The Three Rules of Conflict
While working on a series of border conflicts in Ecuador, I came up with the "three rules of conflict and conflict resolution." Yes, I know that conflict is too complex to be reduced to three rules. Nonetheless, these keep coming up, so I thought I'd share (explanations to follow):
1. The conflict is never about what the conflict is about.
2. Whoever is not involved in resolving a conflict will find a way to involve themselves on their terms.
3. The process of managing a conflict and the outcome are the same.
Okay, what am I talking about?
1. Conflicts tend to be about an issue, defined by the different positions of the conflicting parties. It is an objective understanding of conflict, and it is tempting to try to resolve things at this level through logic, negotiation and legal precedence. This is the level of conflict at which the legal system operates and the level most people try to operate on. The catch? This approach rarely leads to a satisfactory solution. Usually, it leads to someone having an "irrational" response, another feeling resentful about the outcome, or a total collapse of the process and dissolution of the relationships. This is because the conflict is never about what the conflict is about.
By focusing on the objective issues, we miss the fact that conflict is an emotional experience. The fact that conflict can be a source of great intensity reflects how it touches deep chords in our hearts. This means that discovering the underlying source of a conflict requires significant vulnerability. In Mediating Dangerously, Kenneth Cloke says, "Every honest communication poses a risk that something will challenge or change us." (p. 4). As we look at the sources of conflict, we can't help but encounter what is most intimate in ourselves and one another. If we ignore the tender and wounded subjective aspects of conflict by focusing on the objective positions and issues, we will never find peace or resolution. If we can face these vulnerable and profound places with safety and respect, we may be able to find connection and intimacy like we have never known.
2. Given that conflict arises from our deepest and most intimate selves, it is not something that we can easily let go of. We can't resolve a dispute by getting rid of or ignoring the people we argue with. These are common strategies with many variations, and they never work, at least not in the long run. Whoever is not involved in resolving a conflict will find a way to involve themselves on their terms. Once a person, community, or culture is living the deep emotional wound that arose from a conflict, they can't let it go and move on. The only way to resolve it is by bringing them close, addressing the underlying needs and finding ways to heal the aspects of the relationship/system that spawned the conflict in the first place.
Sometimes it doesn't seem convenient, comfortable, or even possible to engage with the folk we are in conflict with. It is tempting to opt for oppression, suppression, rejection or neglect to create a temporary sort of "peace." But this can only be temporary. When an individual or a group feels like no one has acknowledged their needs, they will find a new way to express their interests, usually in a more disruptive way. If ignored again, the typical strategy is to continue escalating. One quickly (or slowly) finds themselves in a conflict system that feeds on itself until someone in the conflict finds the courage or maturity to break the cycle, which becomes harder and harder. In short, engaging directly early on is far easier than trying to avoid or get rid of the problem.
3. So, how do we engage with people in conflict? We engage with them in the same way that we want to be with them out of conflict. This is because the process of managing a conflict and the outcome are the same. The moment we decide to engage directly with a conflict and transform the root causes, we are already forming the solution. If the process is inclusive from the beginning, the outcome will be inclusive. If the process is rational and evidence-based from the start, the outcome will be rational and evidence-based. If the process honors diversity from inception, the outcome will honor diversity. Furthermore, if the process is exclusive of certain groups from the beginning, the result will be exclusive of certain groups. If the process is violent from the beginning, the outcome will be violent. This pattern is true for all variations.
So, we need to consider this as we design our processes. There is an opportunity here to dream about the future we want, beyond our current conflicts. The way we do things now sets the stage for what comes next. How do we want our life and relationships to be in the future?
Furthermore, given that conflict is an inevitable side effect of diversity, if we can improve the outcomes of our current conflicts by facing them with integrity now, we will have a much better base for the conflicts of the future. We can always be more inclusive of our inner worlds and each other. In other words, we can keep getting better at this.