The double helix of conflicts

I. First of all…

In order to dispel misunderstandings and myths that have formed around what is generally referred to as conflict, a few introductory thoughts are briefly outlined here:

• The conflict itself is often not the pressing problem, but only the reason for rash attempts to solve the problem („shooting from the hip“), which then cause escalation.
• Often, the communication and interaction events that are defined as conflict escalation are subjectively attempts at solutions that are, however, completely unsuitable. (It is worth adopting this perspective from the outset!)
• Conflicts are very similar to so-called „mistakes“: The (inter)human inadequate handling of these human inadequacies makes them real and expensive problems, but not their existence itself. Just as the failure to communicate mistakes (attempts to cover them up) can be costly for the organisation as a whole, rash, uncoordinated and therefore one-sided attempts to find solutions lead to an escalation and worsening of the conflict situation.

But now in detail and specifically:

II A conflict is a clarification process!

Conflicts are clarification processes that come across in a painful and hurtful tone. In a way, a clarification process the hard, devastating way. Both sides try to communicate (verbally or in some other way!) their idea of a solution to a perceived and defined problem – even against the declared will of the other –.

It is striking,

• Firstly, the fact that one's very own, i.e. perceived and defined, problem has been insufficiently communicated with the other side, the common situation has been discussed and the resulting problem situation has been jointly defined and decisively resolved. One's own perception and conclusions always define the common ground, so to speak: The edge of your own plate as an earth meridian.
• Secondly, that the perception and description of the problem on one side is not identical to the perception and definition of the problem on the other side. All sides in the conflict solve different problems. What is important, however, is that each side wants to solve its own problem. In social contexts, this always carries the potential for conflict, which is realised in a conflict. Conflicts are therefore also problem situations, but these problems cannot simply be solved without the involvement and participation of those affected. Attempts by one side lead to resistance by the other.
• Thirdly – and this describes the above from a different perspective: the respective implementation of one's own solution ideas is dependent on the other attempts at implementation. The ideas for solutions, already realised as attempts to solve problems, are what clash with each otherbecause they are interdependent. As a rule, the following applies (very abstractly): In the eyes of A, B should do something or finally refrain from doing something or even just think and perceive things differently. And the same applies to B in relation to A. This is the so-called Assumption of interdependence of conflict parties.

III. Assumption of interdependence

This interdependent dependency assumption is emotional as tension and cognitive as irritation perceived. This is the double helix of the conflict, because „from now on“ it is neither solely about emotionality nor about rationality. The world of thinking and the world of feeling are closely linked in all of us and are mutually dependent, which becomes particularly clear in such conflict situations.

• Emotional tension is a physically perceptible sign for those involved that the conflict actually exists. Emotions and feelings are like seismographic instruments for us and show us potential for conflict at an early stage. For example, fear of loss or fear of the unknown can arise. But also anger, rage and despair. Emotional charges can certainly be cognitively controlled or even calmed. However, conflict escalations are not entirely dependent or conditional on this.
• Cognitively, conflicts often manifest themselves in irritation. Astonishment about certain reactions, e.g. about their occurrence per se or about their nature and intensity. The previously valid coordinates of the interaction have (been?!) shifted and no longer apply. The uncertain and unknown is spreading and in turn leads to an intensified emotional reaction. And despite all the reflection on the situation and also on the person of the other person, where you ask yourself how this could have happened and how the person comes up with it or what literally occurs to them, all this makes it clear that your own in-depth attempts at self-knowledge are useless: As long as the other person is not questioned seriously and openly and a dialogue about the shared situation is not entered into, the irritation remains.
• However, both are also phases of pending clarification – about the social context of one's own problem description.

Regardless of how the „clarification process“ (keyword: conflict escalation stages) proceeds, on all sides, the imaginary worlds of those involved initially threaten to collapse. What was and was valid for the participants up to that point is seemingly lost, over and done with. This is a comprehensive collapse of the imaginary world – and subjectively an incisive experience.

The subsequent intensification of the conflict, the further arguments, misunderstandings, attempts at persuasion, verbal fights or even physical confrontations are by no means just another rehash of the conflict, but continue to be attempts at resolution by the conflict parties themselves.
Firstly, they try to push through their own ideas for solutions and secondly, they try to preserve their own ideas (of the relationship and the – shared – future). This continues to drive the escalation.

But what is the solution?

How do the parties reach a dialogue and experience space in which they experience themselves as effective and thus as a real, fully accepted solution approach for the others?

This raises the question of how to deal constructively with potential conflicts and conflict escalations, in which the others always play an important (speaking) role.

Be that as it may, that would go beyond the scope of this article.