Perspectives Chapter 2

Consider a familiar scenario where two people wish to go out together, but one prefers a movie and the other a stage play. If both are on at the same time in different locations, either course of action can be taken, but logically they are mutually exclusive. Another situation that often arises is where a person would like to buy two items but is only able to afford one. Each purchase may be separately feasible, but they cannot be achieved simultaneously because of limited resources. The fact that certain possibilities are logically or economically irreconcilable is probably a necessary feature of the universe, otherwise existence could not have any character at all. It becomes a problem only when varying individual desires, aims and objectives enter the picture. That is when conflict can arise.

Conflict exists whenever there are two or more mutually exclusive possibilities and a will, or motive behind each. Our earlier examples illustrate conflict in that there are desires towards clearly incompatible possibilities. Several other exclusive possibilities may also exist, such as attending a dinner party in the first scenario, or buying yet another item with our limited funds in the second, but because there is no desire attached to them, they play no part in any conflict. The direction of the will, desire or motive is influenced by our differing knowledge, beliefs, experience, sensitivities, values, abilities, and state of being, including energy, health, moods, personality and character. Situations arise where not all wishes are simultaneously achievable and the resulting conflict lies at the heart of decision making or choice.

From this perspective, conflict can exist between people or within the same person . There will be conflict between people when they have differing objectives that cannot be achieved at the same time or with the same limited resources. There will be conflict within a person when he must choose between alternatives, both of which he wants or both of which he wishes to avoid, or when he must ‘take or leave' something in its entirety but has strongly ambivalent motives.

For the sake of clarity, it helps to set aside some of the accepted connotations and colloquial usages of the term, and confine ourselves to the way we have defined it. It then becomes more obvious that -

Differences and disagreements do not constitute conflict until people wilfully adhere to opposing sides.
The typical like-dislike or ‘love-hate' relationships we often have with people and objects are not conflicts in themselves, but a recognition that we can feel differently about various attributes of the same thing. It is possible to evolve very successful strategies to coexist in harmony.
Conflict does not necessarily involve negative emotions. Some people enjoy conflict and many aspects of our individual and collective pursuits appear to thrive on it to a large extent, such as science, entertainment and adventure.

Conflict is a major component of many ‘problems' and forms the central theme of much of our entertainment drama. It is also endemic in the legal system and business behaviour.

It is important to distinguish between conflict and any aggression that may be associated with it. Aggression arises when one ‘will' acts forcefully against another in an attempt to establish its own preference. Naturally, aggression is more common between people, but it is not unknown for a person to act aggressively towards himself, such as threatening to punish himself for certain choices. Aggression can range from socially acceptable rivalry to unlimited warfare. It is not always undesirable, and may be necessary as a last resort to maintain order in society. Three interesting observations flow naturally from this distinction:

Assertiveness differs from aggression more in appearance than in substance. The main contrast is that the force is consciously directed towards our own objective rather than against an opponent. Thus, on the surface, it has connotations of being strong, positive, constructive, and more consistent with civilised conduct. Nevertheless, it is still an attempt to make our own will prevail without resolving the underlying conflict. Many feuds had their origins in the ‘assertive' behaviour of one party relentlessly pursuing its own interests while indifferent to the effect it was having on their neighbour. The irony is that a desperate victim may be driven to ‘aggression' and then accused of starting the fight. In reality, assertiveness is merely a different point on the ‘forceful behaviour' continuum, and much of our discussion related to aggression is equally applicable to that concept.

Active competition exists when two or more conflicting parties exercise forceful tactics. Contests, games and tournaments are also based on conflict, however, the process is controlled by rules that generally ensure a non-destructive outcome, although there are notable exceptions. Their purpose is usually entertainment and the demonstration of skill, ideally without the presence of vested interests, ulterior motives or negative feelings between the parties. Competition in business and politics tends to be taken more seriously, the stakes are generally higher, the ‘game' tends to be more relentless and enduring, and the outcome may be more critical. Warfare is the most extreme form of competition involving aggression that is usually organised and often unrestrained on both sides.

In the ‘cold war' between the West and the Soviet Block there was a conflict of social and economic ideologies, but mutual aggression was controlled largely through a balance of power that acted as a deterrent. The control of aggressive behaviour did not, however, reduce the underlying conflict. It is important to distinguish between these two essentially different concepts, and to do this, it is helpful to examine the factors that are related to the possibility of conflict and the fundamental strategies that may be employed in conflict resolution.

Clearly, if only one possibility exists no conflict can arise, and the larger the number of possibilities the more ‘rival camps' can be formed. Likewise, regardless of the possibilities, if all parties prefer the same one, no conflict will arise. To be effective, the process of conflict resolution must focus on the possibilities related to the situation or on the ‘wills' associated with them. Some of the examples may be simple, but the principles they illustrate apply at all levels from the personal to the international.

Conflict resolution generally involves one or more of the following strategies -

Finding some way to establish both of the possibilities that initially appeared to be mutually exclusive. If one party wants a small car because it is easier to park and the other wants a large one to carry luggage, the solution may be a small van.
Changing the will or motive behind one of the options by broadening, deepening or lengthening the vision. We may consider a person who is considering legal action against another who caused him injury. He may have strong motives in both directions such as the prospect of vindication versus the emotional cost of the struggle. If he broadens his perspective, to consider the issue of social justice he may be persuaded to go ahead. On the other hand, a deeper look at the long-term effects of the fight on his health and family life may convince him that the pursuit is not worth the cost.
Investigating the deeper intentions of both parties. Often people pursue an objective, not as an end in itself, but as a means to something else. On the surface, the objectives may be in conflict. However, if we investigate the real reasons why they are pursuing those objectives, we may find that these are compatible and that both intentions could be achieved through a more cooperative new strategy. This is a practical application of the win-win philosophy. This approach may also be useful when the conflict is within the same person. Between people it can be effective even if used only by one party. In each instance it involves a learning process through which alternative, non-conflict-causing means are found to accomplish the same desired ultimate ends.
Offering more attractive compensation or incentive to abandon an objective. Family life is full of examples where parents bribe their children with something even more enticing than what they have their hearts set on at the time.

No single method will necessarily be successful in any particular case.

The possibility of aggression varies with the resources available to the aggressor . It is well known in military and diplomatic circles that ones defences must be based on a potential adversary's capabilities, not their stated intentions. The probability of aggressive behaviour is naturally limited by the possibility, but within those limits it will depend on the strength of the will or motive behind it.

The anticipated costs, benefits and likelihood of success.
The existing balance of power and deterrence.
The expected consequences of failure.
The characters of the parties in conflict.
The strength of the motives.
The intensity of will.
The perceived urgency in the situation.

Depriving the aggressive party of the means necessary to establish its preferred option. In simple terms, this often means taking or destroying the resources they need to continue acting aggressively..
Introducing a deterrent, namely an internal conflict within the aggressor. When we build up our own defence capabilities, the potential aggressor faces a conflict within himself, for he now has both a reason to attack and a reason not to attack.
Destroying the aggressor's will to establish his preferred option. This includes the use of external threat and other ‘demoralising' tactics.
Making one of the preferences impossible altogether. Some types of aggressive behaviour can be stopped by removing certain possibilities completely. The behaviour of competitors can often be changed by introducing appropriate legislation to change the ‘rules of the game'.
Appeasement or ‘giving in'. For example, a timid wife might comply with all of her bullying husband's wishes so as to avoid domestic violence.

It is clear that Conflict Resolution and Aggression Control are essentially different. Aggression is based on conflict, but conflict does not always result in aggression. Conflict resolution is more fundamental, generally leading to a more stable outcome. In fact, it could be argued that the ultimate form of aggression control is conflict resolution itself. However, aggressive behaviour is also a matter of character, and the resolution of a particular conflict will not guarantee permanent peace between parties where aggressive tendencies are habitual. Nevertheless, many policies aimed at conflict management are really no more than crude forms of aggression control. With or without the presence of aggression, the existence of conflict tends to be wasteful of resources. It may lead to other forms of counter-productive behaviour such as indecisiveness, passive resistance or withdrawal, and it tends to be conducive to low morale. Both effective conflict resolution processes and aggression control strategies are essential to a lasting peaceful coexistence.