“For the last time, I am ordering you to depart the grounds of Griffiss Air Force Base or you will be subject to arrest.” On a crisp spring morning in 1984, I came to realize – in a hands-on, hand-cuffed kind of way – that I was not just a participant in conflict; I was also its student. The tension in the air that day was as taut and clear as the bright blue line demarcating the base. I had just crossed that line, along with my nonviolent comrades, and I realized I had things to learn.
Sometimes life’s conflicts are as palpable as two rows of people standing face-to-face – Air Force MPs versus peace activists, for example. More often, though, our conflicts stay beneath the surface. But no matter how any conflict is expressed, from microaggression to nuclear war, the dynamics of various conflicts differ only by degree.
I believe we can best come to know ourselves as humans by understanding our relationship with conflict. And we can only learn about conflict by engaging in it. A sailing boat’s integrity is tested on the open sea, not in safe harbor. Only gale winds and high waves can show what a boat can do.
And we surely face gale winds and high waves today. Almost every issue, from interpersonal to international, seems on the brink of turning into a divisive flash point. On any side of any issue, any side of any conflict, we tend to personalize our positions and become trapped in a pernicious species of righteousness: self-justification. In this dynamic, the precipitating issue that drove the original conflict becomes secondary to the issue of saving face. And this dynamic can play out on all sides of a conflict.
It is hard to stay reasonable when confronting differences and disagreements. Sometimes we stuff our personal opinions, our political positions, our emotions, deep beneath the surface; we simmer – which is to say, we avoid conflict. At the other extreme, sometimes we let our rage flags fly. One step toward finding a middle ground between those two extremes is to ask ourselves how deeply we identify with the beliefs that lie at the heart of a disagreement.
Other queries I have found helpful in “getting unstuck” during conflicts are these: What is my stake in this? What is my motivation? Who am I in this moment? Who or what is my opposition? How would a neutral third party view the situation? Can I even allow myself to be curious about the other’s position?
In High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out (2021), Amanda Ripley offers pristine insights on “making conflict interesting again.” Toward that end, she challenges us to ask ourselves questions like these: “What do you want to understand about the other side? What do you want the other side to understand about you? What would it feel like if you woke up and this problem was solved?” I believe queries like these can help “way to open” during any conflict.
That crisp spring morning at the thin blue line on Griffiss Air Force Base still lingers in my memory decades later. The air was filled with tension. Sides were drawn. Starkly conflicting world views faced off against each other. The moment offered clear alternatives. In such a moment, hearts and minds can and do break open. Or they can break down. The choice is ours. Good conflict has a singularly powerful way of sparking positive change. But reckless kinds of conflict, self-righteous polarization, Ripley’s “high conflict,” can be powerfully destructive.
Friends’ quest for unity is a life-long journey and, like it or not, conflict will remain our constant companion until the end. But if we are faithful and deliberate, we can turn conflict into a means of serving life, of sparking positive change. Like the sparks that fly when steel strikes flint, Light and warmth can be created from sparks of conflict. ~~~
john heid is a sojourning member of Pima Monthly Meeting (IMYM).