What factors influence conflict dynamics as we look at why individuals, groups, and nations engage in conflict? Why do you think humans seem so willing to commit horrible acts of atrocity against other humans in the name of justice, security, and peace?
There are many factors that influence conflict dynamics. We have to look at the past history between the two groups or individuals involved, not only with each other, but their own personal history. We have to look at the outside influences and beliefs of the groups. There are so many factors that deal with the conflict that it make conflict difficult because it isn't like math: you can't just plug the numbers in and get the same correct answer all the time.
I think that humans are willing to resort to horrible acts against other humans because they are afraid. They are afraid of being controlled, realizing they are wrong, not understanding, losing security or power, etc. Again, there are so many reasons, but I think when you look at each reason the simple reason is always fear.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Week Nine / Journal Nine
What factors influence conflict dynamics as we look at why individuals, groups, and nations engage in conflict? Why do you think humans seem so willing to commit horrible acts of atrocity against other humans in the name of justice, security, and peace?
Based on the simulation we did in class, I think it's really apparent that conflicts are influenced by sizes of nations, determination to remain neutral or to retain heritage/image, resources of food and materials for shelter and energy, military strength--all of those played into the extent and craziness of the conflicts in class. The nation that was smallest and had the most food supplies was, in a way, extremely stable, but the cookie nation, with its willingness to open its borders and share its resources, had the best economy and future prospects.
This kind of thing plays into the international arena as well. America is willing to enter into treaties and relations with nations that have resources we don't, like oil, and other countries are willing to treaty with us in exchange for the protection that comes with association with a militarily strong first-world country (sometimes--sometimes our international reputation makes countries want to avoid us).
People really want to feel safe, and they really want the things they perceive are necessary for good quality of life. In order to get those things, they're willing to go to pretty far lengths and sometimes make compromises that may look morally wrong or logistically not that smart (for example, allying with a country that may use its military superiority to take you over some time in the future for the promise of protection in the present (not necessarily a real example)).
I think that's really the reason behind a lot of the terrible things that get done. People want to protect their identity and they want to protect themselves, and it's easy to justify things as "breaking a few eggs to make the omelette" when that happens.
Based on the simulation we did in class, I think it's really apparent that conflicts are influenced by sizes of nations, determination to remain neutral or to retain heritage/image, resources of food and materials for shelter and energy, military strength--all of those played into the extent and craziness of the conflicts in class. The nation that was smallest and had the most food supplies was, in a way, extremely stable, but the cookie nation, with its willingness to open its borders and share its resources, had the best economy and future prospects.
This kind of thing plays into the international arena as well. America is willing to enter into treaties and relations with nations that have resources we don't, like oil, and other countries are willing to treaty with us in exchange for the protection that comes with association with a militarily strong first-world country (sometimes--sometimes our international reputation makes countries want to avoid us).
People really want to feel safe, and they really want the things they perceive are necessary for good quality of life. In order to get those things, they're willing to go to pretty far lengths and sometimes make compromises that may look morally wrong or logistically not that smart (for example, allying with a country that may use its military superiority to take you over some time in the future for the promise of protection in the present (not necessarily a real example)).
I think that's really the reason behind a lot of the terrible things that get done. People want to protect their identity and they want to protect themselves, and it's easy to justify things as "breaking a few eggs to make the omelette" when that happens.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Journal 8
So how do your conflicts end? What do you do that you think contributes to their ending? What about in the world around you... what do you notice about how conflicts end?
(I am so happy that I finally figured out how to make my own post! I really should learn how to use a computer better...)
ANYWAY. I think when my conflicts actually end, as opposed to when they just kind of continue in a circle getting no where they end in one of two ways. The first is that a deadline hits and the conflict has no option but to be solved (and quickly). Such as when my family moved to Alaska. I was given the choice whether to move with them and finish my senior year in Homer, or to stay in Minnesota and graduate with all my friends. It was a very tough decision and caused some conflicts between myself and my parents. Eventually though, I had to officially register for classes in Alaska if I wanted to attend school there and I decided against it. The other way they can end is with a compromise. The reason I believe conflict must end in a compromise is because otherwise one side is not happy with the outcome at all and will continue to escalate conflict. I could be wrong with these ideas but from personal experience and my somewhat limited knowledge of conflicts ending I feel this is at least partially correct.
(I am so happy that I finally figured out how to make my own post! I really should learn how to use a computer better...)
ANYWAY. I think when my conflicts actually end, as opposed to when they just kind of continue in a circle getting no where they end in one of two ways. The first is that a deadline hits and the conflict has no option but to be solved (and quickly). Such as when my family moved to Alaska. I was given the choice whether to move with them and finish my senior year in Homer, or to stay in Minnesota and graduate with all my friends. It was a very tough decision and caused some conflicts between myself and my parents. Eventually though, I had to officially register for classes in Alaska if I wanted to attend school there and I decided against it. The other way they can end is with a compromise. The reason I believe conflict must end in a compromise is because otherwise one side is not happy with the outcome at all and will continue to escalate conflict. I could be wrong with these ideas but from personal experience and my somewhat limited knowledge of conflicts ending I feel this is at least partially correct.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Journal Eight
I think most of my conflicts end in a positive way. I try to solve them in a way that is purely honest so that even if that hurts, there's nothing that can backlash and it initially comes from a place of love. I am currently in a conflict that I don't know how to end because there's nothing I can do that won't hurt someone. I generally try to help people in conflict and try not to cause damage or hurt to others, but in this there's nothing I can do that will be a win-win situation. I still know what I think the right thing to do is, but I'm struggling with there not being a win-win solution to the problem. Generally my conflicts have both parties working toward an ending. In this particular problem, all other parties also want to solve the conflict without damaging relationships or breaking hearts but it's inevitable at some point here. I think the fact that the intention is there makes it less hurtful for some people involved. I think what contributes to the ending of my conflicts is a willingness of parties to reach some sort of compromise. I don't think my conflicts ever really end if one party surrenders to the other. This generally just starts another conflict that is in fact just a stem off of the original.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Journal number 7
Think about how your own conflicts escalate. What factors contribute to escalation? How do you contribute to escalation? Do you just hate it or is it ever fun?
My conflicts always escalate in a different way but most of the times when the other party really hurts me or I think I am not taken seriously or misunderstood and I just can’t make the other side convince that I am taking that serious and want to be treated like it. These are the factors which contribute to my personal escalation. If the escalation starts from the other party I try to stay calm at first and make the other party understand that I want to talk this trough without hurting anybody because that is never my intention. I am more likely a calm person who almost never freaks out and can hold her tempter.
I would not say that I have escalations because sometimes it is needed to make process in a conflict and therefore I am glad when it comes up and we are finally able to solve the problem. Sometimes it is not very enjoyable during the escalation but as long as the outcome is acceptable for both sides I am glad I went into it because afterward do both sides feel better.
Tjorven
Journal 8
So how do your conflicts end? What do you do that you think contributes to their ending? What about in the world around you... what do you notice about how conflicts end?
I would say that almost all my conflicts end in a positive way. I may not get the outcome or may not have reached the entire goal I was going for but I was able to settle something which is satisfying for both parties. This is more important to me than reaching the goal I had when I entered the conflict because the other party is almost all the time either a friend, a family member or someone I care in general and therefore their goals, needs and ideas are important to me and I am willing to make compromises in order to make both parties happy.
I would say that a main part for this ending is the carrying about the other party. If you are not only interested in getting your own goals through no matter if it will make the other party suffer or not the outcome is more likely not to be too positive and most of the times for both parties.
However, not everyone thinks like me and thinks that a good outcome of a conflict is if you have find a great compromise for both parties most people just want to get their needs be taken of and that is not a very tolerate and nice way to treat other people and parties. Moreover is the outcome very often not satisfaction. These conflicts most of the time never end because they just can not find a compromise and therefore go on and on with their fighting over a problem and if they end the conflict they will be more likely not be friends afterwards and don’t appreciate any longer.
Tjorven
Think about how your own conflicts escalate. What factors contribute to escalation? How do you contribute to escalation? Do you just hate it or is it ever fun?
My conflicts always escalate in a different way but most of the times when the other party really hurts me or I think I am not taken seriously or misunderstood and I just can’t make the other side convince that I am taking that serious and want to be treated like it. These are the factors which contribute to my personal escalation. If the escalation starts from the other party I try to stay calm at first and make the other party understand that I want to talk this trough without hurting anybody because that is never my intention. I am more likely a calm person who almost never freaks out and can hold her tempter.
I would not say that I have escalations because sometimes it is needed to make process in a conflict and therefore I am glad when it comes up and we are finally able to solve the problem. Sometimes it is not very enjoyable during the escalation but as long as the outcome is acceptable for both sides I am glad I went into it because afterward do both sides feel better.
Tjorven
Journal 8
So how do your conflicts end? What do you do that you think contributes to their ending? What about in the world around you... what do you notice about how conflicts end?
I would say that almost all my conflicts end in a positive way. I may not get the outcome or may not have reached the entire goal I was going for but I was able to settle something which is satisfying for both parties. This is more important to me than reaching the goal I had when I entered the conflict because the other party is almost all the time either a friend, a family member or someone I care in general and therefore their goals, needs and ideas are important to me and I am willing to make compromises in order to make both parties happy.
I would say that a main part for this ending is the carrying about the other party. If you are not only interested in getting your own goals through no matter if it will make the other party suffer or not the outcome is more likely not to be too positive and most of the times for both parties.
However, not everyone thinks like me and thinks that a good outcome of a conflict is if you have find a great compromise for both parties most people just want to get their needs be taken of and that is not a very tolerate and nice way to treat other people and parties. Moreover is the outcome very often not satisfaction. These conflicts most of the time never end because they just can not find a compromise and therefore go on and on with their fighting over a problem and if they end the conflict they will be more likely not be friends afterwards and don’t appreciate any longer.
Tjorven
Week Seven / Journal Eight
So how do your conflicts end? What do you do that you think contributes to their ending? What about in the world around you... what do you notice about how conflicts end?
I think, unfortunately, that the end of my conflicts has a lot to do with my deciding that I am willing/ready to give in. I don't know. I just seems to be in conflict a lot lately, and almost always the thing that sort of wraps it up and sees an end to it is when I admit or pretend that I'm wrong to let it go.
Which is frustrating, always to be the person who ends the conflict, but if it puts things back to normal/equilibrium, then I guess for me that usually outweighs the benefits I would get of knowing I didn't back down because I was in the right.
But I think that's kind of a pattern in real life, too--that a lot of conflicts don't end in a real, structural resolution so much as they end in a kind of petering out of things, where people decide that it's just not worth it any more and they officially or unofficially let it go, and the negative or unresolved emotions eventually get forgotten about or just become unimportant enough that people don't care any more.
Here are two examples of what I'm trying to articulate:
The other night, I got into a fight with a friend of a friend because she said something extremely unkind to Friend. I got on her case about it and was really nasty. Other continued to be unkind to Friend. Then Friend and Other worked the issue out, and Other asked for an apology from me, which I gave because I recognised that a) I had overreacted and b) it wasn't really my business. I was still upset about what Other had said, and I was really mad at myself for being such a jerk, but officially the conflict was over so nothing more was said. I'm still upset, but I imagine that over the next week or so I will gradually stop feeling so intensely about this and it will eventually fade.
On a less personal level, I'm thinking of the case of in Scottsboro where nine black kids (seriously kids--the two youngest were both thirteen) were accused of raping two white girls, which resulted in about twenty years of trial, pretty much destroyed the boys' lives, involved tons of expense in litigations, attracted worldwide attention, and then sort of just dropped out of the collective consciousness of the United States except for the people immediately involved. The conflict lost its scale and official status (eight of the young men were eventually judged not guilty and freed), but the long-reaching consequences continued to haunt the men and the conflict did not truly end until a number of years after, until the governer of Alabama finally issued a pardon to the last living man (whether that really truly ended things, even, is debateable).
And that really seems to be how conflicts end in real life, a lot of the time. There's an official end, where the people involved either give up or say things are resolved or whatever, but often it's a bit longer before there's a true emotional/consequential end.
I think, unfortunately, that the end of my conflicts has a lot to do with my deciding that I am willing/ready to give in. I don't know. I just seems to be in conflict a lot lately, and almost always the thing that sort of wraps it up and sees an end to it is when I admit or pretend that I'm wrong to let it go.
Which is frustrating, always to be the person who ends the conflict, but if it puts things back to normal/equilibrium, then I guess for me that usually outweighs the benefits I would get of knowing I didn't back down because I was in the right.
But I think that's kind of a pattern in real life, too--that a lot of conflicts don't end in a real, structural resolution so much as they end in a kind of petering out of things, where people decide that it's just not worth it any more and they officially or unofficially let it go, and the negative or unresolved emotions eventually get forgotten about or just become unimportant enough that people don't care any more.
Here are two examples of what I'm trying to articulate:
The other night, I got into a fight with a friend of a friend because she said something extremely unkind to Friend. I got on her case about it and was really nasty. Other continued to be unkind to Friend. Then Friend and Other worked the issue out, and Other asked for an apology from me, which I gave because I recognised that a) I had overreacted and b) it wasn't really my business. I was still upset about what Other had said, and I was really mad at myself for being such a jerk, but officially the conflict was over so nothing more was said. I'm still upset, but I imagine that over the next week or so I will gradually stop feeling so intensely about this and it will eventually fade.
On a less personal level, I'm thinking of the case of in Scottsboro where nine black kids (seriously kids--the two youngest were both thirteen) were accused of raping two white girls, which resulted in about twenty years of trial, pretty much destroyed the boys' lives, involved tons of expense in litigations, attracted worldwide attention, and then sort of just dropped out of the collective consciousness of the United States except for the people immediately involved. The conflict lost its scale and official status (eight of the young men were eventually judged not guilty and freed), but the long-reaching consequences continued to haunt the men and the conflict did not truly end until a number of years after, until the governer of Alabama finally issued a pardon to the last living man (whether that really truly ended things, even, is debateable).
And that really seems to be how conflicts end in real life, a lot of the time. There's an official end, where the people involved either give up or say things are resolved or whatever, but often it's a bit longer before there's a true emotional/consequential end.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Journal #8
So how do your conflicts end? What do you think contributes to their ending? What about in the world around you...what do you notice about how conflicts end?
I think that most of my conflicts end because someone (most of the time me) doesn't want to be in that conflict anymore. Being in a conflict is tiring and takes a lot of energy that can be placed elsewhere. As I have stated before, I don't like being in conflict. It will last a couple of days or a week depending on the conflict. Then, I will release all of the emotions that have built up inside of me. Then, it is talked about and some how it usually seems that I am the one usually apologizing for being overly emotional. With that sometimes unstable ending of conflict, it usually arises in a similar situation later on.
I think in the world two things need to happen to end conflict. I think that a third party is usually involved to help keep things semi under control. I also think that the best thing for a conflict is to have the attention pushed away from it. Once the media or gossip stops, then the conflict doesn't seem as large and dramatic.
I think that most of my conflicts end because someone (most of the time me) doesn't want to be in that conflict anymore. Being in a conflict is tiring and takes a lot of energy that can be placed elsewhere. As I have stated before, I don't like being in conflict. It will last a couple of days or a week depending on the conflict. Then, I will release all of the emotions that have built up inside of me. Then, it is talked about and some how it usually seems that I am the one usually apologizing for being overly emotional. With that sometimes unstable ending of conflict, it usually arises in a similar situation later on.
I think in the world two things need to happen to end conflict. I think that a third party is usually involved to help keep things semi under control. I also think that the best thing for a conflict is to have the attention pushed away from it. Once the media or gossip stops, then the conflict doesn't seem as large and dramatic.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Week Six / Journal Seven
Think about how your own conflicts escalate. What factors contribute to escalation? How do you contribute to escalation? Do you just hate it or is it ever fun?
So. Escalation. Here's how it happens for me: sometimes, very infrequently, it does involve the contender-defender model, because sometimes I won't realise that the other person have an issue with me so I just sort of noodle along doing whatever and the other person reacts and reacts--this can also happen the other way around because I'm really bad at communicating when I have a problem, so other people annoy me but don't know they're doing it, and I get more and more standoffish and finally explode messily all over everything.
But usually it's more of a conflict spiral, frankly. And right now I'm incredibly frustrated because Friend A behaved in X fashion while not telling me what I was doing wrong, so, offended, I responded with tactic B, which result in A getting irritated at me and perceiving me as kind of an ass and engaging in action C, which got me going with action D, and blah blah blah we both pretty much hate each other right now. And while I recognise that this conflict could probably be cleared up by just communicating, I'm still feeling polarised and annoyed (and now EVERYTHING HE DOES annoys me, please see: hostile goals) and it's really just extremely frustrating.
And not very fun.
Sometimes, though, with other people, I definitely enjoy being provoking--but this is more likely to happen if I'm not very emotionally invested in the conflict, or at least a lot less emotionally invested than the other person. Which kind of makes me a bad person, but it's true.
So. Escalation. Here's how it happens for me: sometimes, very infrequently, it does involve the contender-defender model, because sometimes I won't realise that the other person have an issue with me so I just sort of noodle along doing whatever and the other person reacts and reacts--this can also happen the other way around because I'm really bad at communicating when I have a problem, so other people annoy me but don't know they're doing it, and I get more and more standoffish and finally explode messily all over everything.
But usually it's more of a conflict spiral, frankly. And right now I'm incredibly frustrated because Friend A behaved in X fashion while not telling me what I was doing wrong, so, offended, I responded with tactic B, which result in A getting irritated at me and perceiving me as kind of an ass and engaging in action C, which got me going with action D, and blah blah blah we both pretty much hate each other right now. And while I recognise that this conflict could probably be cleared up by just communicating, I'm still feeling polarised and annoyed (and now EVERYTHING HE DOES annoys me, please see: hostile goals) and it's really just extremely frustrating.
And not very fun.
Sometimes, though, with other people, I definitely enjoy being provoking--but this is more likely to happen if I'm not very emotionally invested in the conflict, or at least a lot less emotionally invested than the other person. Which kind of makes me a bad person, but it's true.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Journal Seven
I think the way in which my conflicts escalate most is by people not owning their mistakes. I think this could be the “saving face” tactic we talked about in class. I'm guilty of this just as much as I watch others be guilty of it. When someone does something wrong, but doesn’t want to admit they've done something wrong because they don't want to deal with their own shame. It's this attempt at justification that I often see as an escalation in conflicts in my life. It makes the other person get more agitated about what they see that the other person has done wrong. I've found in my own experiences that owning your mistakes can be one of the most rewarding things to do and also often has the effect of deescalating the conflict and making the relationship stronger, as well as allowing you to grow from your mistakes and character flaws that we all have. If you honestly do feel justified in your actions, often speaking to the person and telling them how you feel about it and why you feel that your actions were necessary can be helpful instead of just saying that you don't care or that they deserved it. I think the spiral model would be most fitting for this because both sides participate and have large play in the way that the conflict escalates.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Week 6
Think about how your own conflicts escalate. What factors contribute to escalation? How do you contribute to escalation? Do you hate it or is it ever fun?
I think that my conflicts escalate in a "specific to general" way, first of all. I'm definitely the type of person who will take the argument and turn it into an accusation about the feelings that were felt all along or really bizarre wacky things that really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand, but really all the things that I already think and am insecure about. I also feel like my conflicts shift in a "few to many" way. Lots of people tend to get involved, although usually I don't want them to. This usually makes the conflict even more stressful.
When it comes to the escalation I am two things: 1. I will try to stop it. 2. I will be the one crying about it. I do not like conflict. It brings out the emotional beast inside of me; I will turn into a crying blubbery hot mess. If it is a conflict between other parties, I will be the mediator trying to stop the conflict as quick and effectively as possible. If it is a conflict between someone else, I think I give in way too easily just so I can get rid of the conflict. So many times I have had my best friend tell me that I don't stand up for myself; that is because I'm trying to avoid a conflict. The escalation of a conflict is not fun for me because that is usually the most emotional part.
I think that my conflicts escalate in a "specific to general" way, first of all. I'm definitely the type of person who will take the argument and turn it into an accusation about the feelings that were felt all along or really bizarre wacky things that really have nothing to do with the conflict at hand, but really all the things that I already think and am insecure about. I also feel like my conflicts shift in a "few to many" way. Lots of people tend to get involved, although usually I don't want them to. This usually makes the conflict even more stressful.
When it comes to the escalation I am two things: 1. I will try to stop it. 2. I will be the one crying about it. I do not like conflict. It brings out the emotional beast inside of me; I will turn into a crying blubbery hot mess. If it is a conflict between other parties, I will be the mediator trying to stop the conflict as quick and effectively as possible. If it is a conflict between someone else, I think I give in way too easily just so I can get rid of the conflict. So many times I have had my best friend tell me that I don't stand up for myself; that is because I'm trying to avoid a conflict. The escalation of a conflict is not fun for me because that is usually the most emotional part.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Journal Six
The main pattern that I see in my conflict is a lack of communication, or the presence of bad communication. Either I or someone else assume that someone knows something that they should assume they would know, or someone understands something differently from how the person meant it to be understood. I see my conflicts fitting one of the more linear models of conflict because I don't feel like the solutions to my conflict often leads to more conflict. I think that when I solve a conflict with someone, we generally work through the whole thing and don't leave pieces or create a solution that causes more trouble. Sometimes however, especially in conflicts with my family, my conflicts take a more circular route. Sometimes there the solutions lead to more problems because we don't take the time to work through the whole thing and we get easily frustrated with each other more so than I do with friends and other relationships in my life.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Week Five / Journal Six
What patterns can you identify in your conflicts? Do they fit with any of the models we have discussed?
One of the big recurring patterns I am seeing lately is this need for me to be in control--like I am a lot more likely to start a fight or start antagonising/failing to try to modulate someone else's antagonism if I feel like my control is threatened. For example, right now a recent graduate is visiting campus and I am planning to stay in my room and avoid her all weekend because we got into an argument my freshman year when she took my control away from me. It was a situation where she was probably right to have done that, and it was a long time ago, but I still refuse to talk with her unless there's no way I can avoid it, because I'm still extremely resentful of her for removing my control of the situation.
Actually, on reconsideration I think that might be more of a theme, but something that I think is a pattern is the fact that a lot of the time I try to make sure conflicts end as peacefully as possible, even when I'm still mad. I like to get them over quickly and to try and make sure as few relationships are damaged as possible, and one of the results is that the conflict ends but I'm often still resentful or feel like I haven't really addressed my issue. I think that plays into the situation I mentioned above--I think she felt (and feels) like conflict A ended after her behaviour ended in situation A for me, but I'm actually still really upset about it, so in a way conflict B is still playing out under the surface, even if she isn't aware of it.
That fits with the first model we discussed on Tuesday, where conflicts can look like they're over, but the conditions have actually set up the next conflict to begin.
One of the big recurring patterns I am seeing lately is this need for me to be in control--like I am a lot more likely to start a fight or start antagonising/failing to try to modulate someone else's antagonism if I feel like my control is threatened. For example, right now a recent graduate is visiting campus and I am planning to stay in my room and avoid her all weekend because we got into an argument my freshman year when she took my control away from me. It was a situation where she was probably right to have done that, and it was a long time ago, but I still refuse to talk with her unless there's no way I can avoid it, because I'm still extremely resentful of her for removing my control of the situation.
Actually, on reconsideration I think that might be more of a theme, but something that I think is a pattern is the fact that a lot of the time I try to make sure conflicts end as peacefully as possible, even when I'm still mad. I like to get them over quickly and to try and make sure as few relationships are damaged as possible, and one of the results is that the conflict ends but I'm often still resentful or feel like I haven't really addressed my issue. I think that plays into the situation I mentioned above--I think she felt (and feels) like conflict A ended after her behaviour ended in situation A for me, but I'm actually still really upset about it, so in a way conflict B is still playing out under the surface, even if she isn't aware of it.
That fits with the first model we discussed on Tuesday, where conflicts can look like they're over, but the conditions have actually set up the next conflict to begin.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)