Ten Elephants in the Room

(1) Power can play a part in every conflict: Just as a big wave can pound a surfer into the sand, power in a conflict can be used to pressure one disputant to give in to the will of the more powerful disputant. As I was writing this book, I talked with an experienced body surfer about being slammed into the sand when he got caught in an oversized wave close to shore the week before. He broke several ribs and had a slightly punctured lung.

In conflicts, we move along a continuum of power: at one end is perfectly shared, symmetrical, power; on the other end is perfectly dominating, asymmetrical, power. In any conflict, the dispute may move along this continuum, as the power shifts to being shared, on one end, to concentrating more, at the other end, in one disputant. The following factors are examples of ways that power can slam us by a big wave.

• One disputant has more status, wealth, or influence.
• One disputant may have a stronger and assertive personality.
• One disputant can use emotional intensity to dominate.
• One disputant has more unearned privilege.
• One disputant tells a more compelling story.
• One disputant is more comfortable in conflict.
• One disputant is more comfortable in the environment of the conflict process.
• One disputant can be more manipulative.
• One disputant is a talented game-player, and can be, easily and skillfully, dishonest.

This list can go on and on, depending on the various power differences between disputants. A mediator/facilitator can either help disputants share power, or contribute to the power difference, perhaps unknowingly because of their own power status. I have spent most of my life in the activist, peacenik, beatnik, sailor/surfer, hippie, scholar culture. My wife has been on the borderline of these cultures, but has lived mostly in the wealthier suburban cultures. We live together in a wealthier suburb of Portland, so she has more of the conformity power over me because she knows those values better than I do. On the other hand, my activist/scholarly life informs a lot of our shared life, so I have power in those contexts. Given that my wife is a former teacher/current psychotherapist and I am a conflict processes educator, we are mindful of the power dynamics between us.

However, as we navigate the terrain of our conflicts, we do not always pay close enough attention to this resident elephant. When power shifts, toward one of us, in a disagreement, the other one often gets angry and frustrated. We have a conflict rule that when one of us gets upset, the other person validates the anger and says, “What can I do to help?” This is a great strategy; we should use it more…

(2) Every difference has the potential to trigger cognitive dissonance: Encountering unexpected, unwanted, or disturbing differences, in either our social experiences or internal thoughts, can easily lead to uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. When these differences disrupt our customary way of thinking and perceiving the world, we find ourselves having to manage this dissonance.

Often, we handle dissonance badly, as we tend to judge the stimulus that created the dissonance as wrong—adding an unwanted bit of chaos and disharmony in our lives. Our culture generally handles cognitive dissonance so badly that it has become a form of mass insanity. It causes virtually all of us to blame something, someone, or some group, for the dissonance that we are experiencing. It takes great patience and care to overcome our tendency to judge, and to listen with a compassionate heart to understand the difference and try to build a bridge to it. A key insight about judging too quickly is that we can easily get stuck in our own mindset, our cultural history, our emotional experience, and/or our peer group perspective. This dynamic creates social divisions that are almost impossible to bridge. And now social media is emphasizing the echo chambers that have now defined us, and are a chief symptom of our mass insanity.

In some cases of cognitive dissonance, we must defend ourselves and our point of view, if we are truly made vulnerable by the difference or conflict. If the dissonance is being caused by disrespectful or oppressive treatment, harassment, exploitation, or demonization, we have a responsibility to fight of the internalization of that treatment, which can manifest itself in a destructive kind of cognitive dissonance.

Navigating cognitive dissonance is challenging. I try to train myself to constantly expect change—from the expected to the unexpected—suddenly. There is no formulaic way of addressing cognitive dissonance, as sometimes we need to sit with it to understand and process it. Other times, we need to defend ourselves and our personal psychology, as the dissonance has made us unreasonably vulnerable.

In the face of cognitive dissonance, we need to unlearn the impulse to demonize what is causing the dissonance, or ignoring it. Rather, we need to validate the cause of the dissonance, so that we can navigate between the two views, which appear to be in conflict. In many cases, there is some truth or reality in each side of the dissonance, so we need to find a way of validating what seems to make some sense on both sides. This validation does not mean that we choose to “sit on the fence” and avoid engaging the dissonance at all.

My dear, departed, mother led her life either sitting on such fences, or taking the position that aligned with the groupthink of her peers. We all probably do this to some degree. The challenge for conflict workers is to notice the dissonance, seek to understand each side better, and find ways to validate at least some of each side. After that, we can navigate the territory of the dissonance, using the diverging views from judgment and compassion. I am suggesting that, in validating aspects of each side, and using the judgment and compassion views, we create something like, north-south and east-west grids, as navigational aids.

In mainstream Euro-American culture, we have a bias towards being decisive, which exacerbates the effect of cognitive dissonance because we feel pressured to decide-one-way-or-the-other quickly. We pathologize indecision. I think that it’s important to develop a capacity to be comfortable with indecision. In many ways, being indecisive is the role of the mediator/fascinator of collaborative processes. Indecisive and endlessly curious for more information, more perspective, more stories, more depth. I practice indecision, as a genuine option, whenever I am faced with decisions, trivial and significant. I start with the trivial and work my way up to the more significant. Embracing indecision gives me more time to process a choice, and eases the anxiety of being defectively indecisive. However, being endlessly indecisive is getting stuck in inaction. Inaction being the result of too much “sitting on the fence.”

Therefore, conflict workers can go wrong by making premature decisions or prolonged indecisiveness.

(3) The lack of committed, lifelong, diverse communities: Bluntly speaking, traditional indigenous nations, who are not dominated by non-indigenous nations, have these kinds of diverse, super-dependable communities, as their tribes and bands. Their survival depends on these tribal bonds, so the welfare of everyone in the group is the priority of everyone else. Furthermore, such groups create emotionally and morally healthy members, who are typically compassionate and generous. Additionally, their natural diverse identities, interests, capacities, and personalities are affirmed, only being restricted if they undermine the welfare of the tribe.

The rest of us, non-tribal people, have generally lost such communities because we live in a civilization that keeps so many people moving from neighborhood to neighborhood—job to job—where neighbors and coworkers are generally transient and one’s sense of community is restricted to family, work, social or political identity groups. In some cases, the identity group has more defining power than even the family. When this happens, family connections can weaken and, in some cases, virtually disappear over time. Identity group bonds may be powerful, but they are not what I would call “diverse.” Rather, identity groups are usually rather dogmatic about appearance and/or beliefs. In this sense, these identity groups do not allow the kind of individualism, where people can discover and fully express themselves.

Usually, the discovery process leads us to another identity group, and the loss of the previous identity group. Where there may be diversity of race or orientation, there is little diversity of thinking or conforming to group standards. Members need to carry the same flag, whether in dress, accent, coded speech, politics, or religion. Identity membership is often enforced passive-aggressively, with non-conformers subtly shunned. Identity group members, in good standing, talk about each other in more positive terms, and talk about those outside of their identity group in more negative terms. This insecurity of group memberships creates anxiety and conformity. Not having a diverse, supportive community, leads to insecurity. Not having traditional security can lead to addictive, unproductive, and even self-destructive behavior.

For intact indigenous people, families are positively enmeshed in bands and tribes. Individual members are defined in relation to these families, bands, and tribes. However, their identity is more a sense of a common historical bond, rather than a strict, overarching dogma about appearance and/or beliefs. Indigenous people tend to allow a wide range of free expression and behavior, within certain limits. In this sense, they allow for more individualism and identity discovery.

The lack of healthy communities in mainstream, Euro-American, culture creates a multitude of problems. Navigating a culture without traditional community bonds is difficult and stressful. Personally, I don’t bond with an identity group of this kind, because I find them too restrictive. Rather, I just have a diverse group of friends, many of whom don’t know each other, so I have the diversity, but not a cohesive community.

(4) Civilization invented the notion that people are essentially self-interested and consumerist: Again, indigenous people, in isolation of the effects of being culturally dominated by civilized people, are not obsessed with self-interest, nor are they materialistic consumers. Civilization became a global force through colonialism, where food and resources were converted into wealth and poverty. This process was driven by the psychological economy of the supposed need for an over-abundance of possessions and property for some, and marginalized survival for others.

Wealthy people certainly have an interest and capacity to consume massive quantities of material goods, but this materialist, self-interested “individualism” acts just like other addictions, where wealth becomes the answer to many of life’s problems. Instead of taking action to solve their problems, they often take refuge in their wealth. Few people who are stuck in the colonized world economy, as either the addicted wealthy or the marginalized poor, seem to recognize that the loss of an authentic tribe is at that root of the despair of both extremes of wealth. In addition to the despair that it generates, our build-and-consume economy is not sustainable environmentally, while also forcing other species to adapt to us, rather us all adapting to nature, as we all did not that long ago, given that the vast eons of human history were dedicated to sustainable living economies.

Navigating this dilemma is perhaps our greatest challenge, where, on the one hand, ecological studies point us toward a shift toward more nature-harmonious lifestyles, while the global marketplace drives us toward the climax of our current extinction pattern, where our own survival, along with countless other species, appears deeply threatened. Sadly, large corporations are marketing themselves as environmental advocates, while they actually only make minor alleviations of their toxicities.

(5) Violence and the threat of violence dominate the planet: This violence is physical, structural, and psychological. It is as part of the domination of the wealthy over the poor, the domination of the powerful over the powerless, as well as intimidating any popular uprising for peace, social justice, a fair economy, a sustainable environment, and broad democratic, collaborative, citizen participation in governance.

Navigating this issue is dispiriting because to pro-weapon lobbies are so powerful. The National Rifle Association blocks gun control. The military-industrial complex lobbies for more weapons. The USA stations vast military forces in every region of the globe and nearly every country in the world. Our country has mounted almost countless attacks on governments and peoples around the world that try to gain more control of their resources and the wealth generated from them. Simply, violence, or the threat of violence, is used to maintain the colonial structure of the world, where once European and American forces directly governed foreign nations, now the large corporate interests control the economies of most all of the world’s countries, while ensuring that each country’s government remains “friendly” to the wealthy, along with their needs for more wealth and power.

(6) Physical, emotional, and identity survival: Sadly, the notion of survival has morphed from simply meeting the basic needs for life to include the additionally powerful needs for psychological normalcy through identity group membership. In other words, without stable neighborhoods, populated with committed diverse people of all ages, who are committed to each other and the neighborhood for lifetimes (as indigenous people live), we turn to identity group membership that enforces strict conformity. Without this identity group validation, we don’t feel normal, included, or valuable as a human being. Without this identity group validation, we are not surviving. Only with identity group validation, can we thrive.

To further complicate this problem, the increasing wealth divide in the U.S.A is pushing the limits of pure physical survival, as the epidemic of homelessness obviously dramatizes.

(7) Dishonesty: Given the way that survival has gotten harder to achieve, as explained above, we might wonder about the value of being honest, if honesty makes us vulnerable. Dishonesty, like theft, can make survival a bit easier, so why be honest and why not steal? Are we surprised that homeless people can be con-artists and petty thieves? Are we surprised that commercial marketing can be dishonest, and that wealthy politicians and celebrities can blatantly lie and dip their hands into the till, to the tune of millions of dollars? On social media, people try to look their best, have great holidays, and succeed in every aspect of their lives. Varying degrees of con-artistry is a survival skill for virtually everyone in a society that has abandoned traditional, diverse communities.

(8) Narratives of supremacy/justified privilege: Another aspect of identity survival is found in the stated or unstated claims that white people have earned their supremacy, and have gained their privileges in a fair and justified way. This claim to supremacy takes two forms. One that is open, illustrated by avowed white supremacists, and one that is hidden, or unconscious, as demonstrated by white people who deny historical or current supremacy, and justify their privileges by their having earned them.

Without questions, white supremacists openly believe that white people deserve their supremacy because white, British colonists fought and won wars against England, and either defeated other European countries, or bought territory from them, to gain their broad foothold in North America. Key to these victories, the colonists also won wars against Natives, and benefited from the illnesses that the colonists broad here, and from which Natives had little, or no, immunity. Additionally, the vast numbers of conquered, surviving Natives were forced to relinquish their culture, dress, and language, along with many rights over treaty- protected Native land. Arguably, these measures constitute both physical and cultural genocide. Supporters of these practices may argue that our colonists out-competed the Natives and foreign colonists eager to claim our territory as their own.

I know an immigrant, a student of conflict processes, from the South Sudan, who said that he understood why whites can legitimately claim their superiority and privileges. He explained that his people had also claimed their supremacy over their country because they also earned it by warfare and domination, even though his tribe, the Dinka, is only 18% of the population. Before they were overthrown by the resident Muslims, the Dinka believed that their Black race was superior to the non-black Muslims.

People rationalized that they deserve what they earned; or when they inherited wealth, they deserve that wealth because they have strategically managed it, so that it grew for the benefit of a widening set of family members, and the recipients of their charitable giving. This view turns on the acceptance of individualism, which asserts that free people compete against each other as individuals, and the winners should be rewarded for winning—losers should be punished for losing. The winners gain in status and notoriety, and the losers endure a loss of status and become part of the nameless masses.

This is clearly neo-Darwinian thinking-in-action. In this picture of dog-eat-dog culture, there is no obligation to publicly share what the wealthy have earned, so any generosity should be in the interest of the giver, as there is a tax deduction to be gained. In our recent tax-cut, charitable-giving will most certainly be reduced, as there are new, lower, limits on charitable tax deductions. Nonprofit organizations are scrambling to create new revenue streams, and the wealthy will generally not be supporting them, as they did, because they have no financial benefit.

Additionally, the wealthy generally favor tax cuts because they do not have control how government spends tax revenue. The wealthy generally believe that government bureaucracies waste money because of bureaucratic bloat. On this world view, the poor generally bring their poverty onto themselves because of their poor choices and a lack of incentive to learn how to succeed. On the other hand, the wealthy are that way because they have made better choices and have the incentive to succeed. For the defenders of the wealth divide, sorting out the successful individuals from the unsuccessful individuals is just how the Neo-Darwinian world works. To deny this is to deny reality.

Another way that people try to dominate, and justify their presumed privileges, is to play the victim card. This move is controversial because claiming to be victimized and oppressed is not necessarily playing the victim card. Some people have been victimized and oppressed, not just once, but in a long, seemingly endless repetition—themselves, their families, sometimes generations back into history, forming a long line of transgenerational transmission of trauma. This long series of abuses is not what it means to “play the victim card.”

People who dwell upon or exaggerate their victimhood or oppression are playing the victim card. But who can judge whether someone is “dwelling upon,” or “exaggerating” their victimhood or oppression? Someone who is judging another as playing the victim card is judging another person’s experience. I suggest that people’s experience should simply be validated from the view of compassion. It is only when playing the victim card is used to dominate or justify privileges that we might wonder about the legitimacy of this move.

In the #MeToo movement, people are calling out harassers and abusers for the harm they have done. Consequently, many of those called out have lost their employment and had their future opportunities narrowed radically. Is this a case of victims gaining dominance and justifying their privileges by using the victim card? I do not think this is the case. Victims who join the #MeToo movement are trying to get the broader society to be less tolerant of this kind of victimization. Therefore, this movement is trying to level the playing field, not turn the playing field to their advantage.

Given that I believe analysis this analysis to be generally true, there is always the possibility that some people falsely accuse individuals for sexual harassment and/or abuse because of a personal vendetta against that person. In those few cases, the false accusers are playing the victim card and triggering a mob reaction for either revenge, or perhaps, some personal advantage.

It is always possible that someone might choose to play the victim card by exaggerating their victimization to gain an advantage in trying to win an argument, and put another disputant at a disadvantage.

In a culture where individuals compete (sometimes ruthlessly) to demonstrate that they are “better than” others, it is not surprising how many tactics people will use to show that they are, indeed, better than others. We do not necessarily need to say the phrases, that follow, they can just be evident in our nonverbal attitudes.

• I have a better education.
• I have a more powerful, sophisticated, successful, wealthy family.
• I went to more prestigious school.
• I live a better neighborhood.
• I have more valuable possessions.
• I am more attractive.
• I drive a better car.
• I go on better vacations.
• I know more languages.
• I go to more sophisticated and expensive cultural events.
• I know more famous people.
• I am more famous.
• I am cooler, more humorous, more interesting, more cultured.

With all of these potential claims of superiority, there are few ways to argue for equality. People, who thrive on making these sorts of claims, are not going to be easily convinced that they are equal to the people who populate the “masses.” In the presence of someone who is defending their claims to superiority and privilege, the question, “Is anyone really better that another person?” will get a reaction of stunned silence or a condescending gesture of outrage.

Those who make claims to superiority and privilege also tend to divide the world into opposing categories, where they describe themselves in complementary ways, as in the left member of the couplets below:

• Smart/dumb
• Winners/losers
• Successful/lazy
• Sane/insane
• Legitimate/criminal
• Known/unknown
• Popular/unpopular
• Normal/abnormal
• Normal/weird
• Attractive/ugly
• Careful/careless
• Responsible/irresponsible
• Sensitive/insensitive
• Honest/dishonest
• Kind/unkind
• Cool/uncool

In reality, everyone is occasionally guilty of falling into most of the second terms in these couplets. Interestingly, if we heavily identify with the first term of the couplet, and we get called out, even just a little bit, as occasionally seeming to have some of the second members of these couplets, then our identity feels fundamentally challenged. As an example, I identify with being compassionate, empathetic, and sensitive, so if I am criticized for being less than compassionate, empathetic, and sensitive, then I get defensive, and may even have a mini-identity-crisis.

Healthy people can navigate the couplets above, realizing that, as hard as we try to be on the left side, we can easily slip in the direction of the right side. Therefore, we try to sail into the wind, blowing from the right side; however, we are inevitably blown off into the right side.

With all of this said, we need to affirm that, regardless of all of the good things we might have done, or the bad things that we might have done, in the immediate future, us “good people” might do something immoral, and us “bad people” might do something profoundly moral. So, who is good and who is bad?

Wouldn’t it just be easier, if we agreed that we are all equal in our humanity, which is the only truly important consideration? What follows from an affirmation of our fundamental equality is to question all of the ways that the people think they are superior and deserve their privileges, while others suffer the horrors of deprivation and inferiority.

(9) What is real? There is a great debate about the nature of reality in our mainstream Euro-American culture. Is the universe only made up of matter that can be empirically measured? Is matter just composed of energy, mass, and extension? Is consciousness an accident of certain forms of life? Is organic life, itself, an accident of natural, inorganic processes? Or is consciousness, to varying degrees, a part of matter, and an eternal part of the universe? Or is consciousness a spiritual gift from a deity that exists apart from nature, in some realm of heaven or paradise, where we might go after death? Are our dreams just brain processes that occur while we sleep, or do dreams mean something more about our lives, and perhaps our futures? All of these questions are not answerable by any logical or scientific method. They are presuppositions that we either believe or not. Either way, how we view them define how we think about our lives and deaths. And these differences can be powerfully important and difficult to navigate, when we allude to them in our conversations.

(10) What is true? Some people talk about “their truth,” as in, “It is my truth that I am uncomfortable around strangers.” This kind of truth is the truth of genuine experience. No one can question the truth of people’s genuine experience, unless one supposes that other people are being disingenuous about their “truth,” or perhaps they are joking about it. If they truly experience discomfort around strangers, then that is true for them. However, let’s say we have seen this particular person in the company of strangers, and they appear to be quite comfortable, social, talkative, and relaxed. To this observation, the individual may reply that, “yes, I can see how others might see me as comfortable with strangers, but I assure you that I am quite uncomfortable inside.

Some people may also say that one of their truths is a strong belief in God. Again, they do not need to prove that God exists (which may be difficult), they just need to be authentic about their presupposition that God exists; and this truth, for them, may be explanatory for their other beliefs and behaviors.

If two people report different descriptions of an event, how do we know which one is true? Each person may claim to be giving an accurate description, but a third person may say that the other two are just giving their subjective experience or perspective about the event. If the event is an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), and the two observers describe it in different ways, then the third person, as an interlocutor, may question the truth of either descriptions. Doubtless, seeing a UFO can be quiet an emotional experience. (I thought I saw one in 1968; though it was later “identified” as an off-course rocket.) Emotional experiences can easily give rise to multiple, dissimilar, descriptions. Therefore, we might wonder about our own descriptions when the event provokes strong emotions.

Key Strategies to Deal with the Elephants in the Room

Views from judgment and compassion: As the metaphor, navigation, suggests, optimally handling difference and conflict is not subject to a simple formula. Yes, there are processes that can be taught, but the problem with difference and conflict is that it often resists simple processes and principles. Often, we find ourselves navigating between polarities, as in, what I call, the views from judgment and compassion. To begin this discussion, we are often taught to make correct judgments about every topic that might come up in our lives:

• How shall we think about politics?
• How shall we think about our health?
• How shall we pick our friends and intimates?
• How shall we think about family members and fellow workers?

The list goes on and on. As we age, we hope to not only make good judgments about these concerns, but even develop some wisdom about them. And we might expect to become well equipped to defend our judgments with arguments full of evidence and experience. Defaulting to the view from judgment means that when one is confronted with a difference or a conflict, one takes the view from judgment and proceeds to make one’s case on how to understand or proceed with the difference or conflict. Smart people can provide us with a lot of analysis from the resources that they believe carry a lot of authority, be it academic, religious, or experiential.

However, to be open-minded, we must also be curious about other people’s judgments. Otherwise, we will simply be in the position of trying to defeat them—either to their faces, or passively, in our minds and in our avoidance of them. Being curious about others means that we might learn from their evidence and experience, which is likely to be different than ours. To be authentically curious about others, we must be empathetic—able to imagine being in their life, with their history, with their personality, and with their aspirations. Because our imagination can be faulty, we need to check out our perceptions of others by paraphrasing their views or asking inquiring questions (not interrogating questions). In doing these things, we gain the view from compassion.

Interestingly, we can error in either direction: too much judgment or too much compassion. As stated above, if our views from judgment are too rigid and dogmatic, we are making a claim that we know better than others about a number of topics. We can appear closed-minded, which can put others off, and prevent effective collaboration. On the other hand, if our views from compassion are too gullible or too divergent from judgments that have the ring of truth, then we may be naïve to default to the view from compassion. Con artists depend on our trust and compassion, and they will use that leverage to victimize us. By gaining our confidence in their story, they can manipulate us as they desire. Sadly, the whole marketing enterprise is aimed at such manipulation for the interests of manipulator. Arguably, we are being sold in the marketplace of goods and services, but also in beliefs and opinions, and at times, in the larger frameworks of our cultures. Whether we are being exposed to the marketing of consumption, political positions, religious beliefs, or larger worldviews, too much compassion can lead to dangerous groupthink.

In our confrontation with difference or conflict, we need to navigate between the views from judgment and compassion. However, this is not an easy task, especially if the differences or conflicts involve dilemmas, contradictions, and paradoxes. Let’s examine these three terms to see what problems we are up against:

Navigating the views from normalization and abnormalization: It is profoundly easy to think of others as abnormal for their slightest eccentricities. On the other hand, it may be quite difficult to reverse this process and normalize someone who strays a bit too far from group norms. This dynamic makes identity groups unnecessarily narrow and homogenous, and wary of diverse analyses. For instance, an identity group of people working to end unnecessarily violent police practice may be diverse in race, orientation, and ability/disability; however, they must conform to a certain analysis of police violence. Those who diverge significantly from this analysis may find themselves shunned, whether they see too many police behaviors as violent, or too few. Groups, such as this example, may splinter apart into new subgroupings that share analyses that are more closely aligned. The overall loss is that the groups become smaller and less able to recruit new members, who might deviate from the “correct” analysis and behaviors.

Navigating how we and others can be so annoying: I think it is fair to say that everyone can annoy everyone else, if they spend enough time with each other. Those of us in long-term relationships, with a spouse, parents, children, relatives, as well as friends and coworkers, certainly have opportunities to be annoyed or to be annoying. Unfortunately, in an individualistic and competitive society, we can mistake annoyance for argument or contestation about who is right and who is wrong; who is good and who is bad. Rather, we need to look closely at the relatively minor things that we find annoying, and wonder how easily those things turned into heated arguments. Wouldn’t it be better to just admit that the other person has just done something annoying, or that both of us are annoying each other concerning a certain subject? If we can start off with an affirmation of mutual annoyance (AMA), we could take the wind out an impending thunderstorm, and have a calm discussion about a small bone of contention. As an example, “I know that us disagreeing about how often to wash the dishes can be annoying because this small dispute has come up rather regularly for the last twenty five years, but let’s sit down and calmly plan a schedule that will work for both of us.”

Navigating moral force and brute force: At least some Western philosophers and some Buddhists fail to find grounds for any common morality in the world. Further, they find that ethics, in general, are just cultural customs that came into existence for some reason or other—usually in the distant past. They seem to be urging us to accept that humans do what they do, as it is hard to stop them, so why get stressed about it? A “live and let live,” or Paul McCartney’s “live and let die,” philosophy seems a bit like trying to sail a ship without a rudder. But, if you are looking for peace, it might be helpful to give up on justice. Some other philosophers and theologians urge us to put our lives in God’s hands and let them(?) decide what to do, and have faith that our actions are all part of God’s plans, evidently including nuclear war, waterboarding, and pedophilia… Though my rejoinder to these views is not relentlessly comprehensive, it seems that most of us would agree that morality, of some sort, is better than having to live (or die) under the boot of brute physical and psychological force or leaving our fate up to some all-controlling deity.

Validating dilemmas: These are differences, where one or more people must choose between two equally compelling alternatives, whether ideas, strategies, tactics, values, etc. Because dilemmas offer a choice between two alternatives that are equally attractive or unattractive, there needs to be some strategy for deciding between them. Here is where the default to judgment or compassion can lead to quite different outcomes. Sometimes, if possible, it might be wise to remain undecided, putting off the conflict until more information can be gathered, or where disputants can think about the dilemma more, perhaps gaining more information, consulting others, meditating on it, or searching within themselves for deeper insights or intuitions.

Deconstructing false dilemmas: President Donald Trump said that his dilemma about immigration was between keeping the United States truly safe, and not being considered heartless by people abhorred by separating asylum-seeking parent from their children. This supposed dilemma can be considered false because the real dilemma that Trump does not want to be considered a racist, while needing to please his base, who want white people to continue to dominate the USA, and not share power with the nonwhite population, that is soon to become the majority of citizens.

Deconstruct contradictions: These are statements that are opposites of one another, or at the least, undermine each other. Contradictions can quickly fuel a dispute or conflict because they are inherently confrontational. Usually, it is best to try to unpack these opposite claims by having disputants explain how they have come to such different positions. This unpacking can include background stories, evidence, motivation, aspiration, and identity concerns. With more information supporting each side of the contradiction, mutual understanding can hopefully replace conflict escalation.

Embrace paradoxes: These are two claims that, when combined as true, seem to be absurd or illogical. In our discussion of the views from judgment and compassion, it is a paradox to believe that there is wisdom in both views, even though they seem to contradict each other, and provide us with seemingly irresolvable dilemmas.

Human needs and human wants: Theoretically, humans have basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, companionship, identity, a healthy environment, education, careers, medical care, hope for the future and some sort of retirement in our elder years. On this view, we may want all kinds of other things to keep us happy, amused, and show off to our friends, but those are wants, not needs. Basic human rights are about needs, not wants. No one can assert that they have a human right to wealth, power, and privilege. Well, maybe there are a few people who would do this. Billionaires want more money and power; and if taxes and regulations prevent them from having these things, then they will fight those taxes and regulations, like their lives depended on it. Maybe they really feel that way. It can be said that the rich need more wealth and power, just as addicts need more of the stuff that constitutes their addiction. Ironically, wealth and power does not make one more secure, as there are always threats to that wealth and power. I know a multimillionaire who worries about being homeless, if banks, the investment market, and the property market, all collapse at the same time. I have another multimillionaire friend, who worries if he needs an ultra-expensive medical operation, he will not be able to afford it. If we had an economy that provided the basic needs, listed above, then no one would fear being homeless or needing an operation that they could not afford.

Navigating Dilemmas in the Interpersonal Field of Conflict Processes:

The following are dilemmas that occur within interpersonal conflicts. These conflicts may involve from two to several people, but is primarily about the relationships between them.

Conflict processes should immediately be terminated, if it becomes apparent that one of the disputants is at risk of abuse or violence by any continuing contact with another disputant.

As an example, in a divorce mediation, it may come to light that one spouse has been physically or emotionally abusing the other spouse. In such cases, the mediator’s priority is to implement a protective strategy for the abused spouse, while terminating the mediation—to the extent that police force may be necessary to remove the abuser from the premises. Ideally, there will be other mediators and trauma counselors available in situations where evidence of abuse might emerge. These professionals should ideally confer with each other to decide on the protocols to follow or to adapt the protocols to fit the uniqueness of the situation.

Navigating these challenging circumstances may require the advice of legal counsel. The dilemma here is that the discovery of abuse may require the rejection of the collaborative process, in favor of a protective strategy for the abused person. Deciding that it is wise to break the collaborative agreement amongst the disputants constitutes an abrupt change in the process, which can enrage the disputant being accused of abuse, which will likely deepen the conflict, and perhaps pose a deeper threat. This kind of decision may be gut-level for the facilitator of the process. It would be crucial to have a separate meeting (caucus) with the abused disputant to get a better sense of the depth of the threat.

Conflict processes skills can be used to give people the illusion that their complaints are being taken seriously.

This tactic, which I call fake listening, undermines the reality of difference by fake validation. In this manner, one can be deceived by another person’s conflict processes skills, which make it appear that progress is being made in understanding difference and creating a collaborative and productive approach to a conflict. This deceptive use of conflict processes skills also undermines the integrity of conflict processes itself, so it is doubly dangerous.

I had a disagreement about a billing error over the telephone with a company representative. The conversation was getting heated, so I asked for help from the representative’s supervisor. When the supervisor got on the line, the tone of the conversation changed dramatically. The supervisor validated my experience, saying that she would be having the same experience, if she was in my shoes. I calmed down quickly, and found myself fully accepting that following final statement by the supervisor: “I’m afraid there is nothing that we can do to help you.” In this way, her conflict processes skills were used to pacify me, not to create any collaborative solution to the problem.

Someone’s use of conflict management skills to win the dispute, surreptitiously, is certainly manipulative and unethical, but as a disputant, I need to be aware that I can be duped by the seeming validation and emotional support that I receive from another disputant. In the illustration that I just gave, I needed to refuse to be pacified and to escalate the conflict by asserting/demanding that the customer service department respect my claim or that there will be legal or reputational consequences. Navigating differences does not always mean taking the compassion view of those who are trying to manipulate us. Sometimes, we need to call them out on their unethical practice and demand justice.

Sometimes, strong emotions need to be present for people to take conflicts seriously.

Healthy people should have access to a full range of emotions from the positive (happiness, laughter, serenity, etc.) to the negative (unhappiness, anger, frustration, outrage, etc.) Some conflicts require disputants to express these strong emotions, so that they can communicate the emotional dimensions of their experiences. However, some disputants are uncomfortable expressing or witnessing such strong emotions. Navigating this dilemma requires that disputants remain sensitive to the limits of each other’s emotional capacities. Sadly, it is not uncommon for people to be re-traumatized by strong emotions, so disputants need to be sensitive to that potential.

Sometimes, accommodating others is a productive and just way to respond to conflict.

As a middle class, white male, I know that my race, class, and gender have afforded me privileges that are not always accessible to people of other races, classes, genders, orientations, and identities. To navigate this dilemma, I feel a special obligation to accommodate others whom I perceive as having been denied the privileges that I have had. Though all conflict processes require a certain level of collaboration, there are certain commitments to overcoming inequality and injustice that also need to be embedded in the process. If disputants are simply urged to find a process that combines the current interests of the disputants, in a way that both disputants feel that they have had their interests met, this overly simple process ignores the cultural and historical inequities and injustices between the classes, races, genders, orientations, and identities. To facilitate such a process is complex because it might seem that bringing privilege or oppression into every dispute overly complicates the process. Yes, it can overly complicate the process, but ignoring inequities and injustices may also undermine the sustainability of the processes created, without a firm foundation. Sadly, some disputants use their status as social and economic victims to manipulate collaborative processes. I believe that privileged people, such as myself, can accommodate oppressed people without succumbing to being victimized ourselves. Navigating this dilemma may be a delicate balance, but it can legitimately enter the collaborative discussion, if it is going to fully embrace the humanity of participants.

Sometimes, avoiding conflict is the best way to ‘pick your battles’.

In a complex world, we often need to set our priorities and pacing in a way that means we address the most important conflicts and differences in our lives. This requires us to let the seemingly less important conflicts and differences go. To navigate the dilemma of how to set priorities, and pace one’s life in a way that does not add stress, one might need to consult with trusted friends, family members, mediators, or psychotherapists to determine the conflicts and differences to confront, and the ones to let go, at least for the moment. Deciding this alone may just mean that we are repeating bad priority and pacing habits.

Sometimes, one needs to wait for the best time to confront differences or conflicts.

Privacy might be necessary to address a conflict. An audience might turn the conflict into a spectator sport, needlessly escalating it. Finding a calm place where the processing of the conflict will not be interrupted. Try to pick a time that will not feel rushed, and will fit each of the disputants’ work/life schedule. Because collaborative processes can be fragile and filled with emotion, it is best to reschedule meetings, whenever disputants are feeling particularly vulnerable. Any stressor in a disputant’s life, physical, mental, or emotional, can make collaborative processes difficult, so check in with participants often.

Sometimes, formal mediation or psychotherapeutic interventions are counterproductive.

Formal processes, whether hosted by a mediator/facilitator or a psychotherapist, may be too intimidating for disputants who are unfamiliar with these processes, and therefore uncomfortable and/or unable to advocate for themselves or be able to engage in authentic empathy for other disputants. In these cases, a more informal or more culturally appropriate process must be used to work through a conflict or difference. However, a disputant’s mental health issues can also undermine an effective collaborative process. Navigating mental health issues is usually best undertaken with the assistance of a mental health professional. Absent such a resource, navigating difference and conflict requires sensitivity to mental health issues, which we all have to one extent or another.

Sometimes, expressing one’s thoughts, beliefs, values, feelings, and experiences can get in the way of resolving conflicts.

It is easy to get sidetracked, when working through a conflict or difference. Conflicts, of any kind, can trigger emotions, memories, values, and experiences that can get in the way of attending to the details of a conflict or difference. If they are too distracting, it might be helpful to suggest getting back to the planned agenda. However, sometimes, these issues must be addressed in order to reach some agreement, or that will give disputants a sense that progress is being made. Learning about the emotions, memories, values, and experiences of disputants can be a valuable first step, which justifies putting aside the more goal-oriented agenda, and delay the direct work with the conflict or difference. Navigating this dilemma requires check-ins with participants to see if the priorities and pacing of the process is working reasonably well for everyone.

Sometimes, the adversarial justice system is the best way to address interpersonal disputes and conflicts.

Often, in small claims courts, judges allow disputants the option to have their case mediated by court appointed mediators, instead of the judge making a decision. The advantage to disputants is that they will be able to go over details and experiences, for which a judge may not have the time, or inclination, to listen. The disadvantage of mediating a dispute is that it may be more time-consuming, and the judge may have a history of being a fair arbitrator. Furthermore, a court decision may have, or seem to have, more authority than a mediated decision. In civil proceedings of more serious matters, the lawyers for each disputant may work together to suggest a settlement, often financial, that disputants come to accept as fair, perhaps at the urging of their lawyers. It is important to note that billions of dollars are spent, yearly, to litigation attorneys, so the side-effect of successful legal settlements can be astronomical attorney fees, whereas mediators or facilitators can be much less expensive to hire. Some litigation lawyers serve as mediators or facilitators, so they can cover both bases with similar fees. Non-lawyer mediators or facilitators tend to be a significantly cheaper alternative. Navigating this dilemma requires disputants and their advisors need to consider the costs and benefits of legal or extralegal processes.

Navigating Dilemmas in the Social/Cultural Field of Conflict Processes:

The following are concerns about conflict processes within social tensions. As before, I analyze these dilemmas to show that navigating between each side is likely to be more successful, rather than adhering to only one side.

Intergroup contact can reduce the tension between dominant groups and oppressed groups, and make it seem that the sympathy expressed by dominant group members means that they are committing themselves, as allies, for the long-haul struggle for social justice.

Dominant group members can be authentically sympathetic to the plight of oppressed group members, and that sympathy may seem like the conflict between dominant group members and oppressed group members is heading for processes. However, this appearance of impending processes may be a mirage. Any reduction in tension between dominant groups and oppressed groups must be maintained for true processes, and social change, can take place. Dominant group members must express more than sympathy for change, they must prove themselves committed to change over the course of what is usually a long struggle toward justice and peace. (Reference related article, here) The dilemma here requires us to navigate between being too confident in the commitments of sympathetic dominant group members and being too cynical about their commitment.

Conflict processes, involving protracted dialogues between disputants, can be used by those with power and status to pacify those with significantly lower power and status.

Seemingly endless negotiations and dialogues, while at the heart of conflict processes, can be used to falsely illustrate that progress is being made, while in reality, the status quo is being defended. In these cases, more confrontational tactics need to occur to show that, indeed, progress is not being made. Ideally, these confrontational tactics will be nonviolent, though oppressed people, who are already hobbled by injustice, can be made doubly frustrated by these pacification tactics. Furthermore, it must be remembered that nonviolent resistance and conflict processes should go hand-in-hand to procure social justice. They should never be pitted against each other. Navigating between the two is a challenge, and will require a diverse set of strategists to collaborate on an appropriate balance.

In social, cultural, environmental, policy, business, or union conflicts, it is often thought that adversarial, legal, contractual, policy, and legislative processes are superior to conflict processes process.

However, in some cases, these more public disputes may, indeed, be more appropriately addressed by conflict processes, which might involve forgiveness, atonement, restitution, restoration, and therapeutic interventions, rather than adversarial processes. Clearly, adversarial and legal processes may be more appropriate when the criminality is severe, or when there is too little trust between the people involved. In yet other cases, both conflict processes and legal processes may productively complement each other. The key insight here is that there are many ways to address public disputes, and planners need to consider many options, as well as combining options together, recognizing that every public dispute has unique features that require unique processes to productively address it.

Conflict processes skills are not skills that adults can optimally learn, and easily implement, like learning to install a toilet by watching a YouTube video.

This is true because so many of us learned conflict domination and conflict avoidance skills throughout our lives, and these “skills” are hard to unlearn. Age-appropriate conflict processes skills need to be learned from infancy, through all grade-levels in early education, through higher education. They also need to be integrated into parenting education, which also must be universalized, so that generations of youth are not burdened by the scars of abusive parenting.

Students spend a lot of time learning algebra, at earlier and earlier ages, but how many of those students use algebra as adults in their daily lives? On the other hand, we often use conflict processes skills, and parenting skills, daily. The dilemma here is in navigating the quandary about how conflict processes skills can become a part of our cultural experience, given the limitations of our educational system to incorporate this kind of training, when so much is asked of our educators today, as career skills are becoming exponentially more complex, thanks to computer systems and globalization. My encouraging observation is that many of my students use conflict processes verbiage, even as they enter their first conflict processes course.

Sometimes, conflicts need to be escalated to be brought into the open.

If the differences, conflicts, and injustices between people are hidden, it may be necessary to escalate the conflict for it to be noticed and visible to a wider population of people. Navigating this dilemma is difficult because some conflicts are best resolved by keeping them as private as possible, whereas other conflicts require the public’s attention. Conflicts, like apartheid in South Africa needed to be escalated globally, so that a meaningful divestment in that country could put significant pressure on the white-ruled government to begin negotiating the end to their inhuman policies toward people of color, and usher in regime-change.

Navigating Dilemmas in the Global Field of Conflict Processes:

In the textbook, Contemporary Conflict Processes (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall), the following three conflict processes dilemmas are offered, with my paraphrasing. In all three, I aim to show that any strict adherence to one side of these dilemmas, over the other, will be counterproductive, while developing collaborative strategies between the sides to these dilemmas, is likely to be the more successful strategy.

Conflict processes, as a soft power approach, is ineffective and dangerous in a world where antagonistic, irreconcilable individuals and groups, are committed to violence and dishonesty to achieve their goal.(Ramsbotham, et al).

Here, the dilemma is between choosing soft power (nonviolence) and hard paper (violence) to achieve laudable goals. In a world that often functions through both direct and structural violence, it can be argued that positive change requires the ability to violently overthrow both oppressive people and institutions to establish democracy and benevolent institutions. However, nonviolent change has been documented to be more often successful in accomplishing these ends, without resorting to violence. Still, in some situations, violence has also been successful, so the dilemma remains as to which tactic to employ. Navigating this dilemma seems to require that change agents exhaust their nonviolent strategies first, before resorting to any violence, while keeping the strategies of minimal violence, as a possibility. Hopefully, this minimal violence is limited to self-defense and/or the destruction of property that represents an obstacle to social or environmental justice.

Some regime-change movements have strategically employed both tactics. So, a way to navigate this dilemma, in these circumstances, may be to maximally employ nonviolence, and minimally employ violence, in cases only where there is a necessity to defend areas occupied by liberation forces. In the past, it has often seemed necessary for liberation forces to physically occupy the structures of power, it is now conceivable to create a shadow governance structure, electronically, that could gain strength and scope, as the existing governance structure weakens due an absence of popular support.

Conflict processes seeks to reconcile interests that cannot be reconciled because the powerful have no interest in sharing power with the marginalized powerless. (Ramsbotham, et al).

This statement implies that people generally advocate for their self- and class-interests, unilaterally, with no consideration for the interests of other individuals or classes. Whereas, social change advocates often come from a wide variety of class, race, ethnicity, and other identifications and orientations, throughout the power spectrum. Positive social change that addresses widespread inequality, oppression, abuse, and other kinds of suffering, is most successful when victims of oppression do not deny the compassion, permeating all classes and backgrounds, when they seek allies.

However, there will always be a certain number of hardcore-powerful people, who doggedly and single-mindedly pursue their self- and class-interests, even in the face of obvious mass suffering. They rationalize that their power is earned and deserved, while those who suffer under a culture’s structure have brought that suffering upon themselves, due to laziness, poor life planning, lack of exercising their prerogatives, ignoring opportunities, and playing the victim-card to gain sympathy and charity.

To navigate this dilemma, I suggest that we abandon the view that most people limit their advocacy to simple self- or class-interest. It is not that difficult for the average person to identify with someone who suffers. Martin Luther King knew that videos of police dogs, swinging batons, and firehoses, unleashed onto African American children, women, and men, would turn the hearts of masses of white Americans, and he was correct because our hearts and minds change when we graphically experience injustice and suffering. Ironically, assuming that people unequivocally stick to their self- and class-interests may contribute to them doing so because powerful people may feel attacked, when they feel stereotyped in this way. Again, navigating this dilemma requires that activists not be too trusting nor too cynical of members of dominant groups.

The western assumptions imbedded in conflict processes are not applicable to many non-western cultures. (Ramsbotham, et al).

Nonviolent and collaborative processes are both ancient and are found in most cultures worldwide. Indeed, specific methods of conflict processes can have important cultural values and processes imbedded in them. Therefore, a way to navigate this dilemma is for those interested in enhancing their conflict processes capacities may, first, want to fully embrace their own culture’s traditional conflict processes principles and practices, then second, import and translate conflict processes from other cultures that may be useful to them. Navigating this dilemma requires local people to translate their culture’s conflict processes practices to outsiders, while translating foreign culture conflict processes practices to insiders. The result will be a synthesis of practices that optimize the productivity of a culturally-appropriate conflict processes strategy.