Conflict as the mechanism of change. The narrative of conflict.

Content

Change

Change is the transition from what was to what is. Life is change.

From an individual point of view a living, conscious body is experiencing change throughout its life. When the body adapts it becomes familiar with the change and it becomes comfortable with it. A change to what was familiar makes the body uncomfortable. The writer Joseph Campbell, compared mythological narratives and found a common structure which is basically the journey into the unknown and back. I’m going to elaborate on it in the narrative section of this blog post.

From a systemic point of view, there are two types of changes - constructive (green in the image below) and destructive (red in the image below). Sometimes a change may be only construction, sometimes it can be only destruction, sometimes it can include both destruction and construction. Note that a system can be an individual body, a group of people, an abstraction, etc.

Description of the systemic change

  • Hidden: What is already present in the system but is inactive, dormant, neglected or taken for granted. For example a seed has all the DNA inside of it and given the time and resources it grows into a tree.

  • Emergent: What was hidden is now active. It may be that the emergent is the change agent itself. An example with parenting - the striving of the child to define their own identity can sometimes superficially be seen as a resistance to the parents. The emergent may be viewed as antagonist only because it behaves differently. That is the mechanism of change.

  • Discovered: The other elements of the system become aware of the emergent. There is a period of adaptation as the emergent takes its position.

  • Integrated: The emergent is an active part of the system and its new functions changed the structure and/or the function of the system.

  • Lost: An element that used to be integrated has been detached from the system. As a result the system is malfunctioning and there is a period of adaptation. For human groups it is a myth that a person can be replaced - responsibilities can be distributed, but an individual cannot be replicated.

  • Rediscovered: There is a new appreciation of the lost element. People find inspiration from the points of view of the deceased and they take actions which they would not normally do.

Furthermore, because people are smaller systems within a larger system (the community), the same change event for one person may be destruction and for another person it may be construction.

Conflict

Conflict means friction, opposition, struggle. The author is making a risk by making the following claim:

All conflict has at its root actiong in the belief of being entitled.

When a person believes that someone or a group of people or society or the world owns them something and choses to ask for the (re)payment - that is the root cause of conflict. There may be an objective justification for that belief. However in principle, the human personality is entitled only to death. Making peace with this reality leads to a more truthful experience.

In the context of change, conflict is often defined as resistance to the change. Actually, resistance to a change may be one of the causes of any given conflict. In some systems experiencing constructive change, for different people what emerges is different. If the emergent objects or qualities are scarce or exclusive of one another as is often the case, each individual in their striving for their preferred emergent property forms a goal which becomes contradictory to another individual’s goal. People welcome the change but strive for different outcomes of the change and become antagonists.

These are the types of interpersonal conflicts which I classify:

In an operational conflict, the sides are struggling over issues which are not important in the long term: there are plenty of resources for both sides; there is plenty of time; the results of a mistaken action can be reversed. I do note that the importance may not be clear at the time but only later in retrospect. In this type of conlict the sides are answering such questions as a tactical “what?”, a tactical “how?”, a tactical “when?“.

In an existential conflict, the sides are struggling for their survival, self-consistent identity, etc. Such questions as a strategic “What?”, a strategic “How?”, a strategic “Who?“.

Power

The simplest and most direct of the conflicts. Violence is an eternal method and therefore it cannot be said that using violence is a regressive action.

When violence is used without any respect or consideration for the victim, this often backfires - it leads to retaliation, more violence in a vicious circle. When a person has abundant energy which may erupt like a volcano from the pressure, and that person does not know/can not or will not find a wiser way to use that energy. Violence can be used by the more powerful as well as the less powerful. In fact, violence is often used by the less powerful as a desparate attempt to get the attention or be taken more seriously.

However when the violence is used for an objective reason which is in the interest of all participants and the ecosystem they are in, when it is proportionate and seen as just, then it does not lead to more violence.

It is interesting that any new idea adopted by an ever larger proportion of the society is taken to a fanatical extreme. An idea without action is useless, an action without an idea is in vain.

The strategic “Who?” question is often asked when there is a transfer of power (and the corresponding responsibility), especially in cases where the more powerful side transfers to the less powerful. Parenting is such a transfer albeit over a very long period and under uniquely specific relationships.

The strategic “Who?” question can also relate to the new social roles which emerge as a result of the change. When people are not sure what their new responsibilities are, they are not sure what to expect, they cannot predict the other side’s behavior, there is conflict.

Rights

Rights based conflict is the most complext type of interrelational conflict because it requires a system which promulgates the rights, neutral persons and processes which trial offenses and separate neutral persons and processes enforce them.

When we track the history and origin of human rights in Europe - in ancient Athens, Greece (Draconian constitution) and Rome, Italy (The Laws of the Twelve Tables), we see that in both cases they were established after a violent struggle between groups of people where the civilian population was the largest victim: hoplites vs aristocrats and patricians vs plebeians respectively.

Values

The value based conflicts are the most nuanced and fuzzy type.

The strategic “How?” question is a reflection of the values of the parties - what is the ethical way to achieve the goals? Colleagues may turn competitors, allies can turn enemies when one side feels that the other side is not acting in an ethical way.

Narrative

For the communication system Besѣda®, I need to operationalise the narrative of the conflict. Because the basis of the system is the V.I.C.T.O.R.I.A. communication framwork of speech actions, the narrative considers the intentions of speech actions as the points of reference.

When a third side intervenes in the conflict, the participants often reenact the history of the conflict. Consequently, it is possible that during the presentation of the conflict by each side, they would use the speech acts which designate the important moments in the narrative.

Coming back to the monomyth (Hero’s journey) - there are three important moments in the narrative, thresholds which the hero(ine) passes:

Those are threholds, watershed moments because there is no turning back after they are crossed.

Because there are at least two sides in a conflict the narrative looks slightly different for each side. For simplicity sake I’m going to focus on two sides.

First threshold

As mendtioned in the [systemic change][#change] diagram, there are two possibilities - something emerges and/or something is lost.

Lost

From the point of view of the injured party, the threshold is the moment the party draws the line - the speech actions Complain, Threaten and others. Figuratively a boundary is set. After that act there is no longer toleration for the behaviour of the other side. There is an expectation. There is resistance.

Depening on the tolerance levels and style of expression of the injured party the speech act can range from a polite reminder all the way to an intense emotional outburst. That variability should not be too much of a concern because during the presentation to the third side, the injured side would mention in more objective terms what the boundary is (at the very least motivated by the desire to demonstrate a calm and intelligent face).

The problem at this stage is well defined and usually it is about specific resources and/or specific behaviours.

From the interlocutor’s point of the view the complaint/threat/etc is a “call to adventure” (phrase from the monomyth).

There is the problem paradox: in order to resolve a problem you need to examine it more carefully. As a result it may appear to be larger than it actually is.

If the interlocutor chooses the speech actions Dismiss or Evade (monomyth -> “refusal of the call”), then the communicator exaggerates the problem to compensate the understatement. This behaviour may be called reactive exaggeration: because the other side dismissed the original size of the problem, the communicator would need to exaggerate it pass the size of the original in the hope that the other side would be more attentive.

Because of the problem paradox, sometimes when the issue is first mentioned it may appear to the interlocutor as if the communicator is overreacting. That is why it may be a convenient tactic to understate the issue when presenting it the first time - giving the other side less opportunity to shrink it.

When neither party understands the problem sufficiently then the size, significance and potential impacts are all subject to negotiation.

For the interlocutor the first threshold could be any of the speech actions: Repudiate, Counter, Discriminate, Sanction, etc. Any action which denies the responsibility.

If the interlocutor is empathetic it is much easier to come to a solution which would also be the end of the conflict narrative. The cooperative evolution of speech patterns is the following: the language starts with specific, literal meanings and changes to abstract stories and metaphores; the attitude starts with generic stereotypes and changes to individualised understanding. Participants in a conflict are stuck at the literal language and stereotypical images.

Emergent

The “call to adventure” (phrase from the monomyth) is a challenge to the status quo - Demand, Instruct and other speech actions. Depending on the virtues of the immediate collaborators and overall organisation, such challenging acts may either be tolerated/encouraged or punished (monomyth -> “refusal of the call”). The factor of this cultire is what is popularly called “psychological safety”.

Second threshold

Because the parties are not willing or able to resolve the original problem, the size grows bigger and bigger. As the stress rises the parties start questioning if they can reach not satisfactory but any outcome at all or they are powerless.

Ironically the original problem may be percieved as small compared to the problem that is the other side - assumed to be unreasonable, unpredictable and dangerous. Assumed to be a possible source of new problems.

The original problem is set aside and the participants focus on their personalities - the speech actions Criticise and Condemn are being used. As Besѣda® is a remote communication system, physical agression is outside the scope.

At some point the participants reach the threshold: they start delivering the speech act Demand - a micro protest whose aim is to urge the other side to do something in the interest of all.

Sometimes the demand is only in form, but the actual intention is to threaten with an ultimatum, to outwardly appear to be giving the other side a fair chance in order to produce an image which is favorable for public relations.

A genuine demand is about changing the rules of engagement. And it is important to note that the side which is demanding should be willing to reciprocate. In other words - it may be more suitable to Invite.

Third threshold

One of the psychological barriers to settlement is the expectation that I need to be in a strong position before I can start negotiating (as illustrated in the book “The Costs of Conversation”). Therefore participants avoid the other side for as long as they can until they are in a stronger position. After exchanging demands, parties disconnect, roaming, running wild.

In disputes between groups of people there is sometimes ceasefire agreements which are used for repositioning and preparing to continue the struggle. This can repeat many times. The participants may be in a struggle of attrition. A lot of professionals consider this the “ripe” period for intervention.

Another psychological barrier is that people don’t want to ask for help from a third side because it would appear that they are unable to deal with the problem themselves. In other words, it would appear they are weak. That fear is understandable, however we need to differentiate bewteen being vulnerable and being weak: during a conflict both sides are vulnerable and need support.

Eventually the sides are so exhausted that they make a realistic cost-benefit analysis about the whole situation and not specifically about the original problem or only about the other side’s personality.

The parties themselves seek help from without. They are so exhausted that they are willing to transfer the responsibility of making decisions to a third party. On the one hand because of a belief in the effectiveness of the instituion/resolution processes. On the other hand because it is easier and it affords coming out “clean” to criticise the third party if the decision is not favorable.

The communication with a trusted outsider is what provokes the parties to see the situation from a different perspective. The problem gets smaller and more clear. Finally, each side realises what is at stake.

The main strategy a mediator uses is to create or restore a shared social identity. There are two main techniques to achieve this strategy - either to emphasis what already exists in both parties (“We are all human”) or to coordinate something common in the future. The first technique is weaker because it is not coordianted. In other words it can apply to the parties in the conflict but it may also apply to one of the parties and a random person from the street.

Eventually the sides reach the third threshold: the speech act again is specific to the context - it may be Concede, Apologise, Promise, Invite, etc.

The problem is small because there is clarity about what needs to be done to overcome it. The challanges seems more important than the issue.

Finally, the solution is more important than the issue. The conflicting parties identify valuable lessons. They settle.

Future research

The main research questions are:

How to (dynamically) correlate speech actions to specific thresholds of the conflict narrative?

Having mapped speech actions to specific moments of the conflict narrative - how to make predictions about the trajectory of the relationship?

Based on those predictions, what is practically the earliest stage at which a conflict may be prevented?

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-ND

Changelog

Read Next

How attention is simulated and how positioning works in Besѣda®

This new feature becomes the main point of interaction with Besѣda®. The feature allows the communicator to select the adjacency position and the relevant utterance by the interlocutor. This is the interface between earlier work on the prgamatic and epistemic actions, reciprocity and emotions.

How reciprocity works in Besѣda®

Introducing the Tactical Outcome Compass from the point of view of the receiver of a speech delivery.