Conflict

War is merely the continuation of politics by other means

                                                     Carl von Clausewitz

Conflict is inherent in humans.  It is part of who we are.  We vie for our point of view to be dominant; we struggle for resources; the result can be death and destruction. Conflict can lead to a rebirth and renewal, or conflict can lead to larger conflict in the future.  Sadly, we humans never learn this.

I am sure that every relationship has conflict.  Two people living together in very close proximity will lead to disagreements.  In a relationship we hope that these disagreements  lead to greater understanding and an improved relationship.  This couple cares about each other and knows the goal is to improve the relationship.  They are not interested in winning a war but care about making the couple better.  At least this what I envision the two people trying to do.

The problem in a relationship is when conflict becomes pointless.  It seems that one or both parties are more interested in winning a war and not strengthening and improving the relationship.  The one only wanting to win the war fails to see that it is a war of attrition.  The unstated goal seems to be to wear down the opposition until they can no longer fight (defend themselves).  The party that loses the will to fight just surrenders...unconditionally.  The victor smugly sees that this is a winning strategy and continues it.  Again and again.  This seemingly internecine war like all such conflicts wears down the population until all parties are broken and in despair.

This is conflict with Sybil.  She strives to win at all costs.  A typical argument may start with something legitimate...usually a breakdown in communication.  A conversation will ensue and we start laying out our sides of the debate.  So far so good.  As the conversation moves along, I may start to see Sybil's point of view, and in the hopes of reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion will try to defuse the situation.  I am faced with two choices: I can continue this conflict with mutually assured destruction or I can retreat to fight another day.

In winning that particular battle, Sybil does not realize that she is losing the war.  By being a bully, she only sets up the next, future conflict.  In an argument, the winning party should not try to continue the conflict by means of character assassination.  Saying that I am not a team player because I forget to mention something that pertains to an unimportant (in the scheme of things) topic, will only create more resentment and dislike.  When getting one's way in a conflict, it is not wise to set the table for a future conflict that may a worse conflict.  I should think that a wise negotiator gives the other side something.  This way the deal can be mutually beneficial.  Otherwise, what is the incentive for the other side to make concessions?  Parting character assassinations, broad statements of supposed intent, or blanket statements of how they no longer care will not mend fences.

Conflict can lead to growth or destruction.  The participants have that choice to make.  Both sides have to be in agreement, otherwise it is simply surrender, unconditionally.  The victor's victory is usually short-lived, unless the loser is completely demoralized.  The demoralized party will sink to apathy and despair.  I know my history.  I chose this graphic because the victors of World War I simply laid the table for World War II.  WW2 was way worse.  The thing about history is that always repeats itself just with different players.  Human nature does not change.