The Institutionalization of Social Conflict in Central Asia: A Philosophical Analysis

Abstract

Social conflict studies view social conflict as a dysfunction requiring technical resolution, thereby concealinga normative bias in favor of stability at the expense of justice and recognition. The article argues that theinstitutionalization of social conflict is an inescapably philosophical problem, and that conflict studies mustbe reconstructed as a normative discipline capable of assessing the legitimacy, rather than merely theeffectiveness, of conflict management institutions. Drawing on Hegel’s dialectic of recognition, GeorgSimmel’s sociology of conflict, Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism, and Ralf Dahrendorf’s theory ofinstitutionalization, the article examines social conflict as a constitutive condition of social order. Regionalconflict management institutions — the Aksakal Council in Kyrgyzstan, the mahalla system in Uzbekistan,and the legislative model of mediation in Kazakhstan — are interpreted as examples of what the article terms«pseudo-institutionalization»: conflict is contained but not legitimized, suppressed but not transformed. Thus,the analysis in this article revolves around three social tensions: justice versus stability, formal institutionsversus informal practices, and state control versus social dialogue. In conclusion, three normatively groundedprinciples — reflexive justice, dialogical accountability, and agonistic legitimacy — are proposed as theminimum conditions necessary for an institution to claim normative legitimacy in the realm of social conflict.