Everywhere we go, there seem to be people fighting with each other. Conflict is a fact of life, whether on a national and international scale or between two individuals. I've been sort of studying conflict on my own recently, trying to understand the dynamics of what causes them to start, why they continue, and why they are so difficult to resolve.
The answer came from Tim this weekend, when I was having a serious talk with him about getting along with his mother. He made a very simple but profound statement, "I refuse to let her win".
That's it. It is so very simple. Conflict comes from pride and the human desire for control and dominance. Have you ever been in an argument with someone about something, and later after thinking about the issue more thoroughly figured out that the other person was right? Let me predict something: Rather than going back to that person and apologizing or at least admitting to them that they were right, you either refuse to discuss it further or continue to fight for your losing position. I've done it.
What's worse than being proven wrong, and having someone rub it in your face by saying, "I told you so"? Even then, don't we often rationalize that even though some unique circumstance made us wrong in that particular case, but our principle argument was still valid?
Or on the world stage, what's the biggest and most intractable conflict? I'd say the middle east conflicts, and by extension our terrorism problem, which can all be traced in some fashion to Israel. The extremes on the Palestinian side still hold the objective of pushing Israel into the sea. On the Israeli side, the opposite extreme wants to expel all of the Palestinians and once and for all claim the country of Israel as the promised land for the children of Israel.
Why can't they compromise and carve out a separate independent state for the Palestinians and live side by side in peace? Because too many on each side believe that such a solution means that the other side "won". Simple human pride mixed with a twisted theology driven by a minority of radical religious leaders. Even if the political leaders on both sides were successful in making such an agreement, would it end terrorism? No. The "true believers" will reject the treaty and probably step up their bombings in a desparate attempt to overturn things. They would probably assassinate the leaders responsible in the process. Remember Anwar Sadat?
Somewhere I heard once that the only way to end war is to win. Based on the history I've studied so far, it seems right. How many wars in the past have been resolved through the two warring parties sitting down and negotiating peace? Korea, maybe? I'm not sure that one worked out all that well. Does one or the other party always have to win, or can we be civilized enough to compromise and work things out? I'd say if one party in the conflict is somebody like Hitler, there is no alternative but to defeat him thoroughly. Or could it be said that all of our modern wars only occurred only because there was no alternative but absolute victory?
Whether between a parent and teen or two opposing political forces, can conflicts be resolved? Sometimes, but unfortunately most often, no. In each case, the best chance for reconciliation would seem to be the influence of an impartial and wise third party, who can arbitrate the dispute and help find a way for both sides to "win".
Personally, I've reached the stage of generally putting aside any personal pride to avoid conflict as much as possible. Maybe that's not such a productive approach either, but I'm honestly sick of fighting and watching others fight. It disgusts me that so many people abandon friendships and family members because of a stupid spat over something trivial. It's just no longer worth the effort. Sort of a passive-aggressive approach, I suppose, especially when I know I'm just walking away from conflict most of the time and making the one trying to start a fight with me angrier than before. I've learned to walk away from a fight (of course I'm not talking about a physical fight, but a verbal/emotional one). Because even if I win, I lose. Even if I'm right, there's no satisfaction to be gained in proving it at the expense of alienating the other person.
Makes me tired just thinking about it. Why can't we all just hear what others have to say, think about it carefully, then either agree or respectfully disagree and move on? Wouldn't the world be a much better place? Just like it takes two to tangle, it takes the same two to work it out.
Can I do so within my family? We'll see, but I'm not sure I pass the "wisdom" test. Who could do so for the middle east? Condi and GW? I suppose they're giving it their best shot, but we'll see.
2 comments:
Wow. I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, a friend came over yesterday and he and I were talking about things along the same lines as your post. I completely relate to that feeling of exhaustion, too, when it comes to fighting and being combative. I think it has to do with one's mental state, though. I'm still learning to let things go... I'm the type to harbor ill feelings and perpetuate fights. I'm an adult now, and I still have to remind myself to let things go.
Do you think that when we engage one another we may be attempting to alter the other persons perception of reality in order to make ourselves comfortable, or to keep ourselves in comfort and in doing so, if the other personality is opposed, we then wage war, because perhaps we took their refusal a little too personal? Pride, definitely, but also, maybe just ignoring the obvious.
Why are we always trying so hard to win. 'Win'? There is no win. And, though I know this, I do it, too. I battle to preserve my own reality.
Post a Comment