Journal 7: Escalation

The conflicts that I am part of are often group conflicts. Contributing factors then can include both psychological and group changes. Image threats are the most common, when members of our friend group are feeling less appreciated, or if a friend feels less smart, funny, etc, in comparison to the other friends in the group. Escalation is also encouraged by personality and background differences between friends, for example one from a city with highly educated family members and one from a farm whose parents have blue collar jobs. These friends come to relationships (and conflicts) with very different points of view that are often difficult to resolve, and encourage conflict spirals. I am generally not a contributor to escalation, I am usually the one mediating the conflict between friends or acting as a neutral party. I do not like conflict, but my friends often engage in debates for fun that can end up as personal attacks. They enjoy the debates but it is always difficult for me to tell when they are academic dialogues and when they are possibly detrimental to friendships. Conflict is not fun for me, but I often have to deal with it as something recreational for my friends.

Journal 6: Models

My conflicts are often often unvoiced, either an inner conflict or a conflict with another that I chose not to confront. This can make the escalation of the conflict strange, because while I am aware of a conflict the other party is often not. Confrontation is unexpected and negotiation is difficult because the second party is unprepared and perhaps unaware that the conflict is even an issue. I believe that interpersonal conflict generally fits the Kriesberg model best, especially the idea that the outcome of one conflict often is the cause of future conflict. If conflicts are not solved in a desirable manner than repercussions of that outcome will later effect relationships, especially in the case of friendships. Relationships build on the past, and if anything is settled unfavorably or not confronted quickly then those problems will often be the root of larger problems in the future. One tiny conflict that seems like it wouldn’t bother anyone can be the base conflict that every other future conflict is based off of. The final problem will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but the conflict has in fact been ongoing and rooted in the past. This is probably the biggest trend in my conflicts, the idea that the outcomes of past conflicts have influenced and perhaps even caused other problems.

Models

With my family I feel like Krisbergs model is especially accurate in my conflict with my family. First I become aware of my parents ideas, which is a big step into the conflict because sometimes I feel like what they are aware of, I am not, and also if I were aware, why should I care? For example closing the door loudly. My mom simply asked me to be quieter when I closed the door. I was not aware, but she was. This then lead into me getting slightly aggravated. Not necessarily at her, but at other items in my life. This escalated my feelings because I had pent up aggression inside of me and took it out on my mother. Suddenly it didn’t become about closing a door, but turned into her faults and why she was obnoxious etc. Eventually the argument settles and de-escalation occurs either because I realize I’m being unreasonable or she brings it to me attention. Then termination occurs, and lastly outcome. Sometimes the outcome leads into more arguments because I feel unsatisfied with the resolution. Maybe at the end of an argument of food options to pack for lunch, eventually a compromise will be made (between their healthy ideas and my not so healthy ones) and this will lead to another argument after I decide I either need more junk, or more variety.

Compelling and New Theories

Social Identity theory is particularly intriguing to me. It seems that the theory can create external as well as internal conflict. It is interesting to me that a person will go to the end of the earth just to find a connection or a bond with someone else. Obviously some bonds are much more powerful and intense such as mother and child or spouses. People have many bonds with those around them, but why is bond so strong to someone’s “significant other”? I’d guess it would be the time and energy investing into the other person. Dependence and stability to have someone be there always. At the same time however, I feel friends of mine are there no matter what, but there is still a void from not having a significant other. Why is this? I feel conflict is a combination of social identity theory and basic human needs. I think everyone has the physical needs of food and water, but also the need to have connection, love, and to be challenged and to have growth. Connection of those around them. This is why isolation can be so hard on some people. The wilderness can drive a person mad. Love to have with the significant other, because the connection seems to be so very different to those who are only friends. And lastly, to be challenged and to grow. I think to feel a part of a larger global picture everyone needs to have their own rational idea of how they fit into the equation of life and the world. Whether your rational is to be a psychologist, or whether it is to be a physicist, in both cases a person has their own rational of how they fit into this world.

Conflict Around Me

The biggest conflict that I acknowledge in my life is mainly political. It isn’t that I don’t believe Obama does not mean well or have a good heart, because I believe he does and he is doing what he thinks is right for the country. However, I disagree with his policies on many levels. They do not meet the needs of many people. For example. I believe strongly in capitalism and I feel bailout money, which comes from young adults and working Americans, is not only a waste, but destroying ethical business within the U.S. Notice that companies that are not going bankrupt are highly moral, ethical, and benefit the community. One may ask, “what about the potential loss of jobs without this bail out money?” The answer to that is in the short terms, yes many jobs may be lost, but the people who lose these jobs, in theory, will create new business which should take into account the reason they lost their job in the first place and fix the faults of the old employer. Small business is what America is built on and bailing out unethical corporations is not my idea of beneficial. This aggravates me especially since the only say I have is my vote. Is it just to skip out on taxes if I don’t agree with the re-allocation of tax payers money? Where does the line of civil disobedience need to be drawn? It seems here the needs of our capitalist economy are not being met. Business and economy go in cycles and with it job loss, and creation. Analyzing this, one can find out more about the economics of a country and why a certain type of government works or does not work. In theory, socialism, capitalism, and distributism all work in theory, but a government needs to foster the needs of the particular system they want to use.