Conflict is Never Good - Case Study Example

 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Discussion III. Conclusion References I. Introduction There is the assertion that all conflict is bad, and that nothing good ever comes out of conflict, regardless of the way the conflict is handled. On the one hand, there is truth to this. Conflict in the form of wars that destroy human lives and property in very large scales is something that is very hard to justify and to endorse. In wars, an extreme form of conflict, everybody loses. Conflicts among religious groups, nations, communities, individuals and families sow so much pain and suffering, and are so pervasive in both their occurrences and consequences. On the other hand, the reality is that conflict is an inescapable part of the human condition. Taking a step back, even nature shows that conflict is a part of the fabric of things. Animals fight among themselves for the right to mate, and for survival. In the larger scheme of things these conflicts in the animal world help to preserve a kind of balance in the ecology, where for instance the constant conflicts among different species of animals in the forest allow for a stasis to be achieved, where no one particular species is allowed to dominate, to the detriment of the overall balance of the environment. In the human world too, we see that conflict, when managed well, allows for the best in people to come out. In sports competitions for instance, and in contests involving the intellect, conflict allows for people to excel at particular skills, and hones and drives people to become the best at what they do. This paper further discusses these general observations to challenge the notion that no conflict is good, and that nothing good ever comes out of conflict regardless of the manner of its handling (Promislow, 2003; Toft, 2014; Hamblin, 2011; Clutton-Brock and Parker, 1995; Rummel, 1977; de Waal, 2000). II. Discussion In nature one can see that conflict has a place, even among animal societies that are supposedly less sophisticated than human societies in terms of the ordering of their communities and the dynamics of negotiating and resolving conflicts. The reality in many animal societies and groupings that require the constant cooperation of the members for the survival of the group, on the other hand, is that conflict is mitigated by cooperation and survival needs, and is even leveraged as a means to order those societies and to further the group aims. This is true among primates, according to one article, where there are natural forces at work within primate societies that mitigate the harmful effects of conflict and provide ways by which conflicts can be tamed via resolution methods that have been tried and tested to work. Those resolution methods include mechanisms for reconciliation, and instinctive actions that amount to kissing and making up among competing primates (de Waal, 2000). Elsewhere too, in the animal kingdom, structured conflicts are leveraged to keep animal groups in order, such as to mete punishments on erring group members, to preserve group hierarchies of power, to compel members to contribute and to not just live off the efforts of others, to effect discipline among younger members and sexual partners, and to compel members to cooperate within a structure that preserves and advances the interests of all of the members. The take from this latter source is that in the animal kingdom, and not just among human societies, conflict is part of a dynamic that helps shape and preserve animal groups and helps to advance the communal interests of different animal species. This means self-preservation and the securing of the interests of the individual animals in the groups (Clutton-Brock and Parker, 1995). Still elsewhere we see that conflict has an inherent place in the survival of the species and the dynamics of mate selection and sex, with sexual conflict being imputed into such elements of species dynamics as longevity differences among genders, and conflict as shaping the dynamics of sexual relations across genders and aging in male and female members of the species (Promislow, 2003). In the way animal and human societies establish dominance and the hierarchical pecking order of power too, conflict has a vital role, surfacing those who are successful at conflict and most adept at navigating the conflict dynamics to emerge on top of the social order. Conflict in this case is a mechanism to push the most capable and dominant to the top, to lead the group and in so doing guarantee that the most capable are at the helm, to maximize the prospects of the whole group. Stated another way, conflict has the positive role of making sure that an entire group remains fit, and that the social structure is ever tested from within by constant inter-member conflicts that reward the strongest and most capable, while weeding out those who are weaker and less competent so that the whole group may gain from having very capable members holding the reins of power at the very top. Conflict in this sense is not something that is bad, but has a very vital purpose and role for securing the future of the entire group and making sure that leadership is vital and capable. Viewed another way, conflict can help dissect and put into an illuminating perspective the dynamics of the rise to power of conflict-savvy individuals such as the late Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, who is attributed with having the savvy to use conflict and aggression to gain an iron grip on the country. That the rest of the population of North Korea did not seem to have benefited much from the use of conflict to order its society is secondary in this perspective to the larger reality of the way conflict has in fact catapulted the most dominant member to the apex of its leadership. The point in this latter line of thought is not that conflict that breeds despots is desirable, but that from a general perspective conflict is a mechanism that orders society and gives it structure, for good or ill. This latter example of the North Korean leader arguably displays conflict dynamics at its worst, with dire consequences for the entire country, but earlier example also show that conflict has beneficial impacts on human and animal groups too, as something that is intrinsic to the way groups are organized and propelled forward by powerful and conflict-savvy leaders (Hamblin, 2011). Meanwhile, literature also exists that discusses conflict in terms of the way conflict for territories among nations and groups, for instance, have certain common elements. Conflict in this latter sense is seen as something intrinsic to the process by which groups and nations secure geographic territories, and helps determine the shape and extent of territorial boundaries in disputes. Conflict in this sense has likewise an ordering function, in that conflict helps shape how different parties in territorial conflict are able to secure and to negotiate for the territories that they are fighting for (Toft, 2014). Taking a step back again, one can see that conflict is something that is innate in nature, as has been observed over and over again in different contexts. Among animals, for instance, both of the same species and among different species, conflict is used to secure and to establish territories and boundaries of territories. Here conflict seems bad, where conflicts among members of a species result in injuries or even death, but in the larger scheme of things the literature suggests that conflict is effective at ordering animal groups and establishing the bounds and limits of the territories of individual members. Ultimately the result is that individual members are able to secure the territories they need in order to go on with their lives. The literature suggests too that this conflicts over territories extends from the world of animals to human beings and human societies as well. The idea is that by understanding the dynamics of conflicts over territories among animals, one can better understand the dynamics of conflicts for territories among humans too. Here conflict on the surface is bad and to be condemned, but underneath the surface is revealed to be an important dynamic that needs to play itself out for a larger and more stable order to emerge. The implication of course is that many conflicts over territories in the world at present, say among the members of the ASEAN, Japan and China over the Spratly Islands, and the territorial disputes and conflicts in the Middle East, say between Israel and Palestine, can be better understood by accepting conflict as a natural reality in the world, and better understanding how conflict effects the establishment of stable world orders. The key lies it seems in accepting conflict as inevitable, rather than viewing it as something bad and to be avoided at all costs. The preceding discussion establishes that conflict on the other hand is something that has a vital role in all kinds of societies, and is therefore to be accepted and understood rather than resisted (Toft, 2014; Barta, 2012; Sabapathy, 2013; Cook, 2011). In the cases of the conflict in the ASEAN and the Middle East, what is emerging is that where conflict has no structure or mitigating factor to limit the damage and to compel the parties to “behave”, what can happen is that destruction can be pervasive and large in scale, both in terms of destruction to property and destruction in terms of lost lives. This latter reality for instance characterizes the conflict in the Middle East, with the wounds so deep and the destruction so large and pervasive on both sides that peace prospects have been deemed as dim by many experts. On the other hand, there is hope for better outcomes in the disputes for territories over the Spratly Islands in South China Sea. This is owing to the hope that the countries will want to resolve the disputes peacefully in order to avoid damage to lives and property on a massive scale, involving many countries around the region, including Japan and of course China. In this latter case the hope is that the handling of the conflict will be much better, while no bombs have been fired yet and no lives have been lost from a potential war among the claiming parties. It is also clear here that there may be positive outcomes from the disputes over the territories, in terms of being able to define with clarity the territorial boundaries among the countries involved, so that from a larger perspective the conflict may not be all bad. Again this depends on how the conflict is handled to avoid war and to maximize the gains to be had from the conflict situation (Toft, 2014; Barta, 2012; Sabapathy, 2013; Cook, 2011). III. Conclusion One idea emerging out of all of these is that not all conflict is bad, and that where conflict seems bad on one level, on another and more expansive level conflict is inevitable and is persistent in many animal and human society dynamics. Another idea emerging out of all this is that some mitigating factor, such as the need for cooperation, seems to tame the more destructive aspects of conflicts, with positive consequences for all members and for all groups and societies. Structure, and the handling of conflicts, influence the way conflicts play out and are resolved, diminishing the negative impacts while amplifying the positive outcomes that can emerge out of conflict situations. In the real world this insight has many practical implications. For instance, recognizing that conflicts over territories are persistent in nature, one can better understand modern conflicts for territories as nature playing itself out among the competing nations in the South China Sea disputes over territories, for instance. The same observation holds true for conflicts for territories in the Middle East, involving Israel and Palestine, and other nations in the Middle East. The idea too is that to avoid the most destructive aspects of those conflicts, some order and structure is needed in order to make sure that conflicts result in positive outcomes. Here the aspect of the way conflict is handled emerges as a key determinant in shaping the outcomes of conflicts. This is to say that the assertion that all conflict is bad is wrong (Toft, 2014; Barta, 2012; Sabapathy, 2013; Cook, 2011). References Barta, P. (2012). Sea Dispute Upends Asian Summit. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303919504577524133983292716 Clutton-Brock, T. and Parker, G. (1995). Punishment in animal societies. Nature 373 (19). Retrieved from http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/anth169/punishment_in_animal_societies.pdf Cook, S. (2011). Dim Prospects for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/israel/dim-prospects-israeli-palestinian-peace/p25081 de Waal, F. (2000). Primates- A Natural Heritage of Conflict Resolution. Science 289. Retrieved from http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/publications/articles/deWaal_2000b.pdf Hamblin, S. (2011). What Can the Animal Kingdom Tell Us About North Korea? Scientific American. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/19/what-can-the-animal-kingdom-tell-us-about-north-korea/ Promislow, D. (2003). Mate choice, sexual conflict, and evolution of senescence. Behavioral Genetics 33 (2). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14574152 Rummel, R. (1977). Aggression and the Conflict Helix. Understanding Conflict and War Vol. 3, University of Hawaii System. Retrieved from https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CIP.CHAP2.HTM Sabapathy, K. (2013). ASEAN united over South China Sea. Australia Network News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-15/an-asean-sth-china-sea/4890742 Toft, M. (2014). Grounds for Hope: The Science Behind Territorial Conflict. University of Oxford Blavatnik School of Government. Retrieved from https://blogs.bsg.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/26/grounds-for-hope-the-science-behind-territorial-conflict/ Read More