ignorance & indolence and (enlightened) conflict

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active. The conditions upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”

John Philpot Curran

Well.

It seems to me that in today’s politically correct world we are subjugating conflict to a ‘non’ status.

What I mean by that is it seems like we are developing a system that not only suggests that the word conflict, itself, isn’t good <or positive> but also developing a generation of conflict resistant, or avoidant, people.

I will get back to that <because there are some potential future dangers to that belief system>.

Conflict is a divisive word.

Just saying it creates some fairly vivid images in people’s minds … mostly negative.

But, interestingly, studies unequivocally reflect that conflict rarely remains a divisive intergroup factor.

In fact … instead of driving a group apart … conflict tends to bring members together as they seek to repair relationships.

Despite its bad reputation and some negative connotations … conflict is good … it is healthy … and it is like glue for people.

Those same studies suggest two types of conflict resolution: benign and relationship.

<I lost my source on this but when you read it you will understand it innately>

The first. Benign:

–          Benign is simply acquiescing in order to reach short term objectives.  The relationship is less important than the objective. You suck it up to get what you want <that’s the nonacademic translation for that>.

Is that bad?

It is what it is.

And sometimes in the end, when the results have been attained, the conflict has been resolved through the end resolution.

The danger? It leaves the relationship within the process unresolved lying dormant to rise another day.

If results matter.

And the results are good.

This type of conflict resolution is relatively harmless with often minimal repercussions.

The second.  Relationship reconciliation:

–          Reconciliation. Reconciliation as in apologies?

Well. Yeah.

The dynamics of relationships are far too complex for me to outline in my limited vocabulary <or knowledge>. Suffice it to say in relationship reconciliation an apology can become the fulcrum for the future of the relationship. Once again … in my words … relationship reconciliation tends to come down to ‘punt’ or maintain. No apology means you have punted. Apology means you have decided to maintain.

Ok. That was conflict resolution 101.

This all may sound simplistic <although grounded in research studies> but this is what enlightened conflict is all about.

Or “where ignorance is the enemy.”

Enlightened Conflict is the term I often use <and named the site with it>. It has multiple angles of relevance to me, what I believe, and how I believe the most productive interactions between people occur.

At its core it’s a pretty basic idea.

The more someone understands <or is less ignorant> the more depth the overall discussion has and more respectful the “conflict” will be.

Oh.

And conflict can be debate, discussion, passionate argument … or simply when two people have different points of view on things.

Me?

I love a great debate and I typically feast on partially ignorant point of views. But that’s just me … a contrarian at heart.  All people don’t need to be that way.

They simply need to be open to conflict not as a bad thing.

Anyway.

I used to believe the true benefit of enlightened conflict resided in the sharing of information so that people just…well…know more so they can make better informed choices. Oh. And not just choices but ask questions.

The objective? Ask and listen before fighting.

Attempt to understand before deciding on the level of conflict.

But I may have been wrong.

While the initial spark of conflict … the debate … the exchange of idea … the shared knowledge … is important … REALLY important.  Maybe enlightened conflict is truly about resolution.

Or ‘the reconciliation’ of the conflict moment.

And maybe that is where I have always gone wrong up to this point in discussing enlightened conflict. I have focused on the conflict and the belief <and researchwise factually> that conflict is good and healthy and productive and the spark.

Well.

Wrong may be a little harsh.

It is simply indicative of what matters to me .. I have always believed the journey <the process> was always more important than the destination <results>.

I have always believed we get too focused on some specific result … and therein that focus drives the process. Within that thought is there is potential, a lot of potential, to miss out on a better process that may generate a different, but better, result.

Regardless.

‘Why can’t we all get along’ is the wrong question and the wrong objective. we are all different. Made to be different and encouraged to be different. Different as individuals, communities, cities, countries and cultures.

Inevitably that means friction. Conflict. It comes down to balance. A balance between all these different people and thoughts.

In the end it is most likely the resolution that matters.  How conflict is reconciled.

For reconciliation either resides in benign acquiescence or a true relationship reconciliation.

And it doesn’t matter which because the conflict has a resolution from which further expansion of knowledge can occur <call it additional enlightenment for the benefit of my site> and future enlightened conflict moments.

And, once again, that may sound simplistic but think about it on a broader scale. Like maybe the ultimate conflict … liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers.

Just think about the conservative ‘mind’.

In his 1956 essay “On Being Conservative”, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote that the man of conservative temperament is “not in love with what is dangerous and difficult; he is unadventurous; he has no impulse to sail uncharted seas. What others plausibly identify as timidity, he recognises in himself as rational prudence. He eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of his world.”

This description of conservative instinct may not be 100% correct but directionally I think it explains the reluctance among many sane people <conservatives> to come to grips with many of the larger social issues.

The radical actions we must take to avert escalating issues and adapt our societies and economic systems to cope with issues are dangerous and difficult.

The liberal mind is naturally disruptive. Sometimes imprudent and with a willingness to embrace the seemingly irrational <under the guise of ‘it is the right thing to do therefore it will bear itself out over time>.

Therein lies conflict.

Where real truth resides somewhere in between the truly conservative and the truly liberal.

That was just an example. Pick two communities, cities, countries or cultures … or even better … two individuals. There will never be alignment on everything. Truth needs to be discovered in resolution.  Therefore truth is enlightenment.

Regardless.

I believe a future with enlightened conflict is important.

Maybe almost imperative.

Smarter discussions.

Respectful competition.

Better decisions globally with regard to the planet and the people who live on it.

There will still <and always will be> conflict … but conflict muted by learning rather than expanded by ignorance.

Oddly … or paradoxically … a closed mind expands ignorance.

And a closed mind is the death of betterment.

In fact.

In my terms … a closed mind created Un-enlightened Conflict … the worst kind … and, in my new way of thinking, un-enlightened conflict has almost NO possibility of relationship reconciliation.

First time I ever wrote that.

And maybe one of the most enlightened things I have ever written.

But I am optimistic with regard to enlightenment.

“The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which it may be optimistic about the future of mankind, but in itself it signifies not a little.” — Sigmund Freud

In the end.

Maybe I believe we should all be a little insubordinate. Break the rules. Take some risk. Be curious as to what is outside the fences we always seem to have around us.

At the same time embrace an environment which not only facilitates ‘enlightened conflict’ and discussion … but also facilitates relationship reconciliation (overtures or reality).

Be insubordinate.

“Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form.”

Vladimir Nabakov

Anyway.

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that anyone can change the world – even if it is only the small part of the big world that you can control.

But maybe the point of this rambling post isn’t that anyone can change the world just by thinking & speaking the truth … they need to be able to close the deal.

They have to have the resolve to stick around and encourage reconciliation … not benign reconciliation but real relationship reconciliation.

And maybe that’s what being an enlightened person, the best kind of enlightened person, is.

One who seeks vitality against decay … one who struggles against indolence with relentless energy … one who understands the journey to reconciliation is one that never ends.

The enlightened need to be eternally vigilant. For ignorance preys on the indolent.

“Life is a struggle between vitality and decay, energy and indolence” – Winston Churchill