A long time ago a conflict exploded on Lake Titicaca on the border between Chile and Bolivia. The story of this conflict and its unsuccessful conclusion became famous thanks to an anthropologist who studied the events leading to the conflict and the factors that prevented a solution.
It all started when the government officials approached the local population regarding the new Lake Titicaca nature preserve and the local peasants reacted with an insurrection. The plan of the government would significantly reduce access of the local population to the reeds growing in beds by the lake. The reeds were the main resource of the local economy.
This is when the conflict began and the anthropologist Benjamin Orlove started to observe the process.
In order to demonstrate that the reeds beds were used by the local community and particularly to show which communities were relying on which portions of the lake, a handmade map was made (see image below).
The government to prepare for the opening of the nature preserve on Lake Titicaca produced official maps of the same area simultaneously. These maps were produced for the Peruvian citizenship to show the organization of the territory in the nature preserve and to highlight tourist facilities in the region. (see the map below).
There are some obvious differences between the two maps as Orlove reported. For example, the peasant’s map excludes the area’s cities, while the government map omits the communities surrounding the lake.
However, the two maps have an important aspect in common. Both maps appear to represent the respective views of the mapmakers by including what is relevant for the mapmakers and excluding what is not important or not acknowledged.
Furthermore, in this analysis Orlove discovered that both maps were made in such a way that only the creator of the map could actually understand it fully.
A meeting of both parties occurred to discuss the situation on Lake Titicaca, at which time both maps were presented.
However, the peasants did not examine the government’s map closely, and the government officials limited their observations to a superficial level, simply remarking on the different appearances.
The resolution of this conflict was unhappy. Orlove’s analysis concluded that the main reason behind this failure was to be found in the dynamic of the parties involved. Both focused only on putting forward their own opinions and needs. The total neglect of the opinions and needs of the other side literally blinded both parties resulting in a failed negotiation.
Making maps the other can understand
In a conflict there are two opposing points of view and normally each party has a chance to give their perspective. Too often we explain our position disregarding how important it is for our message to be heard and understood correctly by others. We need to speak a shared language to be understood.
Opening up to see the map of the other
If we are in a conflict, chances are we are not working much to listen and understand the other side. It’s as if we already knew our opponent was wrong and there was no need to listen carefully. This is, as assumptions can be, quite dangerous.
The possible solutions to a conflict
It is extremely revealing to consider what are the solutions you consider possible in any given conflict. Taking the example above and considering the side you sympathize with, ask yourself: what are the possible solutions?
You can ask yourself the same question thinking of a conflict you are currently experiencing. Which possible solutions do you see at the moment?
If you can consider only two possibilities, I win or I loose, you are probably still emotionally involved and stuck in a conflict dynamic.
When you begin to explore additional options you are opening up to confrontation and honest dialogue. Going down this road you’ll soon meet the ideal solution, the so-called ‘win-win-win’. This means that both parties are acknowledged for what is critical for them (win-win) and there is even a return on the environment the parties live in (win).
Lara Briozzo Jagersma
