Elliot Ziwira @The Book Store
Conflict, according to Devito (1992:243), “refers to disagreements . . . between or among connected individuals, close friends, lovers or family members”. As posited by Simons (1986:23) conflict is “a clash of interests in which one party’s gain is another’s relative loss”. In light of the above it is imperative to note that for a compromise to be reached there should be conflicting parties whose values, customs and aspirations are not necessarily averse. Though each party will strive to gain an upper hand in the outcome, there need not be antagonism or hostility as subscribed to by the pathological theory which scoffs at conflict.

Notwithstanding the fact that conflicting parties may express their inner turmoil and disgust at each other almost to the point of scuffling, they are not enemies per se because they share some common ground. All conflicts are somehow linked to historical backgrounds, ideologies and biological or any other ties.

For instance, conflicts at work are not always a result of mismanagement or insubordination, neither are they born of rivalry. This is also true of conflicts of a political nature.

Because leaders and their subordinates belong to the same family which is their institution, roads considered others’ tuff are bound to be crossed, and it is inevitable that conflict arises. When interests clash, it is only reasonable to negotiate for the betterment of the institution in such a way that either party gains.

In the event that the dissatisfied party protests to press for better conditions, salaries and the like, firing or arresting the troublemakers or malcontents will not help matters as the root cause of the conflict will always be there to ignite future clashes.

To avert destructive tendencies, problems need to be understood and shared so that a way forward can be mapped by engaging both parties in dialogue, for a compromise to be reached as espoused by the behaviourist approach which is also known as the modern/contemporary view of conflict.

According to the contemporary approach to which Devito (1992), Simons (1986) and Hocker and Wilmont (1981) subscribe, conflict which is determined by structural factors or people; often predictable and understandable, is inevitable in today’s world in that it makes people understand themselves better through assessing how their interests affect others’ interests and their perceptions of them. Thus, conflict is only glorious to them inasfar as it makes them better communicators.

Conflict inheres in man as he struggles to understand the situations he finds himself entangled in. He needs to consider solutions out of the quagmire that enmeshes him. Such contradictions in thinking if understood and shared by both parties is fundamental to progress.

It is the rationale that conflict is to human beings what water is to fish which the behaviourists espouse and glorify that shape humanity and make all its endeavours for supremacy worthwhile, for as pointed out by Johnson (1990:206): “A conflict-free relationship is a sign that you really have no relationship at all, not that you have a good relationship.”

Because resources such as land, money and power are fundamental in the phenomenon known as life and are finite, contradictions or disagreements are bound to occur. It is through timely resolution that compromises are reached. In the event, for instance, that a husband squanders the family cake through his shenanigans, scalding his face with boiling cooking oil is ill-advised on the part of the wronged wife. His retaliation as in many cases of conflict is unpredictable and in the end it is the family that becomes the biggest loser; either through death or divorce.

The root of the problem should be exposed for conflicting parties to reach a compromise because, as postulated by the behaviourists and their successors, the interactionists, conflict is healthy and should be encouraged (Mullins, 1990).

At institutional level, a dose of conflict may be that prescription that the doctor ordered for a healthy diet. Criticism and rivalry are not always destructive; instead they are vital ingredients in the process of restructuring or even construction outright.

In most African countries the struggle has always been for the control of the land and all that lies in its womb. Because land is finite, blood had been lost to lead and iron as a result of liberation wars on the continent.

In the case of Zimbabwe, the imbalances in the distribution of land steeped in colonialism led to land occupations in 1998 which led to the setting up of a Land Commission to look into the matter; and legislation to correct the imbalances was enacted.

Although the international community led by the former colonial master, Britain, is still crying foul, their cries are trifled by the profound cries of the Zimbabwean masses who continue to march en masse to the beckoning land of their dreams; thus, reaping the fruits of conflict.

However, it is not always all roses and orchids in conflict analysis and resolution as espoused by behaviourists because conflict in some cases can be destructive. Conflict can be dysfunctional if no dose of caution is applied to monitor it. When conflicting parties use power to outdo each other competitively, it is usually the innocent ones who may have nothing to do with the conflict who suffer.

When demonstrations erupt as was the case in the riots of 1998 and recently in the border town of Beitbridge and other parts of the country, many innocent souls lost their property and limbs even. Protests are known more for their destructive nature than their purpose.

At the interpersonal level, conflict is not always constructive as it may lead to permanent animosity; damaged character, self-esteem and well-being of the losing party. A disparaging word can have far-reaching consequences. At the familial level, if a husband got entangled in extra-marital bliss as a response to conflict in their matrimonial bed much to the chagrin of his wife and detrimental to his marriage, his wife who will be at the losing end will suffer emotionally, psychologically and mentally for a long time.

Unmanaged conflict can lead to hostility and make enemies out of our loved ones, thus making it difficult to fruitfully interact with them.

At the institutional level, conflict can be hostile as parties devote time, thought and materials to battering instead of increasing productivity as pointed out by Jandt (1985). Hence, conflict can be hostile, evil and destructive as outlined by pathological thinkers in their study of the phenomenon.

Conflict leading to war is devious, to say the least, as the damage caused is usually permanent. There are no victors in such conflicts, only victims.

Humanity needs to find solutions out of suffering, not so much through aggravating it but through finding interfaces in the diversity of its ideologies so that compromises are reached; because it is this that mitigates suffering. If the powerful uncompromisingly use their might against the feeble and vulnerable, then conflict will always be there to fight another day through more conflicts because the root of the problem remains etched in power politics.

It is worth noting, however, that although conflict can be antagonistic and destructive if not analysed and managed properly, its dysfunctional nature is overwhelmed by its functional inclinations because a conflict- free relationship is an indication that there is no relationship at all, for to err is human and to forgive divine. As humanity toils in its daily interactions, contradictions are inevitable.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey