It All Comes Down to Self Interest

The small conflicts in my life typically end with inaction or avoidance, because I am one of those people who tend to let small things go rather than confront them. Usually in these cases the conflict dissipates or I adapt to the situation. Other times, the small conflict may later return in the form of a more pervasive conflict. Larger conflicts typically end with some sort of problem solving, generally in the form of a conversation with the others in the conflict. For example, a conflict with my roommates would typically end by us talking about the issues and coming up with a solution that works for everyone., maybe a new way of doing things. Sometimes in these conversations the solution is simple but other times it requires a complete restructuring of the relationship between myself and the other person. Recognition of our interdependence or a feeling either that things have gotten exhaustingly difficult to bear or that fixing the problem would be more beneficial and simpler than continuing the conflict contribute to their resolution.

In the world around me, I notice that conflicts typically only end when there is some sort of stalemate, when either or both parties recognize that continuing the conflict is costly to them and that ending the conflict may in fact be more beneficial. People’s behaviors in conflicts are typically based on self-interest, at least on some level. I also think that power has a huge effect on how conflicts end, what the outcome is and whether it sticks.

Miscommunication and Unattainable Goals Meet Conflict

I try to handle conflicts immediately, but obviously it is inevitable that some conflicts and arguments will ultimately escalate. The factors that seem to play the largest role in escalating a conflict tend to be that of miscommunication and unattainable goals. These two factors can not only delay the resolution of a conflict, but also ultimately cause enough stress and tension to escalate the conflict much further. It would be unfair for me to say that the other party in my conflicts is always responsible for the escalation; I play an equal and sometimes greater role in the process of conflict escalation. I manage to contribute to the escalation by (in a lack of other words) being really stubborn. While at times a solution may be placed in front of me, yet I ignore it because it is not the exact solution that I wanted. The concepts of miscommunication and unattainable goals escalate conflicts in my life because these seem to be the most present in my life. Many times conflicts have arose and escalated due to miscommunication in both person, and even more so over the Internet. Unattainable goals present a challenge because having an unattainable goal within a conflict means it will never be reached, and without some sort of sacrifice, the conflict will continue to escalate until there is a clear winner.

Interpersonal Conflicts...

When dealing with my own personal conflicts I do tend to see a pattern. It seems that the majority of the conflicts in my life, no matter the severity of the conflict, they all take place in an interpersonal setting. Meaning it is always between me and one other person. I am rare for group conflicts or any other type. Knowing that my personal conflicts are mostly focused on an interpersonal level, I can begin to search for what causes these problems and why this pattern is occurring. When analyzing my interpersonal conflicts I decided to apply the theory of basic human needs. I applied this method of thinking because I realized that all of my conflicts that occur between another individual are largely focused on one of us not receiving what we expect from the other. I also noticed that because my needs that I had come to expect were not being met, I was doing what was in my power to achieve these needs, no matter the cost (sometimes a friendship).

We All Have Our Basic Human Needs...

Basic Human Needs Theory was easily the most compelling and applicable theory I have learned to this point. The theory speaks of humans having a certain set of needs, and that if these are not met, will do anything within their power to achieve them. I really like this theory because I can also contribute the fundamentals of the theory to my criminology class and use it as an approach to both question and analyze deviance in our society. Theories can be confusing, and while I may not have questions about applying the theories to conflicts yet, I will ultimately have to question the application to certain conflicts if I hope to be a successful conflict mediator. To me there is no one theory of conflict or one reason that it occurs. I firmly believe that each person is biological, physically, and mentally different from one another. Due to these multiple reasons and factors, we see them play into the role of conflict and deviance.

Escalation and Passive-Aggresivity

My conflicts usually escalate in a conflict spiral model, in which escalation is interplay between myself and the other party. I’m generally a pretty non-confrontational person, so I don’t approach conflict as a contender, but I’m definitely reactive enough that someone cannot push to escalate the conflict without eliciting a response from me. I generally don’t enjoy conflict escalation, but sometimes I feel like if you are really upset with the other person, you can get some sort of strange satisfaction out of the escalation process. Psychologically, the processes of blame and reduced empathy can make the conflict easier to handle in the short term. Following stereotypical female behavior, I tend to engage in passive-aggressive behaviors like gossiping. This is really a form of escalation because it is an effort at group solidarity- you want people on your side, backing you up. Feeling like you have this support can be gratifying but also contributes to escalation because it makes you feel that your goal is legitimate. I think I usually tend to contribute to escalation when I am angry or feel a sense of blame towards someone. Personally, when I feel afraid or shameful I am more likely to internalize those feelings than to allow them to escalate a conflict with another person. While feelings of shame or fear may change my attitude or perceptions of the situation, on reflection I seldom act on those. If I do, I reframe my feelings as hostile. Personally I think I need these feelings of anger and vindication to act.

Personal Patterns of Micro Theory...

Most prevalently, I see my conflicts following the model of Curle's Sliding Scale. This is mainly because my resolution efforts are usually very fluid pertaining to the environment I am addressing the conflict in. I also like to be very clear about what mode the resolution is in and this lends itself well to the four very clear categories in Curle's theory. I also agree with Lederach's idea of Episode vs Epicenter. To me, this is really getting at resolving a conflict as opposed to just dealing with a crisis situation. If an epicenter is properly addressed, this should prevent a relapse as is allowed for in Kriesberg. While the above explanations are all true for my own perception of conflict, they are theoretical conceptions and in reality my conflicts often fall into patterns of miscommunication and establishing effective communication becomes the conflict in the forefront.

Macro Theory Application...

The theories I find most compelling are the two sides of the Consensus School. I tend to look for opportunities for social progress within conflict and these theories seem to provide an effective thought structure for achieving this. Most of the theories make sense within themselves and the only questions I could see arising would be distinguishing between seemingly similar theories and how imperative it is that they are actually separate theories. I see a lot of similarities in theories that claim to be distinct and I think preserving an open door policy in terms of changing your perspective on a conflict is essential to addressing what is important in the moment. I would say that if I could call myself 'native' to any one theory it would be Miscommunication because this is where most of my conflicts arise from. Usually, if I can figure out what both parties are truly feeling in the situation, it ends up that the conflict arose simply because the parties were not agreeing on what to call feelings that were ultimately shared.