Class Notes (837,435)
Canada (510,273)
PACS 202 (100)
Lecture

Conflict Spectrum Lecture 2

5 Pages
146 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Peace and Conflict Studies
Course
PACS 202
Professor
Betty Pries
Semester
Summer

Description
Lecture 2: Conflict Spectrum Dinner for Two  Peer pressure  Can’t seem to see other options that are available  It was all about themselves; no one wanted to back down  Sometimes people don’t see the damage of the conflict until one gets hurt Self Justification and Conflict  Lens through which we look @ the world or ourselves ie never totally clear  Tend to self justify our own questionable behaviour – so much that we come to genuinely believe the story we tell ourselves about what happened o E.g. car buyers and car ads o E.g. 1847, doctors and babies  a lot of women were dying of child birth o E.g. US, Bush and Iraq o E.g. Mel Gibson and drunken rant Cognitive Dissonance  We can’t hold 2 opposite truths in our heads @ the same time o Tend to self justify our actions to nullify or minimize one of those truths o Causes us to attribute the cause of our behaviour onto others, freeing us from responsibility for this behaviour  Attribution Theory  Internal vs. External motivations o Assumption: behaviour of other relates to internal motivations (personality, way of being)  Can’t be changed; conflict can’t be resolved well o Correlating Assumption: behaviour relates to external motivations (circumstance we found ourselves in)  Externals are circumstantial, therefore they’re not correlate with who we are at the core o We can judge the other for their behaviour/ essence but we can self justify ourselves for our behaviour  Blameworthiness o Assumption: failure to resolve issue is the other party’s fault  Globality (Cause of problem) o Assumption: if relationship is positive, cause is something specific; if negative, cause is “wide” (related to larger/ multiple issues)  Intent o Assumption: other party consciously decided/ planned negative outcome  Locus o Assumption: problem lies with the other person  Selfishness o Assumption: motives of the other are self serving  Stability (frequency of problem) o Assumption: If relationship positive, a one time occurrence; if negative, it will occur many times Attribution Theory and Inter-group Conflict  Refuse to allow for differences within a group  Generalizing experiences from one to many  It’s really about the individual, not as a group Conflict Escalation Stage 1 – Problem Solving  Conflict at this stage can be intense, but it is constructive – people’s eyes remain on the problem  People only focus on the problem; that is disagreement o Sometimes it’s healthy, but the moment your eyes shifts from the problem to other people, it becomes stage 2 Stage 2 – Personal Antagonism  People at this stage shift their focus – person not the issue is seen as the problem Lecture 2: Conflict Spectrum  “she is a…” ; “he always…” o we start to blame the other person; putting emotional emphasis on the other person Stage 3 – Proliferation of Issues  People at this stage start “piling on” o Identifying all different ways that the other person is a problem  Trust and objectivity become threatened Stage 4 – Triangulating  People talk about, not with each other o I talk to a couple friends, you talk to other friends = no direct communication o Families believe this is conflict normal  Camps being; risk of adversarial behaviour  Alliance becomes more important than issue  Attribution theory behaviour really kicks in  Aka gossip Stage 5 – Escalating Reactions -> usually where people start calling for help  Parties narrower / more rigid in perspective  Governing rules of behaviour rejected  If you do x to me, I’ll do x and y to you  Conflict is increasingly destructive. Crisis. Stage 6 – Antagonism and Hostility  “I don’t care what others think” – antagonism and hostility is open for all to see  risk of violence  I can do anything negative because I am so convinced that I am right with my perspective, nothing matters anymore Stage 7 – Polarization  two camps  original cause of conflict long ago forgotten  conflict is extremely destructive, yet communication between camps can be limited  relationships / workplaces/ groups at this level almost never recover  on the global stage, this may lead to war and /or peacekeeping forces. Versions of peacekeeping forces exist also domestically What options does an individual have who wishes to be at a level 1 when everyone else wants to stay at a level 7? - trying to spread the idea of going back to level 1 through level 4  transforming the camp to think more positively for the situation - at level 7, it’s hard for mediation to be effective o Have people within who are trying to transform the group o Adjudication or the courts o if it’s an organization, talk to the leaders only - remove yourself from the situation o if you can be strong and solid with your conflict resolution, you’d have a better chance of making the better decision o in a position of leadership, you’d be able to have a sort of influence - If everyone is at the 4 while you’re at 1 o Bully in the system o How do you develop an immune system around the bullies while having a healthy environment Characteristics of Constructive Conflict – Staying at level 1  focus on the problem (not each other)  see disagreements as opportunities to learn, develop clarity, enhance creativity  focus on current, factual information related to the problem rater than conjecture  engage one another with humour, respect and in ways that enhance others’ self esteem o tending the personality and spirits of the person  name fundamental interests/ needs  manage your emotions; if can’t, get help for the conversation  balance power o play fair- establish a sense of equity in conversation. Cooperate rather than compete  Brainstorm broadly to discover solutions  Frame decisions as collaborations aimed at achieving the best possible solution for both sides o Don’t force a resolution  Level 1 can be very intense o But you can still be firm, clear Lecture 2: Conflict Spectrum  If everyone else in the conflict is at a higher level, is there a time when intentionally moving to a level 2 or higher is justified, if level 1 still allows you to speak with intensity? o Appealing to their emotional self to bring them back to a healthier place o If the whole group is @ level 4, there is some logic from going to level 5  One person takes it to level 5 and then leads t
More Less

Related notes for PACS 202

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit