Discussion Problem:
This week's reading (Kriesberg) addressed the social context concerning adopting conflict strategies. Share your interpretation of the aspects highlighted by the author in your own words. Do you find them comprehensive, or can you identify additional social contextual factors? Need Assignment Help?
Manage Discussion by Christina Kreitzer
Reply from Christina Kreitzer
In this week's reading, Kriesberg talks about seven big things in a person's surroundings that shape how they choose to deal with conflict. This was my understanding of what they are:
1. Institutions of the opponents' social system - Every social group has rules
- they could be school, work, family, church rules, etc - and these rules influence how people behave when there's a disagreement. If a family leaves holiday decorations outside for too long past a holiday, their neighbors might give them a hard time. This is part of a social rule structure. Some social structures encourage everyone to talk things out and get them out in the open while other social groups might encourage competition.
2. Norms and ways of thinking: People act based on what's normal depending on where they live. If everyone around them is used to using physical violence to solve a problem, their children might do the same.
3. Roles of other parties: This talks about the part other people play within the conflict. If a student destroys school property, for example, a teacher or school administrator might handle the conflict or even a law enforcement officer. Sometimes other people can make things better, but they can also make it worse if they take sides or pressure you to make a decision that goes against your own moral code.
4. Resource inequalities: There are usually resource inequalities in a conflict - where one person has way more money, influence, or power than the other.
This might empower the one with more resources to boss the other person around. Think of a large manufacturing plant with no union representation. In that case, the company heads have almost all the power in that they can easily fire and replace anyone who complains about the wages, working conditions, or treatment at work.
5. Changing technologies: The way people try to resolve problems changes when new things get invented. When social media became popular, face-to-face arguments lessened and online arguments or "resolutions" were more frequent. Another example might be the invention of the body camera for law enforcement officers. This added a layer of accountability that was missing before the usage of body cams became required in certain places.
6. Integration: This refers to how well people blend in together or interact with each other. If people have to rely on each other for something - like classmates who have to work on a group project or colleagues who have to pitch a client together - they might try harder to get along because there is a common goal. If they're separate and don't need each other for any reason, then they might not care as much about resolving a conflict together.
7. Response to stress: Everyone reacts differently to stressful situations. Some people stay calm and think things through while other people might get aggressive or avoid the problem altogether. We looked at avoidance a couple of weeks ago as another way to possibly address conflict. Stress can manifest in all kinds of ways and it's something to consider when trying putting different people together to resolve conflict.
An aspect that wasn't mentioned in the book which I think should be considered is past experiences or the historical context around a disagreement. There might be cultural differences that should be taken into consideration as well. In some cultures, speaking up and being vocal about a conflict is no big deal, but in others speaking out or being outspoken would be considered disrespectful or out of line. All of these elements should be considered during conflict resolutions. People don't just walk into conflicts with a blank slate. They bring all their past baggage with them, whether it's personal experiences, cultural upbringing, or patterns of dealing with conflict that have been passed down by the generations before them.
Manage Discussion by Rhiannon Miller
Reply from Rhiannon Miller
In this week's reading by Kriesberg, the author explores how social context plays a key role in determining the strategies people use in conflicts. He discusses how our personal interests, aspirations, and goals influence the way we approach disagreements, and how these factors can either escalate or de-escalate conflicts.
One main point that stood out to me was the idea that conflicts often arise from unmet needs or unfulfilled desires. For example, when someone feels that their basic needs, like security or recognition, aren't being met, they may feel deprived in comparison to others. This feeling of deprivation can lead to frustration, making people more determined to fight for what they think they deserve. The reading also highlighted how power imbalances in conflicts can make the situation even more intense. When one party holds more power, they may try to control the situation in their favor, which can make the conflict more destructive.
I can relate to this idea from my own life. For example, in my work environment, there have been situations where I felt my needs for recognition and growth weren't being met, especially when I saw others moving ahead. That feeling of being "left behind" led to frustration and, at times, conflict with coworkers or even managers. It wasn't about the job itself, but more about feeling like my aspirations for progress were not being acknowledged, and it created tension. This is where the idea of relative deprivation really resonates with me-the feeling that others have something I should have, too.
The author also talks about the role of culture and relationships in shaping conflict dynamics. In many situations, conflicts don't just involve opposing interests; they are also shaped by social identities, such as gender, race, or class. In my case, I've seen how different cultures and backgrounds can affect how conflict is handled. Some people might prefer to address issues directly, while others might avoid confrontation.
Understanding these cultural differences can really help in resolving conflicts more peacefully, which I try to keep in mind when interacting with others.
I think Kriesberg's analysis is comprehensive, but I would add that emotional intelligence and communication skills are also crucial in managing conflicts. Sometimes, it does not just about understand the source of the conflict but also how we communicate our needs and how open we are to hearing the needs of others. In my personal experience, conflicts often resolve more smoothly when both parties are willing to listen and adjust their expectations.