Thank you, Conflict, that you exist! What else would I do?

25 Basics of mediation (14)

First of all, a statement from me:

I like my conflicts - and quite often those of others too.
I am glad for them and grateful. I hardly know why I should learn, if not for the sake of my development out of entanglements.

I don't like certain ways of dealing with conflict.
Sometimes, however, I slip up myself, but then I don't like it. What I particularly dislike are violent conflicts, power struggles, tribunals, declarations of power and ability.

This means that the Core message already mentioned: In order to understand conflicts, they must be differentiated from their processing methods.

Everything that comes next will have to remain a footnote. Important for me personally, but for you, dear reader, only as a decorative accessory, rather secondary.

As I see it, a great deal has already been achieved when war and shouting, bickering and wrangling, slamming doors and provocative silence are no longer seen as a conflict as such, but merely as an attempt to successfully deal with a pre-existing conflict, even if the means are inadequate.

What I like about conflicts is the following:
They allow us to look at the other side of the equation and emphasise the complexity of the interplay. That which would otherwise remain in the dark because turning to the light is so human. I am not of the opinion that we first have to wallow in the dirt in order to appreciate cleanliness. That's not a clever strategy.

But what seems to make sense is to devote ourselves to our inner environment, to illuminate the things that only begin to stir in the dark, to look at the fears, anxieties and dissatisfactions that barely know how to control our actions. Even if it is true that our consciousness holds a maximum of 20% of our motivation and that we believe we can make (rational) decisions based on this, then it is really clever to gratefully devote ourselves to our conflicts, to see them as our own Hollywood and to pin the recurring blockbuster motifs as to-do lists above our desk and on the fridge.

Mediation now offers the possibility of integrating such processes of illumination into everyday life and work, as they serve the joint constructive handling of conflicts. 

Of course, people also learn when they conduct their conflicts in a warlike manner, using power and means aimed at subjugation, i.e. in a destructive way in the long term, but then they learn differently and in a different way.

For these reasons, I would like to take a closer look at the reason for mediation, the underlying conflict. This is a Difficult endeavourIt is important to clarify this concept without focussing on the processing methods, which are merely attempts to end conflicts.

Understandable? No, but this is important: war is not THE conflict! The fight to be right, for power, for spoils is not THE conflict, but attempts to end the (underlying) conflict. It is therefore important to separate the conflict conceptually (and intellectually!) from its attempts to end and resolve it. Then we have the opportunity to understand conflicts better.

THE CONFLICT IS NOT THE PARTIES' ATTEMPTS TO END IT –

BUT OFTEN CONFLICT ESCALATORS! 

concrete: 
FIGHTING, WARRING, SUPPRESSING AND OPPRESSING, VIOLENCE, LOUD OR NASTY NEGOTIATING,

BUT ALSO THE SILENCING, THE PRESSURISING AND THE LAPPING UP 

ARE ATTEMPTS TO END A CONFLICT,

BUT NOT THE CONFLICT ITSELF.

But then what is the Conflict? What are we dealing with?

If you look at the scientific literature the following picture emerges: Dozens of proposed definitionsThe definition of conflict is not only relevant across scientific disciplines, but also within the same discipline, be it sociology, law, family studies, diplomacy and political science, evolutionary biology or economics. There are plenty of definitions of conflict and the discussions about them could also be used to apply the definitions to these debates. It would make a nice self-reflective loop!

Everywhere there is a multi-layered and almost opaque understanding of what we call conflict. Somehow, everyone sometimes means the same thing, at least at the conceptual core, but the environment, the conceptual court, is very frayed and foggy and perfectly suited to running past each other without realising it.

I'll say it right at the beginning: I'm not going to change much, if anything, with this article. What I want to achieve here is to draw attention to a certain characteristic that I believe is enormously important for a fundamental understanding of mediation.

The social conflict

There is a conflict,

• if at least two
• aware
• a current
• Contrast
• communicate
• and accept that they are dependent on each other.

a) "...at least two social units..."

Several people are always involved in social conflicts, whether individually or in groups and organisations. No matter what you call them, subjects, conflict parties or participants, actors or sides.

b) "...communicate..."

Conflicts are communication processes. Conflicts are not only communicated, but it is also true that without communication there is no conflict. And here's a little secret for those who like to overestimate themselves: it is almost impossible to hide your own conflict potential. The majority of our communication takes place unconsciously and this is especially true for the content that we don't want to communicate! So – it is quite possible that your conflict partner or third parties will recognise or sense the conflict earlier than you do. This is why reflective conversations with a sympathetic and trusted third party are so helpful for your own mental and interactional hygiene.

Conflicts are therefore anything but the result of communication and certainly not a sign of the failure or breakdown of communication or the result of too little communication, but at most an indication that the way in which communication is conducted is perceived as unsatisfactory by those involved. It is also clear that conflicts do not interrupt communication. What is perceived here as a break is the change in conflict management.

c) "...a...contrast..."

The term "conflict" comes from the Latin conflictus, which means clash, clash or conflict. Two clash, collide. The contrast that previously existed becomes clear, the separation that also (unpleasantly) brought them together can hardly be concealed. But in and through the contrast that brings them together, their common ground is also revealed.

The conflict divides and reveals separation and yet brings people together: The subjects meet in divisive disagreement. This is the paradox of conflict, which can only be clarified at a higher level.

Opposites alone do not cause conflict, but only the unifying element leads to commonality „conflict“. Mere opposites would remain meaningless without these unifying, common „forces of attraction„.

But before I run the risk of taking the esoteric exit here, I want to step on the gas again and stay on track: We are all different, we are not the same, we do not have the same experiences and opinions, we want to distinguish ourselves, differentiate, separate ourselves, want to live and experience uniqueness, want to separate ourselves from others in our otherness in order to ultimately come together again.

Sometimes we find ourselves irritating, and sometimes we irritate each other to no end.

Mere differences are therefore not the cause of conflict; it is the forces of attraction that are not of unworldly origin, but our decisive trait as social beings.

d) "...current..."

The conflict only ever consists of the current contradiction. Past opposites may have an after-effect, but it is only these current (after-)effects that make up the conflict to be dealt with. The question is therefore which opposites are having an effect now.

e) "...consciously..."

If the parties involved are aware of the contradictions, the conflict is also justified (for them) and inevitably leads to the first step of processing and intended resolution, regardless of the preferred method.

f) "...assume to be interdependent..."

The most important element of the concept of conflict, apart from oppositeness, is the assumption that the parties involved are dependent on each other.

Oppositeness only leads to conflict if the parties involved believe that they are dependent on each other (Assumption of interdependence). One's own view and approach is seen as threatened and jeopardised by the other.

The diversity no longer has an enriching effect, but rather threatening for their own views.

Whether this idea stands up to scrutiny or not is initially irrelevant to the existence of the conflict. The assumption of interdependence, whether erroneous or based on reality, leads to the assumption that the perceived conflict must lie within the "common sphere of influence".
The person who (internally) detaches or can detach himself from the opponent also ends the conflict externally. Conflict management is basically interdependence management, not conflict resolution.

Or in other words: 

If one person doesn't want to, two people can't argue.

This assumption of interdependence with regard to opposites is expressed in tension, emotionality and difficult-to-tolerate differences of opinion. The emotional elements of those involved show how they are affected, how they are preoccupied by the dependency and how they are in danger of being worn down. This tension can be felt physically by those involved and sometimes also by third parties. This understanding also means that the emotional connection is by no means interrupted in the conflict, but on the contrary, it binds its forces in defence and protective reactions.

It is precisely the conflicting opposites that influence the judgement of one's own importance and thus shift the (working) relationship…

The key question is:

How do we do what we do?

…in the foreground of the perception of its participants.

None of the participants can (any longer) ignore the opposites - which strive for unity because they clash - and simply understand them as different or distinct. Opposites are no longer enriching differences, but forces of destruction of one's own identity or what is currently considered to be such.

In any case, one thing is a fact in the conflict: the way things have played out so far has outlived its usefulness and is gaining in importance due to the need to rethink it and organise it differently in the future. This is the signalling effect of the conflict: change is imminent.

Mediation is ultimately not the worst idea to clarify this in detail.

I will shed some light on what it means to deal with this social conflict situation in court or through legal channels next time, when it comes to the Legalisation of social conflict goes – and who benefits from it.