beyond established rules and assumptions. Transcendence involves cognitive expansion and reframing, changing one’s perspective on a dispute to reveal new possibilities. This is not simply positive thinking but a disciplined practice of questioning the parameters within which we have confined the conflict.

The challenge lies in overcoming our habitual ways of thinking. When we are deeply invested in a conflict, we often become trapped in rigid positions. We assume that if the other side wins, we must lose. We define success in terms of defeating the opponent rather than meeting our actual needs. Transcendence demands that we step back and ask different questions about what we truly seek and whether there might be ways to achieve it that do not require the other party to fail.

The role of dialogue and third parties

Galtung emphasizes that dynamic conflict analysis cannot happen without genuine dialogue. Unlike debates where parties argue to win, dialogue involves collaborative exploration of the conflict to understand it more deeply. The TRANSCEND method advocates for three phases: mapping the conflict, legitimizing parties’ concerns, and bridging incompatibilities through creative solutions.

Third-party mediators can play a crucial role in facilitating this dialogue. A skilled mediator helps parties articulate their genuine needs, challenges assumptions, and generates options for mutual gain. However, Galtung cautions against mediators who simply split differences or impose solutions. True conflict transformation requires the parties themselves to develop ownership of creative solutions, with mediators serving as facilitators rather than judges or managers.

Confidence-building across multiple domains

Transforming conflicts often requires confidence-building measures that make parties’ behavior more predictable and reduce fear of attack. These measures operate across military, social, and economic domains. In the military sphere, confidence-building might involve hotlines between defense officials, notification of military exercises, and agreements not to attack certain facilities. Social and cultural measures might include exchange programs, joint sports events, and collaborative research projects. Economic confidence-building could involve trade agreements, joint development projects, and transparent sharing of economic data.

The logic behind these measures is straightforward: when parties can predict each other’s actions, misunderstandings decrease and trust gradually builds. Small steps create foundation for larger ones. A successful exchange program today makes a comprehensive peace agreement tomorrow more feasible. Conference formats that bring together military officials, civil society leaders, and government representatives create networks of communication that can prevent crises and facilitate resolution when tensions arise.

From analysis to action

Galtung’s incompatibility analysis provides more than just an academic framework-it offers practical guidance for anyone working to resolve conflicts. By understanding that conflicts have multiple possible outcomes, we free ourselves from the assumption that violence or domination is inevitable. By recognizing the limitations of compromise and the potential of transcendence, we commit ourselves to the creative work of discovering solutions that serve all parties’ genuine needs.

The path from incompatibility to resolution requires patience, empathy, and above all, creativity. It demands that we look beyond surface positions to underlying interests, that we question assumptions about scarcity and opposition, and that we remain open to possibilities that initially seem impossible. Most importantly, it requires genuine dialogue-not the theatrical performances of formal negotiations, but honest, exploratory conversations aimed at mutual understanding and creative problem-solving.

What do you think? Can you recall a conflict where transcendence-reframing the problem entirely-led to a better outcome than compromise would have achieved? What barriers prevent us from seeking transcendent solutions more often in conflicts we face?

References

PDF 📄

Incompatibility Analysis in Conflicts: Galtung’s Model of Contradictory Goals

Table of Contents

Understanding incompatibility as the core of conflict 🔗

Visualizing conflict through the incompatibility diagram 🔗

Moving beyond mathematical impossibility 🔗

Compromise and the division of resources 🔗

When compromise falls short 🔗

Transcendence: beyond zero-sum thinking 🔗

The creative challenge of transcendence 🔗

The role of dialogue and third parties 🔗

Confidence-building across multiple domains 🔗

From analysis to action 🔗