My hubby and I have been discussing the philosophical idea of conflict and it's purpose in life. We came upon an idea that in wording is new, but probably is latent in all of us. The idea is that "conflict brings about closeness". It was an idea that I first put words to. My husband then refined it to be that "resolving conflict brings closeness" (it is probably going to go through more refining, but we are here at this point). Well, of course what he said, is what I meant in my statement, but not dwelling on the nuances of language and it's limitation - commonly known as "wordsmithing", we will look at the intent of the message. The idea is that many people get caught up in the conflict and/or some don't even get that far and avoid conflicts all together. We have come to the conclusion that conflict is a natural part of life, however a lot of people get stuck in the first stage of conflict. They don't get to the final stage of conflict, the resolution of it where a closeness and intimacy happens. They stay in the first stage of conflict where anger, hurt, frustration, and fear are ever present feelings. For those who persevere through the "rough" initial part of conflict, there is a sweetness as you come to a better understanding of yourself as well as your partner. There is also a tenderness that is felt that often is shown through laughing, crying, hugging, and other types of intimate affection. We feel the conclusion to conflict is a necessary step that many are unaware of or do not persevere to. The tragedy is that they are missing the benefit of this complete process and view conflict in a negative light as a result.
Sometimes it is difficult when someone who has had more experience of the complete process of conflict is trying to help others, whom they are in conflict with, work through this to get to that sweet side of conflict, to that resolution of better understanding and sweet closeness that comes through this process.
4 comments:
These are some deep topics...
But I love the cartoon photo! :)
Interesting thoughts on conflict. I have a few comments.
First, I think that the motivation for each person involved in the conflict is in play. For example, wanting to do the right thing, not wanting to look weak or wrong, reacting to embarrassment, etc all play into how the participants behave. Even in the more optimium situations were everyone is trying to do the "right" thing, they can be doing it based on different criteria such as cost, how people feel, perceptions, etc. Agreeing on the goals and criteria of the conflict is a good approach to minimize some of the issues. For example, bringing up previous conflicts is mostly immaterial unless you are focused on someone's feelings or history.
The second area of conflict involves the difference between analog and digital communication. Analog being what the person trying to communicate actually meant, digital being what was actually said.
For example if someone said that you looked PHAT (slang for pretty hot and tasty) has a different message than if you heard them say you were fat. Of course a wink or a leer along with that statement (only between the married folks) helps communicate the intended analog message.
The problem is when people don't get enough of the visual, contextual, and tone of the communication that they misinterpret the message that was intended to be communicated.
That's a brief start to keep this going.
I had not thought of motivation. I think that even when two people are focused with trying to do what is right for the right reason, sometimes the other motives can creep in.
I think for me personally, I grew up with very verbal, expressive people, so I often knew more than I wanted about what they thought. Now, especially in Arizona, I find myself with a lot of people who are more reserved in expressing themselves and their thoughts.
Post a Comment