What is 'conflict'

I guess it is traditional to start a course of studies by defining the key terms that are going to be used. Or at least discussing possible definitions. Conflict, peace, violence. Some people find this process strangely disturbing - as I discovered. But that didn’t happen until later. Things started out fine: What is Conflict? We discuss. Conflict can exist at all ‘levels’: inside you, between you and other people, between your group and other groups, between your country and other countries. To begin with the class all tend to see conflict as a negative thing. It leads to trouble. But then Irene tells a story about Mahatma Ghandi shaking hands with a British negotiator and saying in a congratulatory way: ‘We have a conflict’ (echoing his dictum ‘Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.’)

War is good

Ok, it is better that conflicts are openly expressed than concealed in a place where they are not accessible to resolution. Does that mean that conflict itself is good and well as being inevitable? Something to think about. One the one hand there are the ‘Social Darwinians’ and their ilk who propose that the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ has relevance beyond evolutionary biology. ‘Human kind’ as a whole becomes stronger by eliminating its weaker specimens through competition for resources and ultimately war. Again, in moderation, this makes sense. Play tennis with your neighbor and yes, you will both get fit. Two businesses competing drive prices down and find ways of improving their products and services. Good things. But war? Many lamented that it was the ‘bravest and the best’ who died in the First World War: those who avoided military service that got to perpetuate their genes. Is there anybody out there who still believes conflict leading to war is a good thing per se? I don’t know. But there are plenty who think it is expedient.

And then there’s Hegel

The class were spared my ill-informed thoughts on the matter. But it was right there. The argument was developing that ‘conflict’ was not, per se, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but that it was both inevitable and, in a sense, necessary. Hegel and his disciples are credited with theorising this best: Dialectics. An antithesis conflicts with the original thesis and forms a new synthesis. Is this how development takes place? Is this a profound insight into the nature of things, or a trivial mental construction? Anyway, gladly, I kept my mouth shut and let this one roll over me.