Is conflict a really negative phenomenon?

Although it may be in an unconscious or automatic way, there is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term "conflict", which has been accentuating more significantly in recent decades in today's society.

This negative conception is causing individuals to present more and more difficulties in their proper management and coping. Thus, a pathogenic function is being normalized by which Either you tend to avoid conflict or you choose to resolve it impulsively, reactionary and / or aggressively. An interesting exercise could be to ask the following question: what is the cause of such a tendency?

• Related article: "Conflict Resolution: Crisis or Covert Opportunities?"

A globalized and capitalist society

In the last turn of the century, society is undergoing a great transformation at a very accelerated rate. As a result of globalization, in recent decades the ability to transmit and exchange any type of information between any two points on the planet almost immediately and at low cost. Inevitably this has had consequences on the economy, on national and international policies carried out and on the values ​​that the population has internalized in its development, both at the level of each individual and in a more collective.

With globalization it seems that physical and symbolic borders have been eliminated, a fact that can lead to the conclusion that there are no limits, that anything is possible, how much more the better.

These expressions base some of the bases of the capitalist system in which we find ourselves involved (trapped?) And that is promoted by the mainstream media, in the sense that the quantitative is prioritized over the qualitative and, so, competitive individualistic attitudes are favored instead of those more cooperative and empathetic, as well as values ​​such as individual freedom are emphasized or the satisfaction of personal or egocentric desires over generous and good-oriented behaviors common.

Along with globalization and capitalism, technological development, exposure to constant change, as well as the increasingly Frequent and habitual multicultural coexistence are other factors that are causing today's society to be much more complex than yesteryear.

Everything as a whole can generate in the individual a feeling of permanent uncertainty, where a need is perceived to be continually adapting to this dynamic operation. The ability to adequately manage such uncertainty becomes a challenge for individuals, since it requires a coping effort psychological that sometimes cannot be carried out in a natural and satisfactory way, causing some emotional and / or behavioral effects personal.

In such circumstances, the phenomenon of "conflict" has an aversive and unpleasant obstacle to resolve that makes it difficult to keep up with the fast pace imposed by society. A conflict, from the outset, implies time, implies a need for reflection and analysis and this seems to have no place in the schemes that govern globalized and capitalist functioning.

And it is as a consequence of this skewed perception of "I want it ALL and I want it NOW" that increases the probability of exercising attitudes of violence and aggressiveness (in order to achieve the proposed objective) or also flight and avoidance of adversity, as indicated above. These generalized ways of coping with conflict, which do not seem psychologically adaptive and effective, are not subject to particular or specific situations but are found as institutionalized, forming part of the social structure current.

• You may be interested: "The 11 types of violence (and the different types of aggression)"

Meaning of the terms conflict, aggressiveness and violence

Faced with such a panorama, it seems essential to recover a rational and realistic notion of what the word “conflict” in order to recover the possibility of making an adaptive coping of the same.

If one looks at the literature published by experts in this field, authors such as Fernández (1998) argue that the conflict should not be confused with its pathology, violence. For this author, the conflict is simply a situation of confrontation of interests that produces an antagonism between different parties. For his part, Cabanas (2000) adds that such a situation can be resolved in a non-violent way.

It follows that the conflict should not be confused with a problematic entity in itself, which does not necessarily involves a confrontation, but consists in the verification of a discrepancy of postures. The fact that there are divergences of perspectives is inevitable, it is natural and it is inherent to the human being since each person is incontestably unique in their own subjectivity.

Instead, violence is learned, not innate, and mediated by the environment. In the words of Fernández (1998), in violent behavior force, power and status are imposed against the other to harm them. Thus, violent behavior responds to a voluntary and conscious act to achieve the satisfaction of a specific objective.

Nor should violence be equated with aggressiveness. In the definition of the frustration model proposed by Dollard, Doob, Miller and Sears in 1939, indicated that aggressiveness is impulsive behavior in which the consequences of such behavior are not considered. action. This statement is complemented by that of Auran (2003) who adds that aggressiveness is a defense mechanism to reaffirm the survival instinct.

Therefore, also has a positive adaptation component, being another natural phenomenon. When you don't know how to properly channel this aggressiveness, that's when it turns into violence and that's when it becomes problematic. Finally, a distinction can be made between aggressiveness, a disposition or tendency, and aggression, which becomes the concrete act by which aggressiveness is expressed.

Therefore, the key point behind the exposed definitions lies in understanding that conflict and aggressiveness, elements natural and adaptive, should not lead to aggression or the exercise of violence, both principles learned and therefore, avoidable.

In conclusion

After what has been stated throughout the text, it is concluded, therefore, that a change of perspective is necessary in the connotation that is given to the existence of the conflict. This can be a valuable opportunity for reflection, decision-making, for change, as well as for dialogue and agreement.

The conflict allows to enhance the critical spirit, the analysis of the situations in a more profound way, and can promote empathic and other-oriented functioning.

However, this increasingly less common positive attitude must also be combined with other types of processes that in the same way question the extent to which The values ​​promoted by today's globalized and capitalist society are precisely making it difficult to adopt such introspective and cooperative.

Bibliographic references:

• Fernández García I. (1999) Violence prevention and conflict resolution: the school climate as a quality factor. Madrid: Narcea.
• San Martín, J. (coord.) (2004) The labyrinth of violence. Causes, types and effects. Barcelona: Ariel.
• Tedesco J.C. (1998) The great challenges of the new century. Global village and local development. In G. Pérez Serrano (coord.) Context and socio-educational of education. Seville: University of Seville 19-51.