It is difficult
to find a clear definition of the term "conflict". It is
however very important to realise that not every conflict
leads to escalation. Conflicts can escalate in serious cases,
but they can also be prevented by conflict-resolving
strategies.
Conflict comes from the Latin "confligere", which means coming
against each other and/or fighting. Conflicts usually arise
from perceived differences which contradict each other and
need resolving. At least two different, irreconcilable views
or interests must confront each other for a conflict to arise.
This may be:
- within and between individuals
emotional, relationship, philosophical, cultural, aims-related
conflicts
- within and between groups, companies, organisations
relationship, philosophical, cultural, aims-related conflicts
- within and between societies and states
philosophical, cultural, aims-related conflicts
- between individuals and these groups.
Conflicts can occur within a person (intrapersonal), between
two people (interpersonal) and between groups of people
(inter-group).
Conflicts can have different causes, namely:
Conflicts of interest
These may be seen as conflicts about material resources, e.g.
food, natural resources, toys, space or money. Power and
status are also often seen as limited, and are not only the
causes of conflict between children or adults, but also
between peoples and nations.
Conflicts of need
These are more or predominantly related to non-material needs,
e.g. the need for peace and quiet, social intercourse or
conversation.
Value conflicts
Value conflicts are likewise related to non-material wishes
and aims, but rather than with individual needs, they are
concerned with collective standards, rules and the relative
assessment of competing social tasks and objectives.
Identity conflicts
Identity conflicts may be seen as value conflicts raised to
the collective level. This not only means opposing, individual
values, but rather the collective values and resulting
self-image of individuals or groups which are contested by
other individuals or groups, or whose validity or practicality
are disputed.
Ideological, philosophical and religious conflicts
These may be seen as special forms of identity conflict. They
are used by power elites to exploit differences in beliefs and
philosophies and/or maintain social privileges.
Valuation or evaluation conflicts
These arise when individuals, teams or groups are accused of
lacking professional or social skills which were required to
achieve defined or jointly agreed goals. Or work performed is
not appreciated by superiors or colleagues.
Different perceptions or opinions
Different perceptions or opinions about what is available or
has happened frequently lead to day-to-day conflicts, as
people are often not aware that their perceptions can be
subjective and distorted.
Conflict escalation according to Friedrich Glasl
The Austrian university lecturer Dr. Friedrich Glasl, a
political scientist and economist, is himself a conflict
adviser and has many years of experience as an organisational
adviser and conflict management trainer in the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria and other countries.
Conflicts are an integral part of all co-existence. As
conflicts are frequently seen as combat situations, they
easily develop an inner dynamism of their own which renders
any peaceful, constructive and non-violent resolution
impossible. The attitude that a personal victory can only be
achieved by the opponent’s defeat (zero-sum game) is
widespread. Studies on human behaviour in conflict situations
have shown that the majority of test subjects tend to seek
their own advantage by increasingly intensive repetition or
strict insistence on their own position – despite signs that
this is proving unsuccessful. This behaviour pattern is
accompanied by an increasing loss of perceptive and
decision-making abilities.
"Conflicts adversely affect our perceptive abilities, thoughts
and imagination to such an extent that we no longer see the
things around us correctly as events unfold", writes conflict
researcher Friedrich Glasl. "It is as if our eyes grow
increasingly dim; our view of ourselves and our opponents in
the conflict, and of the problems and events, is narrowed,
distorted and becomes completely one-sided. Our thinking and
imaginative capacity follows dictates of which we are not
sufficiently conscious."
On the basis of many years of scientific, educational and
practical experience, Friedrich Glasl has arrived at nine
"typical" stages of conflict escalation. These are helpful for
a better understanding and analysis of conflicts, as well as
for finding ways out of conflict dynamics.
Level 1 (win-win) (Both parties to the conflict can still win
at the first level)
Stage 1: Tension
Conflicts begin with tension, e.g. occasional differences of
opinion. This is common and is not perceived as the start of a
conflict. If a conflict nonetheless occurs, the opinions
become more fundamental. The conflict might have causes that
lie deeper.
Stage 2: Debate
From this point the parties in the conflict consider
strategies with which to convince the other person.
Differences of opinion lead to a dispute. Each tries to put
the other under pressure.
Stage 3: Action not words
The parties increase the pressure on each other to make their
view prevail. The conversation might be broken off. No more
communication takes place and the conflict quickly becomes
more intense.
Level 2 (win-lose) (On the second level one party loses while
the other wins)
Stage 4: coalitions
The conflict intensifies if the parties look for support from
others. Because they feel they are in the right, it is alright
to denounce the opponent. The point is now not the matter in
question, but winning the conflict so that the opponent loses.
Stage 5: Loss of face
The object is to destroy the identity of the other party by
all kinds of accusations or similar. There is a complete loss
of trust. Losing face means losing moral credibility.
Stage 6: Threat strategies
The parties try to establish complete control of the situation
with threats. They try to project their own power. The threat
might be a demand (to hand over valuables) which is reinforced
with a sanction ("otherwise I’ll stab you!") and backed up by
its potential realisation (showing the knife). In this case
the proportions decide the credibility of the threat.
Level 3 (lose-lose) (Both parties lose at the third level)
Stage 7: Limited destruction
Here the opponent is to be seriously harmed with every trick
in the book. The opponent is no longer seen as a human being.
Sustaining limited damage of one’s own is already seen as a
victory if his damage is greater.
Stage 8: Disintegration
The opponent is to be destroyed utterly.
Stage 9: Together into the abyss
From this point one’s own destruction is accepted, provided
the opponent is beaten.
Conflicts can take a constructive or destructive course.
1. The adjective ’constructive’ means building and supporting,
and is used to suggest order and progress. The word
construction (Latin: con = together, struere = build)
generally refers to building something, also a calculation or
invention.
2. Destructive (tearing down or destroying) describes the
negative aspects of things or human attitudes and behaviour,
and is the opposite of constructive. People can be described
as destructive. The word is often used in a similar way to
’negative’, or as a worse form.
Destructive conflicts have a tendency to spread. The original
reason for the conflict can have lost its importance; for
example the conflict behaviour of the other party can provide
a reason for a new conflict. Destructive conflicts can result
in damage to property and personal injury. They can also
create hurt feelings and reduce the ability of the parties to
resolve future conflicts.
Constructive conflicts are the opposite. These take the
interests of all the parties into account, strengthen the
relationship between them and improve the chances of resolving
any future conflicts.
The problem when conflicts escalate is that with every stage
of the escalation, entire categories of possible action
alternatives are jettisoned, and the behavioural options of
both parties become increasingly limited.
Conflict escalation is dangerous because ..
- conflicts can get out of control;
- there are fewer and fewer action alternatives available;
- violence is increasingly considered and used as an option;
- the focus is no longer on resolving the problem, but on
victory or defeat;
- the conflict is personified;
- emotions gain the upper hand;
- destruction and annihilation become the aim.
The point is therefore to introduce de-escalation stages when
a conflict escalates. To find answers and action alternatives
at every stage which will limit or completely eliminate
violence with a view to cooperation and negotiated solutions.
Source: WINGTSUN World
