Article Summary of "Conflict and Interaction" by Joseph P. Folger, Marshall Scott Poole, and Randall Stutman
Citation: Joseph P. Folger, Marshall Scott Poole, and Randall Stutman, "Conflict and Interaction," in Bridges Not Walls, ed. John Stewart, 6th edition, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), pp. 402-410.
This Article Summary written by: Mariya Yevsyukova, Conflict Research Consortium
The authors observe that conflicts may be either destructive or productive. They
describe the nature of conflict generally, and then examine those features which make
conflicts productive or destructive.
Conflict
All conflict is marked by some degree of tension, uncertainty, and unpleasantness. The
conflict situation is usually fragile, in that seemingly trivial occurrences may have
profound effects on the direction of the conflict. Additionally, conflicts which end badly
tend to be more memorable than those which end well. Because of these elements, people
tend to have a negative view of conflict, and seek to suppress or avoid it. Theorists
stress the productive potential of conflict, in order to counter this tendency.
The authors define conflict as "the interaction of interdependent people who
perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in achieving those
goals."[p. 404] This definition stresses the interactive nature of conflict. Conflict
interactions range from include overt confrontation and competition to attempts to
suppress and avoid confrontation. Conflicts may occur in almost any social situation, and
range in importance from trivial to profound.
The authors also stress that conflict centers around the perception of incompatible
goals and interference. Conflict will occur even when such perceptions are not be accurate
in fact. Moreover, conflict may occur even when parties lack a clear understanding of
their own goals. While some conflicts may be based solely in misperception or
miscommunication, the authors believe that most conflict rest on actual incompatibilities.
Parties to a conflict are interdependent. Each party's actions have an effect on the
other, either aiding or hindering the other in their interests. In the conflict situation,
this interdependence manifests itself through a mixture of incentives to either compete or
cooperate. The parties perceptions of each other's motives can affect the balance of
incentives. The authors note that "the balance of incentives to compete or cooperate
is important in determining the direction the conflict interaction takes."[p. 406]
Productive and Destructive Conflict
The authors begin by describing the sociological distinction between realistic and
unrealistic conflicts. Realistic conflicts focus on substantive issues of disagreement.
The goal is to resolve the disagreement. Participants generally draw upon a wide array of
techniques to address such conflicts. This flexibility in approaching conflict is a
characteristic of productive conflicts.
In contrast, the goal of nonrealistic conflicts is the defeat or destruction of the
opponent. Participants usually employ force, aggression and coercion. Their approach is
inflexible, and this inflexibility often leads to escalation of the conflict.
Inflexibility is a mark of destructive conflict.
Productive conflicts seek a resolution which provides some satisfaction to all involved
parties. They often have a win-win orientation. Generally parties are willing to work
through their differences, until a mutually satisfactory solution is found.
Destructive conflicts often seek the defeat of one another. They tend to have a
win-lose orientation. The authors caution that the use of voting to settle conflicts can
trigger a win-lose mentality, and so may promote destructive conflict.
Both forms of conflict may involve intense competition over strongly held positions.
Such competition becomes destructive when the positions become polarized, and parties
become cemented into their respective positions.
Understanding Conflict as Interaction
The authors argue that conflicts are not entirely under any party's control. Conflicts
should be viewed in terms of behavioral cycles which have features independent of the mere
sum of the individual's actions. Such behavioral patterns tend to form self-reinforcing
cycles - patterns of escalation, for example.
The parties' behaviors are both reactive and predictive. Participants react to the
other's last move, in anticipation of their next. This predictive element involves
interpreting the other's motives, and can make it quite difficult to understand the
thinking of parties in conflict. It can also produce an infinite spiral, as I try to
predict what you will predict that I will predict about your predictions about my
predictions, and so on.
|