RE: Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World with Religion in it?
November 5, 2016 at 1:52 am
I’d like to begin this post by openly stating that I’m simply a student of conflict resolution; I’m interested in it, but I do not have all of the answers and still have a lot to learn. Thus, I’m one guy, but IMO, when multiple people put their heads together, they can often produce something which was inconceivable to an individual mind. Hence, I have truly appreciated the unique insights that various AF members have contributed so far. I’m definitely learning a lot from everyone.
First off, thanks for your post, Rhythm. It appears that I’m guilty of using terms loosely and ambiguously here. When I say “peace”, I don’t mean the following: mindless agreement and artificial kumbaya; the avoidance of tough issues and hoping they will go away; loss of individualism/self-determination and blind conformity to some large group identity; no disagreement; perfection/utopia; no competition; no conflict/difference; no challenges/obstacles. Hence, IMO, these approaches do not acknowledge the fact that we are an imperfect species and are negative conflict resolution techniques. However, I understand that what is perceived as negative in one context may not be negative in another context; this will be addressed later.
Now, regarding constructive conflict resolution approaches, I mean the following: accepting the fact that conflict is inevitable; engaging conflict proactively, not reactively; adopting an us against the problem mentality (not us against them), which allows people to save face and engage in joint problem-solving/brainstorming; separating the people from the problem, which humanizes others and increases our ability to view conflict objectively and consider alternative viewpoints; active listening and understanding the other side (understanding does not mean agreement); collaborative, interest-based negotiating; putting yourself in other peoples’ skin and having the ability to reframe conflict in a more objective manner; developing intercultural competence (I’ll elaborate on this later); embracing diversity while preserving individual uniqueness; open communication and dialog (Ury, 2007); encouraging dissenting opinions and playing the devil’s advocate, which shows that you’re open to criticism and are making it safe for others to speak their mind (Patterson, 2012). Hence, in citing these conflict resolution techniques as constructive, I mean to say that they are constructive in our current world where social connection, interpersonal relationships, and interdependency among Earth’s various cultures are crucial for our growth and advancement as a species (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).
Naturally, this is not a full proof/complete list. These approaches are just the more common constructive conflict resolution techniques that I have learned in my conflict resolution studies.
Or, rather than right hook each other and lose brain cells, why not right hook the problem in the jaw together and have more coherent and complete memories as a result?
I like this. Based on my studies of conflict resolution, our primitive fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses lead to attacking, avoiding, and accommodating (known as the three A's), which are viewed as negative conflict management tools (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007). However, this ultimately depends on the context. If we found ourselves existing in a state of nature, then the fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses would actually be good conflict management techniques, as they would help ensure our survival. In addition, if we find ourselves in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood or are held up at gun point, then our primitive reflexes may make the difference between life or death; thus, in this context, trying to apply the constructive conflict resolution techniques listed above may lead to negative conflict.
However, our primitive reflexes can get us into trouble in our personal and professional relationships (especially in workplace/organizational contexts): they often breed misunderstanding and poor conflict management. Thus, our primitive reflexes inhibit our ability to meaningfully connect with others (Dana, 2006; Patterson, 2012): social connection is what makes humanity unique; it is the essence of our progress and growth (Lieberman, 2013)). Hence, the constructive conflict resolution techniques that have been discussed in this post would seem to be relevant to our multicultural world where interdependency is vital to the success and growth of our species. Do you see things differently?
I like the example that you used with your wife. Many people already do manage conflict well on an individual scale. However can we take those skills and apply them on a global/intercultural scale? This is the question that I’m interested in answering, which was poorly communicated by me in the thread title, op, and other posts of mine in this thread.
According to Michelle LeBaron, author of Bridging Cultural Conflicts, there are five common cultural traps, which impede our ability to manage conflict/difference on a global/intercultural scale: the automatic ethnocentricity trap, which is viewing our way of life (in-group) as normal while viewing the ways of outgroups as abnormal; the taxonomy trap, which is the trap of thinking that we can categorize all cultural information, especially through stereotypes and generalizations; the complexity trap, which assumes that cultural complexity and dynamism are too difficult and hard to track, which makes intercultural effectiveness seem impossible; the universalism trap, which assumes that all people share the same commonalities and overlooks important cultural differences; the separation trap, which is the trap of primarily focusing on our differences/divisions and overlooking the commonalities we share across the boundaries of Earth’s many identities and worldviews. (LeBaron, 2003)
Overall, LeBaron’s aim is to enhance her reader’s mindful awareness of their particular cultural starting points. Specifically, this means that we understand that our individual and cultural norms are a vehicle for us to make sense of our surroundings and develop ways of life that are valid and meaningful to us; however, our ways do not constitute objective truth: other cultures also have their starting points which are valid and meaningful to them. Therefore, mindful awareness is a tool, which allows us to understand these differences and engage them constructively, which results in the development of cultural fluency: the ability to skillfully shift through various cultural frames while bridging cultural misunderstandings and making connections with other cultures. Hence, cultural fluency adds to our conflict resolution repertoire and improves our conflict fluency: conflict fluency is having the ability to put our fear and negativity on the sidelines, so that we can engage cultural differences with a “spirit of inquiry” or viewing conflict as a positive learning opportunity; thus, improving our ability to skillfully manage conflict in various cultural contexts (LeBaron, 2003).
Hence, would you say that LeBaron's approach of improving intercultural competence is useful in helping us constructively manage cultural differences and handling conflict more constructively on a global scale? What are your thoughts?
Regarding scarcity of resources, I’m reminded of the classic example of the two kids fighting over a single orange in their household: both of them are on the verge of getting physical and perceiving the other as oppressing them or depriving them of resources or whatever. Eventually, their mother enters and mediates the situation. Boy A says that he wants the peel of the orange for his science project, and Boy B says that he is hungry and wants to eat the orange (minus the peel); in their anger, neither boy clearly communicated these interests to the other. The mother then cuts the peel off the orange and gives it to Boy A while giving the actual orange to Boy B to eat.
Naturally, human conflict is not so simple, but the above example (this was one of the first lessons I learned in my conflict resolution program) reminds me to ask the following questions: if parties are in conflict over scarce resources, then have they fully explored all of the possibilities? Have they clearly communicated why the resources are so important to them?
In conclusion, I hope that I have made a dent in clarifying what I mean by negative and constructive conflict management. It is my hope that my language is less nebulous than it was before; but ultimately, you will have to be the judge of that, sir. Thanks for your time, attention, and patience.
P.S. By citing resources, my intent is to show that this is not just me talking: the ideas that I've expressed in my post are valid and effective ways of managing conflict, which have been successfully practiced, articulated, and written about by conflict resolution experts and professionals who are much wiser and experienced than me. Hence, my intent is to try and deliver a meaningful post to your inquiries and not just my opinions. Again, you will have to be the judge of this, sir. However, as I mentioned in the intro, I still have a lot to learn about conflict resolution. It is my hope that you and other AF members can share your wisdom and accumulated knowledge here, so that we can gain a greater understanding of what it means to constructively manage conflict in our world. Thanks. Live long and prosper AF members and anyone else.
References
Dana, Daniel (2006). Managing Differences. Kansas: MTI Publications.
LeBaron, Michelle (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A new approach for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lieberman, Matthew D. (2013). Social: Why are brains are wired to connect. New York: Crown Publishers.
Patterson, Kerry (2012). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when the stakes are high. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ury, William (2007). The Power of a Positive No: Save the deal, save the relationship, and still say no. USA: Bantam Books.
Rhythm Wrote:Without some specificity as to what were talking about, how can we determine the status or make suggestions? At some point, that has to materialize or this -is- just an exercise in nebulous fantasies regarding conflict, peace, and resolution in the abstract.
First off, thanks for your post, Rhythm. It appears that I’m guilty of using terms loosely and ambiguously here. When I say “peace”, I don’t mean the following: mindless agreement and artificial kumbaya; the avoidance of tough issues and hoping they will go away; loss of individualism/self-determination and blind conformity to some large group identity; no disagreement; perfection/utopia; no competition; no conflict/difference; no challenges/obstacles. Hence, IMO, these approaches do not acknowledge the fact that we are an imperfect species and are negative conflict resolution techniques. However, I understand that what is perceived as negative in one context may not be negative in another context; this will be addressed later.
Now, regarding constructive conflict resolution approaches, I mean the following: accepting the fact that conflict is inevitable; engaging conflict proactively, not reactively; adopting an us against the problem mentality (not us against them), which allows people to save face and engage in joint problem-solving/brainstorming; separating the people from the problem, which humanizes others and increases our ability to view conflict objectively and consider alternative viewpoints; active listening and understanding the other side (understanding does not mean agreement); collaborative, interest-based negotiating; putting yourself in other peoples’ skin and having the ability to reframe conflict in a more objective manner; developing intercultural competence (I’ll elaborate on this later); embracing diversity while preserving individual uniqueness; open communication and dialog (Ury, 2007); encouraging dissenting opinions and playing the devil’s advocate, which shows that you’re open to criticism and are making it safe for others to speak their mind (Patterson, 2012). Hence, in citing these conflict resolution techniques as constructive, I mean to say that they are constructive in our current world where social connection, interpersonal relationships, and interdependency among Earth’s various cultures are crucial for our growth and advancement as a species (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).
Naturally, this is not a full proof/complete list. These approaches are just the more common constructive conflict resolution techniques that I have learned in my conflict resolution studies.
Rhythm Wrote:exactly why I prefer a hook to the jaw. Get's it out there and done with...and when it;s over, you can buy each other a beer, now you have memories together. Wink
Or, rather than right hook each other and lose brain cells, why not right hook the problem in the jaw together and have more coherent and complete memories as a result?
Rhythm Wrote:With that in mind, the question of whether or not whatever we perceive to be negative conflict actually -is- negative conflict is asking the same question, only more directly and with fewer unspoken assumptions. Answering my question would answer your own. If some example "x" of negative conflict was, in fact "positive" then the answer to your question would be no. The existence of conflict does not always have to be negative. It would be convenient, and it's highly likely, that at least -some- of the negative conflict we have in mind is only negative because of our mis-appraisals of it...identifying candidates would, by default, make for a more "peaceful world" by removing those examples of "negative conflict" from the pile. We were just being cynical pessimists, as we chased hopeful idealism, a delicious irony.
I like this. Based on my studies of conflict resolution, our primitive fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses lead to attacking, avoiding, and accommodating (known as the three A's), which are viewed as negative conflict management tools (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007). However, this ultimately depends on the context. If we found ourselves existing in a state of nature, then the fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses would actually be good conflict management techniques, as they would help ensure our survival. In addition, if we find ourselves in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood or are held up at gun point, then our primitive reflexes may make the difference between life or death; thus, in this context, trying to apply the constructive conflict resolution techniques listed above may lead to negative conflict.
However, our primitive reflexes can get us into trouble in our personal and professional relationships (especially in workplace/organizational contexts): they often breed misunderstanding and poor conflict management. Thus, our primitive reflexes inhibit our ability to meaningfully connect with others (Dana, 2006; Patterson, 2012): social connection is what makes humanity unique; it is the essence of our progress and growth (Lieberman, 2013)). Hence, the constructive conflict resolution techniques that have been discussed in this post would seem to be relevant to our multicultural world where interdependency is vital to the success and growth of our species. Do you see things differently?
Rhythm Wrote:People -do- manage their differences peacefully, in the crushing majority, don't they? My wife and I don't take it outside when I want to watch a romcom and she wants to watch UFC.
I like the example that you used with your wife. Many people already do manage conflict well on an individual scale. However can we take those skills and apply them on a global/intercultural scale? This is the question that I’m interested in answering, which was poorly communicated by me in the thread title, op, and other posts of mine in this thread.
According to Michelle LeBaron, author of Bridging Cultural Conflicts, there are five common cultural traps, which impede our ability to manage conflict/difference on a global/intercultural scale: the automatic ethnocentricity trap, which is viewing our way of life (in-group) as normal while viewing the ways of outgroups as abnormal; the taxonomy trap, which is the trap of thinking that we can categorize all cultural information, especially through stereotypes and generalizations; the complexity trap, which assumes that cultural complexity and dynamism are too difficult and hard to track, which makes intercultural effectiveness seem impossible; the universalism trap, which assumes that all people share the same commonalities and overlooks important cultural differences; the separation trap, which is the trap of primarily focusing on our differences/divisions and overlooking the commonalities we share across the boundaries of Earth’s many identities and worldviews. (LeBaron, 2003)
Overall, LeBaron’s aim is to enhance her reader’s mindful awareness of their particular cultural starting points. Specifically, this means that we understand that our individual and cultural norms are a vehicle for us to make sense of our surroundings and develop ways of life that are valid and meaningful to us; however, our ways do not constitute objective truth: other cultures also have their starting points which are valid and meaningful to them. Therefore, mindful awareness is a tool, which allows us to understand these differences and engage them constructively, which results in the development of cultural fluency: the ability to skillfully shift through various cultural frames while bridging cultural misunderstandings and making connections with other cultures. Hence, cultural fluency adds to our conflict resolution repertoire and improves our conflict fluency: conflict fluency is having the ability to put our fear and negativity on the sidelines, so that we can engage cultural differences with a “spirit of inquiry” or viewing conflict as a positive learning opportunity; thus, improving our ability to skillfully manage conflict in various cultural contexts (LeBaron, 2003).
Hence, would you say that LeBaron's approach of improving intercultural competence is useful in helping us constructively manage cultural differences and handling conflict more constructively on a global scale? What are your thoughts?
Rhythm Wrote:People don't beat the shit out of each other with any regularity over their differences in programming preference.....they do over scarcity of resources and what they perceive to be oppression or persecution.
Regarding scarcity of resources, I’m reminded of the classic example of the two kids fighting over a single orange in their household: both of them are on the verge of getting physical and perceiving the other as oppressing them or depriving them of resources or whatever. Eventually, their mother enters and mediates the situation. Boy A says that he wants the peel of the orange for his science project, and Boy B says that he is hungry and wants to eat the orange (minus the peel); in their anger, neither boy clearly communicated these interests to the other. The mother then cuts the peel off the orange and gives it to Boy A while giving the actual orange to Boy B to eat.
Naturally, human conflict is not so simple, but the above example (this was one of the first lessons I learned in my conflict resolution program) reminds me to ask the following questions: if parties are in conflict over scarce resources, then have they fully explored all of the possibilities? Have they clearly communicated why the resources are so important to them?
In conclusion, I hope that I have made a dent in clarifying what I mean by negative and constructive conflict management. It is my hope that my language is less nebulous than it was before; but ultimately, you will have to be the judge of that, sir. Thanks for your time, attention, and patience.
P.S. By citing resources, my intent is to show that this is not just me talking: the ideas that I've expressed in my post are valid and effective ways of managing conflict, which have been successfully practiced, articulated, and written about by conflict resolution experts and professionals who are much wiser and experienced than me. Hence, my intent is to try and deliver a meaningful post to your inquiries and not just my opinions. Again, you will have to be the judge of this, sir. However, as I mentioned in the intro, I still have a lot to learn about conflict resolution. It is my hope that you and other AF members can share your wisdom and accumulated knowledge here, so that we can gain a greater understanding of what it means to constructively manage conflict in our world. Thanks. Live long and prosper AF members and anyone else.
References
Dana, Daniel (2006). Managing Differences. Kansas: MTI Publications.
LeBaron, Michelle (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: A new approach for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lieberman, Matthew D. (2013). Social: Why are brains are wired to connect. New York: Crown Publishers.
Patterson, Kerry (2012). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when the stakes are high. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ury, William (2007). The Power of a Positive No: Save the deal, save the relationship, and still say no. USA: Bantam Books.
