Discussion Problem:
Before thinking about into conflict resolution, it is essential to conduct a conflict analysis. In Chapter 2 of "Constructive Conflicts," Kriesberg explores the origins of social conflicts, presenting various theoretical explanations. The chapter introduces several fundamental theoretical ideas.
Please relate any of these ideas for this week's discussion to a specific conflict example. This example can be a personal experience, a historical conflict, a current one, etc. Consider aspects such as inequality, status, power, values, beliefs, etc., all discussed in the chapter.
In its basic form, a theory aims to explain a phenomenon, shedding light on why something occurs the way it does. As you explore a form or specific case of social conflict, think critically about explaining. Your discussion post will serve as your initial conflict analysis. Need Online Tutoring?
Examples:
1. There were a few theories that I felt really draw attention to some of the conflict happening today all over the world but specifically here in the United States.
I would say the United States is pretty divided on just about everything, you can find like minded people, groups and friends who will agree with you but for the most part there is division wherever you go. I would say though with the cultural and religious diversity that is to be expected, not everyone has to agree about everything and conflict is bound to happen.
However, there was an event recently that happened and I won't go into depth about what happened but it started the conversation of what life mean especially when it comes to health care and insurance. During this time there was a large number of Americans who were really connected on this issue. People from different cultural and political backgrounds all seemed to be agreement that insurance companies are evil.
For lack of a better phrase that's the word I used.
Now most of the people who were posting videos on platforms like Twitter, TikTok, Facebook and many others all voiced their own stories of dealing with insurance companies and I can even share my own. My family falls under my dad's insurance and they aren't great. When my mom needed her medication for her type 2 diabetes they would not cover it, this was expensive but life saving medication. She would have died without it but for the longest time they wouldn't cover it, they kept telling her it was her doctors but it was them. My mom now just pays for it out of pocket because she can't be without it.
There were so many stories like this, about multiple insurance companies. People whose family members couldn't get cancer care, people whose insurance wouldn't cover their infants time in the NICU, hundreds of stories of this problem. Now this isn't really a new feeling, but the event that happened had people coming together and talking about why healthcare in the US is so bad and why it needs to change. People from all types of backgrounds were talking about the need for change.
Now this really is just my personal outlook but from what I've seen this is really the most united I had seen people in a while. Even the news stations were reporting about how people were calling for better changes and considering there are some people out there who fall in the political area that is against most universal things, healthcare was not one of them. People want to be able to live, they want their families to live and they don't want to be left with a half a million dollar bill while an insurance owner makes millions.
Now there were a few theories I could cite from Kriesberg for my analysis starting with Relations Between Adversaries on page 36. "The adversaries themselves frequently cite these factors, each side attributing the conflict to the other side's actions. Analysts frequently point to the relations between the adversaries as the crucial source of their conflict."(Kriesberg, 36). I could be reading this wrong too so correct me if my analysis doesn't fit, but this really does relate back to the conflict I wrote about. While there is still division in the US, it became less in a way. I would say people who aren't the one percent and who are stuck with terrible insurance plans(primarily the working class and those 26 and older) were more connected. Kriesberg writes that people divide and define themselves infinitely but in this moment the division became more clear. This was really about class and the power dynamic. It became clear from hearing about the people who have lost family members or people who might not even pay off a hospital bill in their lifetime. "Some divisions are well established, antedating the emergence of a particular conflict. They may have been formed in the course of a long-past fight."(Kriesberg, 36). This is an issue that has been bubbling under the surface for a long time and I would say that a lot more people are really starting to divide themselves based on that class and power imbalance.
I did also want to add in a few points from Kriesberg on Inequalities in Class, Status and Power, I know I touched on a few of my own points but wanted to add it to my analysis. "The idea that inequality universally produces conflict rests on assumptions about human nature."(Kriesberg, 37). Kriesberg does go on to write about things being desirable and that there is a basis for cooperation as well as conflict but that also depends on social conditions. I would say that inequality(in this instance) has created conflict. People want to live, they want to be healthy and they should be able to go to the doctors office and hope that insurance will cover the cost of life saving treatment, whether that be an operation, medicine, or anything else. It is no surprise that conflict has risen over this.
2. The conflict I'm sharing revolves around a difference in parenting philosophies between me and the parent of my child's friend, whom I'll call Jim. My husband and I hosted a Halloween gathering for the neighborhood kids, with invitations specifying the party would run from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., featuring pre-trick-or-treat pizza, fruit, and games. We served food for everyone, even offering beer and wine for the adults though my husband and I don't drink alcohol ourselves. The kids enjoyed games and admired each other's costumes and at 5:30, I announced, "Time to head out for trick-or-treating. Party's over." My husband agreed to take the kids trick-or-treating while I stayed home to clean up and hand out candy. To my surprise, several parents returned to my house a couple of hours later with their kids, assuming the party was still on. Unsure if my husband had invited them back (he hadn't), I didn't turn them away. Tired but accommodating, I sent the kids downstairs for a candy exchange and a kid-appropriate Halloween movie, while I served drinks again to the parents.
During the middle of a conversation the adults were having, Jim suddenly said, "Christina, is this REALLY what you had in mind when you invited us? The kids are just parked in front of the TV, shoveling candy in their mouths." I was shocked by his rudeness, especially as a guest in my home after I had hosted and fed his family. I knew Jim didn't allow his children to watch TV or movies at home-a rule I'd respected when my son visited-but we were at my house, and it was his choice to let his child stay.
Upset but keeping my composure, I walked downstairs and turned off the movie, telling the kids they could exchange candy but not eat any of it. Back upstairs, I told Jim, "To be honest, I wasn't expecting guests at this hour. The invitation said the party ended at 5:30 p.m. It's 8:00 p.m." I then made a small display of cleaning the kitchen counters and yawning. Jim left soon after, clearly unhappy, and we haven't interacted since.
I was pretty upset after Jim left my home, feeling like I was being judged unfairly and having received a rude comment in front of a room full of guests. Not only were the kids having the time of their lives, but we had paid for all of the food, games, beer, wine, and party favors, and I had clearly stated on the invitation that the party was over at 5:30 p.m. I wasn't judging Jim for raising his voice a little too much or knocking back a few too many drinks in front of his kids (something that went against my own parenting philosophy), so why should Jim judge me for letting our kids watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and eating a few pieces of candy?
The incident has me reflecting on how parenting philosophies can clash and how those differences are sometimes framed through biases. Using the lens of in-group and out-group categorizations described in Chapter 2 of Constructive Conflicts (p. 35), it seems Jim may have divided parents into groups based on their shared values. To him, the "in-group" likely consisted of parents who completely prohibit technology use for children, while I fell into the "out-group" because I allow my son to occasionally watch TV or movies. This might have led him to overgeneralize and assume that because I allow technology, I don't prioritize my child's mental health or education. In reality, my children are deeply loved, bright, kind, and creatively stimulated in many ways-qualities I wish all parents would respect and support