The war is on. It began the day you were born and it won't finish until you're a corpse. Welcome to the battleground of human existence. Our lot is one of constant conflict, so before you suit-up and take to the field you must ask yourself, "What are we fighting for?"
The Decadents believed that life should imitate art. In many ways art and life are reflections of each other. In the narrative arts there is the concept of the story. A story is a person with a problem and how that problem is resolved, accepted, or is victorious over the hero. A story is all about conflict. There is man vs. nature, man versus man, man versus society, and man versus self. Man is always versing someone or something in stories to resolve the problem; otherwise it would not be a story.
Like our literary counterparts, we too are all versing something to some degree. We all have problems to resolve. Sometimes we choose our problems and sometimes the problems choose us, just like in the stories. So we can apply a little literary criticism and a spot of psychology to our existence to better understand and cope with our daily conflicts.
Conflict can be defined as a state in which the purposes of the individual are impeded. In adventure films, there is this thing called the shopping list. This is where the main character's mission is outlined for him. Such as Brody saying to Indiana Jones, "they want you to find the ark before the Nazis do and they are prepared to pay handsomely for it." This is the character's ultimate purpose and everything he does is directed towards that purpose.
Of course life is not always so clear cut. An individual may have a larger life goal in mind in some vague sense, but no real purpose. This too can be reflected in narrative fiction. If the hero is without purpose, then he must find one.
When I asked the question, "What are you fighting for?" I am asking about your purposes. What do you want? This is one of the most important questions an individual can ask himself. Before entering into conflict you need to know why and your objective. People do not always know what they want and sometimes they accept what other people tell them that they should want without really knowing or acknowledging their own desires.
One of the greatest blunders in military history was due to politeness. During the Battle of Gettysburg the Confederates needed to take a key hill. General Lee ordered, "If at all practicable, do take that hill." This was interpreted by General Ewell as a suggestion. There was no clear communication of the objective. The empty hill was key ground taken by the Federals due to Ewell's inaction and cost Lee the battle if not the war.
In the film Tombstone, Wyatt Earp answers Johnny Ringo's challenge with, "I'm not going to fight you Ringo, there's no money in it." However Doc Holliday accepts it saying, "I'm your huckleberry", meaning I'm your man or I'm what you are looking for.
For Wyatt there was no profit in fighting Ringo. However, Doc hated Ringo therefore he had an interest in fighting him. In every conflict it is important to know your purposes and whether engaging in the conflict will produce any benefit, that is, profit.
A key aspect of assessing purpose is in knowing your value system. I have been in situations where I get into an intellectual argument with someone that I care about. I win the debate and I hurt someone's feelings in the process, and then I feel guilty afterwards. In terms of value systems, I appear to believe that it is more important to be kind than to be right. Also, there is more profit to be had in kindness than in feeding my ego.
Once you have a clear idea of your purposes and the profit in those purposes, then you must look to the power at your disposal. Power is the means to your purposes. Military victory is not always won by the most powerful army; rather it is through the most effective use of resources.
The understanding of purpose, profit, and power determines your strategies in conflicts. But first a bit about the enemy -- those impediments.
Impediments take the form of the individual versus nature, society, man, or self. Some of these impediments can be so easily overcome that they do not even register as a conflict, such as putting on a warm coat against the cold. Likewise we can be so easily impeded that we do not consciously recognise having even been thwarted. This is commonly called, "the slave mind" in which the individual accommodates the purposes of another without conflict ever entering their consciousness. Other conflicts are more apparent, more hard-fought, and more stressful.
Man versus Nature is little more than the human struggle for food, shelter, clothing, and safety. However, there is another important aspect of this. You might call it Man versus time, or entropy, or mortality. We have but a limited time on this sphere. It seems plentiful, but it is never enough. Time strips us of our energy, beauty, and opportunities putting us in constant conflict with the clock. Yet another aspect of this is man versus a non-sentient problem, like how to build a bridge over certain terrain or how to put a man on the Moon.
Man versus Man describes the conflicts with other individuals; these are those daily struggles of life more often than the grand conflicts of narrative fiction. These include little things like navigating a busy street, or office politics, or both getting and losing that special someone.
Another aspect of man versus man is men versus men. People, with a shared purpose, work together as a team to accomplish their goals. This may put them in conflict with another team with a contrary purpose. This is seen throughout human society from cliques to political parties to all out war.
Man versus Society is not so straight forward. Society is a collective word describing the interactions of many individuals with each other, either personally or through mass media. Each individual has a perception of what this amorphous thing called society is and most people do not even recognise that their unique perception is nothing more than an idea.
Nonetheless, each individual has a perception of a social norm which may or may not be accurate to varying degrees. Some individuals agree with the purposes that they perceive in society while others reject them. Those who reject them are now in a state of conflict.
Man versus Self describes an internal struggle of purposes at odds with each other. Do I want vanilla or chocolate? Do I want Ginger or Mary Ann? Do I want job security or freedom? Do I want to build a company or watch TV? Should I listen to the ghost and kill my uncle? Should I stay or should I go now?
In dealing with these types of conflicts we regularly face, there are five strategies employed by all individuals. Think of these as weapons in your personal arsenal with each being suited to a particular conflict situation. They are avoid, accommodate, force, compromise and collaborate.
Avoid:
One party uses non-assertive, passive behaviour and withdraws from the conflict and neither party is able to pursue their purposes.
Advantages: Keeps you out of situations where your involvement will only result in negative outcomes for you; in other words, there is no profit in it. May keep you from harmful influence of others; buys some time to muster your resources; attention can be paid to other purposes of greater value or profit; keeps you distant from issues others can manage without your involvement.
Disadvantages: Allows conflict to grow (snowball effect); sets the stage for a bigger explosion later; keeps any solution from being found; causes others to perceive that you do not care or that you are weak; leaves the impression that you cannot change; reinforces the notion that conflict is bad and should be avoided. If avoidance becomes a pattern of behaviour, it will lead to a severe sense of alienation, fear, and an inability to cope with conflict.
When to Use: The issue is not important to you; the issue has no real significant outcome; the issue is too emotionally charged and could damage the relationship.
When Not to Use: When a higher value or principle is at stake or profit can be lost.
One party puts aside his/her goals in order to satisfy the other party's goals.
Advantages: When you are wrong it shows you can be reasonable; when you are outnumbered it shows you can be flexible; if the issue is important to the other party but not to you, giving a little can gain a lot; Minimizes your losses if you are going to lose anyway; Advances harmony; and Displays trust of the other party's judgement.
Disadvantages: Reduces creativity; May explode later; the solution may cause more trouble than the original problem; the person who accommodated a solution may change his/her mind later; may demonstrate lack of commitment; lessens the power of the party giving in; and may foster a tone of competitiveness by being overly nice. If avoidance becomes a pattern of behaviour, it will lead to the dependency of the "slave mind" and the inability to know or choose one's purposes.
When to Use: The issue is not important to you; and you are interested in preserving the relationship.
When Not to Use: When a higher value or principle is at stake or profit can be lost.
Force:
One party achieves his/her own goals at the expense of the other party.
Advantages: Decisions can be made quickly; focuses on the goal and not on the other party (good only if the relationship with the other party does not matter); demonstrates commitment, focus, and the importance of the issue.
Disadvantages: Reduces the conflict to limited options; may harm the relationship between the parties involved; may explode later; may encourage covert behaviour.
When to Use: Quick action is needed; a higher value or principle is at stake or profit can be lost; and there is only one prize and no win/win option.
When Not to Use: You want to build a working, fairly long-term relationship; and
you have limited knowledge about the subject.
you have limited knowledge about the subject.
Both parties give up something to get partial goal attainment.
Advantages: Quick resolution is possible; can be seen as a win for both parties; demonstrates equal power balance; can be creative; appears reasonable to outside parties; and can be used as a last resort when other methods fail.
Disadvantages: Solution may not fit the demands of the situation; can be seen as a loss for both parties rather than a win for either; restricts creativity more often than it promotes it; and may be another form of avoidance so neither party has to make a decision (example: flipping a coin).
When to Use: Your goals are truly mutually exclusive (somebody has to lose); you have tried another strategy and didn't get the results you wanted; and you can give up issues that aren't important to you.
When Not to Use: Your goals are compatible; or when a higher value or principle is at stake or profit can be lost; or when the compromise has the potential to be poisonous in the long run. For example, a government run public option in the health care bill, no matter how small, has a very likely probability to expand over decades, given the nature of government programs, to become much larger and therefore effectively no compromise at all, but a loss for those against government run health care.
Both parties actively try to find solutions that will satisfy them both.
Advantages: Satisfies both parties; promotes creativity; demonstrates importance of both parties' goals; demonstrates importance of the relationship; demonstrates respect for the other party; builds trust in the relationship; demonstrates commitment to finding a good solution; gains commitment to solution from both parties; and promotes the idea that conflict can be productive.
Disadvantages: Consumes time and energy.
When to Use: The issue is important and requires long-term strategies, you want the most input into the solution; and you want to build a relationship.
Each of these tactics is applied in every conflict no matter how large or small, whether the opponent is nature, man, society, or self, and they are learned from childhood. As part of our mental programs, each of the five takes dominance over the others as a preferential style.
Let's say a child wants some ice cream. The child asks their parents and the parent says no. There is now a conflict. The child wants ice cream and the parent does not want the child to have ice cream. They are at cross purposes.
The child may not want this conflict so he concedes. This can be seen as avoidance or accommodation. The parent wins. Let's say the child persists and begs, whines, or throws a fit. The parent repeated says no, but the child will not quit. Eventually, the defeated parent buys the ice cream. The child wins through force. Perhaps the child suggests a candy instead and the parent agrees; this is compromise. Finally, the child may promise to do the dishes in exchange, the parent agrees and buy the ice cream. This is collaboration; it is the win/win situation.
Now suppose the child wins every time he uses force to get his way. This sets a pattern of behavior where force is the primary option used and over time he becomes adept in using it. This skill is further refined as he encounters other force users as he matures. Perhaps in the face of a superior force user he chooses avoidance or accommodation as secondary options.
Here's another illustration. A few weeks ago I was reading Youtube comments pertaining to the rise of socialism in the United States. Someone wrote that he has been quiet long enough and now wants to speak out against the socialist policies. This is an example of man versus society and man versus man.
He perceives that American society is becoming more and more socialist and this is against his purposes since he does not want America to be socialist. Up to this point he has chosen either avoidance or accommodation. The man versus society conflict now begins in earnest. However, he is not alone in his beliefs. He can align with others who believe as he does. Likewise, there are those who are pro-socialist. The conflict now becomes man versus man.
He has three tactics left at his disposal. He may compromise, however that is a temporary measure as historically the socialists use force. By force I mean that for them compromise is always a stepping stone towards their goals. He could choose collaboration, however the fundamental principles are in such direct opposition that the likelihood of either party persuading the other to change sides is highly unlikely. The only remaining option is force.
This is where we consider purpose and power. What needs to be achieved and does he have the means to achieve it. Whoever can make the most effective use of resources wins. In this context, the primary type of power is people, therefore whoever can win the hearts and minds of the greatest number of converts will have the greatest means at their disposal to achieve their purpose. At present, that would be the control of the political machine.
Here's is one last scenario. Two people meet and fall in love. One of them equates love with giving, sacrifice, and an absence of conflict. At first this makes this person happy because it suits their purposes, however the conflict has already begun.
No person exists for the sole benefit of anyone else. Therefore the initial conflict is man versus self. On the one hand this person sacrifices for a loved one's happiness and on the other they sacrifice their own purposes, the ones existent before they met. Over time this internal struggle may spill over into the relationship.
The giver may find themselves in that slave mind state where they are totally dependent on the other person and feeling a loss of self outwith the context of the relationship. The person may feel the need for independence and desires to leave the relationship while blaming the recipient of their love to be the source of their misfortune.
So one person wants to leave and the other wants to maintain the status quo. We now have cross purposes and a man versus man conflict. The person wishing to maintain the status quo is at the tactical disadvantage. Collaboration means convincing the other to stay which is difficult when the decision is an emotional one; compromise means a trial separation which makes the separation easier for the person leaving; force usually takes the form of emotional blackmail, guilt trips, and on some occasions physical violence all of which fail in the long run; and both avoidance and accommodation means walking away and therefore not achieving the purpose of maintaining the status quo.
Looking at this illustration of conflict again, I am reminded of all the variations of this scenario that I have either participated in or observed. Usually it is the man who is left and he goes a bit nuts. He is fighting to keep her or win her back, which is another way of saying maintaining the status quo. If we accept that life is change, then maintaining the status quo requires time travel. It's a no win game especially after the damage is done. There comes a point when winning and loosing has to be redefined according to our higher purposes.
I would argue that the highest human purpose is the pursuit of happiness. Of course what makes someone happy is subjective and the means to that end is an on-going debate and ultimately the source of all conflict.
In the above scenario, she believes she would be happy leaving him and he believes that he would be happy if she stayed. If we accept that all human life is an end in itself and that no one exists for the benefit of another, then he has no claim on her life. Tough pill to swallow.
If he can swallow it, then he may realize that his efforts to win her back is a fight he cannot win and that his ultimate purpose of the pursuit of happiness is being thwarted by himself the more he attempts to win a small, unwinnable battle for the sake of ego.
The key to living is having the wisdom to know thyself, your purposes, your resources, and the skills to use the tactics necessary to achieve your ultimate purpose of sustainable, long-term happiness. And of the different types of conflict, it's the man versus self one that's the hardest battle.
In writing this I realized how much more there is to write on this subject. I never did mention the importance of allies, people who share or support your purposes. That's pretty important too. Life is conflict, but that doesn't make people your enemies. Some folks are allies for now and some for life. Some are just opponents and others really are enemies out to thwart you.
No comments:
Post a Comment