The Impact of 9/11 on Conflict Resolvers: 10 Years in Perspective

The effects of the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001 rippled through the conflict resolution field like a pebble thrown into a pond – or perhaps more like a meteor. The effects described by practitioners in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were numerous and varied, from realizing a need to learn about traumatic stress to questioning the very idea of neutrality. As a part of her doctoral research published in 2006, S-CAR alumna Dr. Alma Abdul-Hadi Jadallah completed 53 interviews with lead, mid-level, and grass-root practitioners in the conflict resolution field to explore and document these effects.

Ten years later, Kommon Denominator (KD), a conflict management consulting firm affiliated with S-CAR, investigated whether those findings are still relevant today, and what new developments have occurred in reaction to the events of 9/11. The follow-up study included 11 practitioners, about 20% of the original number interviewed, representing the same three levels of practice. Here is what KD confirmed:

The level of the trauma experienced in the US following the events of 9/11 continues to cause practitioners to question their ability to influence outcomes. Many practitioners see their work as operating on a smaller scale, helping individuals and communities, and noted that the field of conflict resolution (CR) was not and is still not well placed to influence outcomes. After 9/11, CR practitioners felt that most people outside of the CR field did not really understand the scope and power of the resources available to deal with a great number of aspects of a conflict situation. KD’s follow up study indicates that CR practitioners still feel that this is the case.

Practitioners continue to question the idea of neutrality, and some even reject it entirely as a possibility. 9/11 made many practitioners aware of their own cultural biases, and in the ensuing decade, practitioners continue to learn more about other cultures and approaches. Humility about the limitations of practitioners' own cultural context, and respect for others, seems to have taken root in the field in the aftermath of 9/11 and remains a strong theme today. This includes religious differences, as the surge in faith-based initiatives after 9/11 remains strong.

Terrorism took on new importance as the US launched its “War on Terror,” and it continues to receive a lot of attention from a funding perspective and in curricula. CR practitioners reported concern over the initial US foreign policy response and continue to be disappointed with a largely aggressive US response.

As the aftermath of 9/11 unfolds, some new concerns have naturally developed among CR practitioners. One is the inflammatory nature of the word “terrorist” itself, and how use of that label may be a barrier to dialogue and reconciliation. Another concern is the unintended adverse effects of faith-based initiatives. KD will be exploring these issues and more in a forthcoming article.

For any questions about this research, please contact the Kommon Denominator Research team at [email protected].