IN THIS CORNER: The Conflict Paradox
By Lynne Kinnucan
With his newest book, The Conflict Paradox, Dr. Bernie
Mayer joins the likes of Aristotle, Voltaire, Chesterton and Escher in their fascination
with paradox: the contradiction that is not.
The Conflict Paradox is a book infinitely rich in its
variety, worth reading again and again as the reader’s understanding grows and
reshapes itself in interaction with it. However,
it is a disaster if you are the sort of person who underlines the important
parts of a work. My own copy looks like it went through the printer backwards
and forwards.
Dr. Mayer’s goal in writing the book was to “challenge the
fundamental way we think about conflict itself.” And he has done it. Focusing on the “polarized, bifurcated view we
take of conflict,” he notes that the more aggressive the conflict, the more we
are apt to regress to primitive, oppositional thinking, and from there to
greater conflict. With a deeper understanding, we can see that the assumed
polarizations are not only part of each other but, in fact, need each other to
be complete (think DNA strands).
The book is
structured around the seven core dilemmas posed in any conflict:
The element of bifurcation is present through all of these
polarizations. But, distinct and inseparable from each other, these opposite
stances are each part of and essential to the “larger truth” of any conflict,
says Mayer. They are at their best when
used as guideposts to understanding the deeper meaning of that conflict. For
example, emotions and logic. In everyday communication, we have become used to
the phrases “You’re too emotional” or “Stop trying to be so logical.” (To intensify
matters, logic is often assumed to be more mature than emotion).
1. Competition
and cooperation
2. Optimism
and realism
3. Avoidance
and engagement
4. Principle
and compromise
5. Emotions
and logic
6. Neutrality
and advocacy
7. Community
and autonomy
Yet emotion needs the grounding force of logic to “do its
most important work”, and logic needs emotion to avoid getting beached in illogical
conclusions. About optimism and realism he writes: optimism needs some basis in
realism, and realism is most valuable when it offers hope.
A conflict intervenor may be tempted to encourage the
thinking-oriented person to feel more, and to tamp down the emotions of the
“feeling” person. Dr. Mayer suggests an integrated approach, one that holds
both in a place of understanding, exploration, safety, and full expression.
In his section on emotions and logic, he provides examples of
the actual wording an intervenor might use to help parties achieve the understanding:
“Every time one of you talks about feelings, the other
responds about what makes logical sense. I am guessing this has crossed you up
before.”
Or, to a group,
“Your team [one side] is upset and wants to say so in
no uncertain terms, while your group
[the other] is focused on why you did
what you did and would like this to be acknowledged.”
The Conflict Paradox is invaluable not only for its
sea-change premise (do not make resolution of the conflict your primary goal)
but for Dr. Mayer’s offerings that surround it.
Take the
apparent conflict between autonomy and community, for example: the challenge of
being true to one’s source and yet open to change. How does an individual maintain
his personal integrity and still merge with the differing values of his
community? Or, as Henry II said, in another context, to Thomas Becket, “How do
you combine the two: honor and collaboration?”
Dr. Mayer looks
at the “dynamic tension between community (interdependence with others in our
lives) and autonomy (independence) that infuses our thinking and action
throughout conflict,” and then the problems and incentives that are jointly
present. And he explores reasons for example,
why parties might take a no-prisoners stand on a principle: doing so might make
them feel powerful, or the principle might be of critical importance in their
lives. But while sticking to this principle
may enhance one’s power over someone else, this very stance may undercut their
ability to make a connection with them. Paradoxically, the use of power can
render us powerless.
To break the
deadlock of polarized reactions, Mayer re-emphasizes the effectiveness of
walking people through the thinking that underlies their decisions, especially
in holding true to their beliefs while taking significant steps toward greater understanding
within the dispute. A few of his suggestions:
·
Ask them to revisit how a decision reflects
their values, goals, hopes and fears
·
Give the parties permission to stay in conflict
·
Break seemingly big decisions into small steps
on the premise that small changes may pose less of a challenge to a disputant’s
self-image
·
Help people develop a rich vision of what big
changes would look like.
The
Conflict Paradox gives us theory, examples, reflections, strategies and
techniques. Mayer argues pros and cons, inserts philosophy, and offers personal
anecdotes that bring home the everyday real life impact of a confrontation. He
explores the use of timing and language in such strategies as observation,
sequence and iteration, narratives, venting, following, and others. And he
binds it all to a structure that is both grounding and evocative.
But, as he
takes us through steps to guide people from an oppositional to an integrative understanding,
he offers a caveat to adopting his belief: don’t follow his suggestions to the
letter, because situations are fluid and flexible. In one part of the conflict,
an element suggested in the book might help facilitate the dialogue; in
another, it may be an obstruction. It is here that the intervenor’s – and the
parties’ – mindset about and understanding of conflict is so important, here
that we can exercise the choice to see conflict as a union of opposites, the
embracing of which leads to understanding. Resolution may follow, and if it
does, it will be more empowered and genuine.
We have been
taught a very basic language, says Mayer, one that promotes conflict dichotomies.
Our task is to find ways to love ourselves and others beyond this dichotomy, to
know that opposites, in fact, belong to each other. “It can be a long and
taxing work, but in the end, embracing the dilemma is the most genuine path to
constructive engagement.”
***
Bernie Mayer, Ph.D., Professor of Dispute Resolution, The Werner
Institute, Creighton University, is a leader in the field of conflict
resolution. Bernie has worked in child welfare, mental health, substance abuse
treatment, and psychotherapy. As a founding partner of CDR Associates, Bernie
has provided conflict intervention for families, communities, universities,
corporations, and governmental agencies throughout North America and
internationally for over 35 years. Bernie’s latest book is The
Conflict Paradox, Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes,.
Earlier books include: The Dynamics of Conflict, Beyond Neutrality, and Staying With Conflict.