Although it may be unconscious or automatic, There is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term “conflict” which has been accentuated 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 functioning is being normalized by which either there is a tendency to avoid conflict or one chooses to resolve it in an impulsive, reactionary and/or aggressive way An interesting exercise could be to ask the following question: what is the cause of such a trend?
At the last turn of the century, society is undergoing a great transformation at a very accelerated pace. 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 a low cost has become possible. Inevitably, this has had consequences on the economy, on the 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 more collectively.
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 everything is possible, that the more the better.
These expressions underlie some of the bases of the capitalist system in which we find ourselves involved (trapped?) and that is promoted by the main media, in the sense that the quantitative is prioritized ahead of the qualitative and, therefore , competitive individualistic attitudes are favored instead of those that are more cooperative and empathetic, as well as values such as individual freedom or the satisfaction of personal or egocentric desires are emphasized over generous behaviors oriented toward the common good.
Along with globalization and capitalism, technological development, exposure to constant change, as well as the increasingly frequent and habitual multicultural coexistence constitute other factors that are causing today’s society to be much more complex than in the past.
Everything together can generate a feeling of permanent uncertainty in the individual, where a need to continually adapt to this dynamic operation is perceived. The ability to adequately manage such uncertainty becomes a challenge for individuals, since it requires an effort of psychological coping that sometimes cannot be carried out in a natural and satisfactory manner, causing some personal emotional and/or behavioral effects.
In such circumstances, the phenomenon of “conflict” is an aversive and unpleasant obstacle to resolve that makes it difficult to follow the accelerated pace imposed socially. A conflict, to begin with, implies time, implies the 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 biased perception of “I want it EVERYTHING and I want it NOW” that increases the probability of exercising violent and aggressive attitudes (in order to achieve the proposed objective) or also to escape and avoid adversity, as indicated above. These generalized ways of dealing with conflict, which do not seem psychologically adaptive and effective, are not subject to particular or specific situations but rather are institutionalized, forming part of the current social structure.
Meaning of the terms conflict, aggression and violence
Given such a panorama, it seems essential to recover a rational and realistic notion of what the word “conflict” implies in order to recover the possibility of carrying out an adaptive coping with it.
If we look at the literature published by experts in this matter, authors such as Fernández (1998) maintain that the conflict should not be confused with its pathology, violence For this author, conflict is simply a situation of confrontation of interests that produces an antagonism between various parties. For his part, Cabanas (2000) adds that such a situation can be resolved non-violently.
It follows that the conflict should not be confused with a problematic entity in itself, which does not necessarily involve a confrontation but rather consists of the confirmation of a discrepancy in positions. 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 undeniably 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.
Violence should not be equated with aggressiveness either. In the definition of the frustration model proposed by Dollard, Doob, Miller and Sears in 1939, it was indicated that aggressiveness is an impulsive behavior in which the consequences of such action are not considered. This statement is complemented by that of Auran (2003) who adds that aggressiveness is a defense mechanism to reaffirm the survival instinct.
Therefore, It also has a positive adaptation component, being another natural phenomenon. When we do not know how to properly channel this aggressiveness, that is when it turns into violence and that is when it becomes problematic. Finally, a distinction must be made between aggressiveness, a disposition or tendency, and aggression, which becomes the specific act through which aggressiveness is expressed.
Therefore, the key point behind the definitions presented lies in understanding that conflict and aggressiveness, natural and adaptive elements, should not lead to aggression or the exercise of violence, both principles learned and therefore avoidable.
In conclusion
After what has been explained throughout the text, it is concluded, therefore, that a change of perspective is known to be necessary in the connotation 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 us to enhance the critical spirit, the analysis of situations in a more profound way and can foster empathetic and other-oriented functioning.
However, this increasingly less common positive attitude must also be combined with other types of processes that also question the extent to which the values promoted by today’s globalized and capitalist society are precisely hindering the adoption of such introspective and cooperative aptitude. .
