Just to be clear, I don't think the author is talking about physical force here. "Violence" in this context is about one thing dominating and imposing on another, possibly to the extent of silencing or absorbing it (they're talking about Derrida, so I'm feeling confident about this). And if conflict is about two (or more) things that cannot coexist at the same time...
I looked into Kishotenketsu a while ago. If I were to put the difference between "conflict-driven narratives" and "contrast-driven narratives" simply, I would do it like this:
Conflict: Thesis + Antithesis => Thesis OR Thesis + Antithesis => Antithesis
Contrast: Thesis + Antithesis => Synthesis
Dramatica uses the first. A story is considered "broken" if both principle characters/perspectives change. One HAS to win over the other to be considered complete. If compromise wins out then it must be one of the perspectives in the first place.
Kishotenketsu uses the second. You juxtapose two contrasting ideas and then connect them together. These ideas can coexist together.
Neither of these two approaches is better than the other, and I don't think the author is suggesting the contrary.