Understanding the Root and Immediate Causes of Conflict

When we witness conflicts around us, from small disputes to devastating wars, a fundamental question arises: what really causes these confrontations? Understanding conflict requires us to look beyond the obvious triggers and examine both the immediate sparks that ignite violence and the deeper foundations that create conditions for conflict to emerge. This distinction between proximate and underlying causes is crucial for anyone seeking to resolve conflicts sustainably rather than merely treating their symptoms.

Proximate causes: The spark that ignites 🔗

Proximate causes are the immediate events or triggers that escalate tensions into open conflict. These are the visible, recent factors that can accentuate deeper structural problems and lead to an escalation of violent confrontation. Think of them as the match that lights a fire when all the conditions are already in place for burning.

A classic historical example illustrates this perfectly. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in June 1914 served as the immediate trigger for World War I. While this single event appeared to spark the war, it was actually the culmination of decades of underlying tensions involving imperial rivalries, alliance systems, militarism, and nationalist movements across Europe. The assassination didn’t create these tensions; it simply provided the catalyst that transformed simmering hostilities into open warfare.

These triggers, while significant in timing, are often just the visible tip of a much deeper iceberg. Proximate causes explain why something happens when it did and in the way it did, but they don’t explain why conflict was eventually inevitable. Without addressing the fundamental conditions that made conflict likely, removing one trigger simply means another will eventually take its place.

Underlying causes: The deep-seated foundations 🔗

In contrast to proximate causes, underlying causes are the fundamental, long-term conditions that create fertile ground for conflict. Also called root causes or structural causes, these are systemic factors that have become built into the norms, structures, and policies of a society. They include historical grievances, socio-economic inequalities, political injustices, unequal distribution of resources, and discriminatory institutions.

These deep-seated causes operate like fault lines beneath the earth’s surface. They may remain hidden for years, but they create persistent pressure that eventually finds release through conflict. A society with severe economic inequality, for instance, creates conditions where even minor disputes over resources can escalate into major confrontations. Similarly, historical injustices that remain unaddressed can fuel resentment across generations, making reconciliation increasingly difficult.

Sustainable conflict resolution requires addressing these root causes, not just the immediate triggers. Focusing solely on proximate causes is like treating the fever without curing the disease. The symptoms may temporarily subside, but the underlying condition remains, ready to manifest again.

The nature vs. nurture debate in conflict 🔗

The exploration of underlying causes often centers on a fundamental philosophical question: Is conflict inherent to human nature, or is it produced by external social and structural conditions? This debate has profound implications for how we approach peace and conflict resolution.

Human nature: Are we programmed for conflict? 🔗

Some theories posit that aggression is biologically ingrained in humans. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously described life in the state of nature as one where competition, diffidence, and glory-seeking create a war of all against all. He viewed humanity as inherently driven by desires for self-preservation, power, and recognition, leading inevitably to conflict in the absence of strong governance.

Sigmund Freud offered a psychological perspective, proposing that humans possess both life instincts and death instincts. He argued that this inner conflict between these drives manifests in outward aggression and violence, suggesting that society and culture must work to sublimate these destructive impulses into constructive activities.

These inherency theories suggest that conflict is an unavoidable aspect of human existence, rooted in our evolutionary heritage and psychological makeup. From this perspective, the best we can hope for is to manage and channel aggression rather than eliminate it entirely.

Gandhi’s counterpoint: The essential goodness of humanity 🔗

However, figures like Mahatma Gandhi offered a profoundly different vision. Gandhi argued that violence is not a natural human instinct but a learned behavior that can be unlearned through education and moral development. He believed in the essential goodness and spiritual potential of human beings to transcend violence.

For Gandhi, every human being carries within them a divine spark that is fundamentally pure and good. While acknowledging that humans possess both divine and base instincts, he maintained that the capacity for compassion, truth, and nonviolence represents our true nature. This goodness might be obscured by social conditioning, hatred, and greed, but it remains accessible through spiritual practice and self-discipline.

Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence was rooted in this understanding of human nature as essentially good. If every person has the potential for moral and spiritual growth, then violence only serves to block that potential. By choosing nonviolence, we create conditions for dialogue, reconciliation, and transformation, awakening the inherent goodness in both the oppressor and the oppressed.

Society as a crucible for conflict 🔗

Socio-structural theories offer another perspective entirely, arguing that conflict is not innate but is produced by external societal factors. These theories view society as inherently composed of groups with differing and competing interests, often driven by inequalities in wealth, power, and social prestige. From this viewpoint, social structures and institutions create conditions where conflict becomes likely or even inevitable.

Unjust social structures, institutions that favor certain groups over others, and the unequal distribution of power and resources create environments ripe for confrontation. Economic systems that concentrate wealth in few hands while leaving many in poverty, political systems that exclude certain groups from participation, and cultural systems that discriminate based on identity all generate the conditions for conflict.

This perspective shifts the focus from individual pathology to systemic flaws. Rather than asking whether humans are naturally aggressive, it examines how social arrangements produce or prevent violence. Structural inequality manifests in economic, educational, health, and political spheres, perpetuating systemic disadvantages across different aspects of life.

Karl Marx’s conflict theory, for instance, located the source of social conflict in economic structures and class relationships. Max Weber expanded this analysis to include inequalities based not just on economics but also on power, status, education, race, and gender. These theorists understood that as long as societies maintain structures that systematically advantage some groups while disadvantaging others, conflict will remain an ever-present possibility.

The socio-structural view doesn’t deny that individuals can be aggressive or violent, but it suggests that whether this potential manifests as widespread conflict depends largely on social conditions. Societies with more equitable distribution of resources, inclusive political systems, and justice-oriented institutions tend to experience less violent conflict than those characterized by severe inequality and exclusion.

Bridging the divide: A comprehensive understanding 🔗

Perhaps the most productive approach acknowledges elements of truth in both perspectives. While humans may possess capacities for both cooperation and aggression, the extent to which either tendency manifests depends significantly on social context. Understanding conflict requires examining both the immediate triggers and the deep structural conditions, both individual psychology and social systems, both nature and nurture.

For those working toward peace, this comprehensive view suggests multiple intervention points. Proximate causes must be addressed to prevent immediate escalation, but lasting peace requires transforming the underlying structures that create conditions for conflict. Similarly, cultivating individual moral development and nonviolent values, as Gandhi advocated, can be combined with efforts to create more just and equitable social institutions.

The challenge lies in recognizing that sustainable conflict resolution is neither quick nor simple. It demands patience, systemic thinking, and willingness to address uncomfortable truths about inequality and injustice. It requires believing, as Gandhi did, in the human capacity for goodness while also acknowledging the very real structural barriers that prevent that goodness from flourishing.

What do you think? Can societies truly transform their conflict-generating structures, or will inequality and competition always create tensions? How might Gandhi’s belief in human goodness inform our approach to addressing structural causes of conflict in contemporary society?

References

1. https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/conflict-analysis/definitions-and-concepts/
2. https://gametheory101.com/courses/international-relations-101/proximate-versus-underlying-causes/
3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
4. https://polsci.institute/conflict-resolution-peace-building/human-nature-conflict-inherency-theories/
5. https://philosophy.institute/gandhian-philosophy/gandhis-philosophy-inherent-goodness-social-harmony/
6. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/conflict-theory
7. https://easysociology.com/sociology-of-inequalities/understanding-structural-inequality-in-sociology/