|
Home
Doors
Essays2007
Essays2008
Essays2009
Essays2010
Wisdom
Gallery
Links
Bios
Contact
|
..:: The
Development of
Conflict ::..
By
Alan Schneider
Once conflict has reared its
woeful head, a more or less predictable pattern of subsequent
developments emerges, depending somewhat on the specific circumstances
present in given cases. The general patterns of conflict can be
classified by the socio-cultural circumstances present, beginning with
political conflict episodes.
Political conflict
generally proceeds from the original issues of (customarily) greed and
resentment into organized expression very quickly, perhaps even
bypassing the intermediate stage of gossip in the process. These
expressions can involve both lawful and extra-lawful modalities.
Harassment campaigns against rival factions are not necessarily illegal
per se, but can still involve a wide range of illegal actions, such as
property vandalism and personal assault. The ever popular malicious
gossip campaign, boycott of rival businesses, voting district
gerrymandering, and advertising smear efforts are some examples of legal
tactics, if still morally questionable ones. In fact it is questions of
tactics and goals that define the development of
conflict. In this stage of post-origin manifestation, the conflicting
parties are usually posturing for position as they probe each other’s
organizations or personalities for weaknesses to be exploited.
Typically, very little thought has been given at this stage to any of
the possible long term consequences of conflict behavior by any involved
party. The probable focus of involvement is aggressive, defensive, or
manipulative for a given party, and may well morph around from one of
these to another as the conflict becomes socially defined across time.
It may well be that all
conflicts can be classified as political in nature. If politics is
“the art of the possible”, it is certainly also the art of the
conflicted. It is doubtful if any form of political action would
exist if some extent of disagreement between at least two opposing
factions was not present in society. As a modern example, the American
political system has made this a literal consideration with the
historical ascendance of the rival Democratic and Republican parties
displayed as the dominant features of the American political landscape.
The “platforms” of these two fundamentally class-defined entities then
subdivide into secondary manifestations along various cultural lines,
which are quite useful in defining some of the subsequent aspects of
modern conflict. These are the religious, racial,
ethnic, sexual, class, and career arenas, all
of which have features that fall under the general rubrics of
conservative and liberal considerations. Of course, the Democratic
faction is prone to be more relatively liberal, while the Republicans
are traditionally more conservative, again based on levels of social
status and income.
And these sub-categories also
expand beyond domestic boundaries in every case mentioned, becoming
international modalities in the process. The Post-Modern world is
defined by the presence of an Internet-mediated global economy, emergent
global language pattern (predominantly English), and global conflict
patterns represented in all of the sub-categories. As the real
global resource base has become more depleted, the levels of conflict
have become proportionately more aggravated in a given category, and in
all categories, taken collectively. It is in our natures to consume any
resource at the optimal rate possible, without regard to any but the
most immediate consequences – “where and how can I get more?” This
regrettable human characteristic has now brought us to the brink of
global economic catastrophe, and may well carry us over that brink very
soon, as the world conflict scenario deteriorates into armed
confrontation both domestically and internationally, emerging
unpredictably from local to worldwide “hotspots” of expression with
increasing frequency. As long as any one progenitor of conflict at any
level anywhere maintains the belief that their victory is probable or
appropriate, this situation will only continue to deteriorate. Superior
ability breeds superior ambition – the more powerful competitors soon
realize their status in the global order, and almost invariably react
with oppressive gestures to the apparently less advantaged around them,
convinced by the logic of the ego that they are heavily favored to win
in the war of all against all.
It is doubtful that any
participant in any conflict has entered the fray in the open belief that
defeat was inevitable, although there is abundant evidence that
conflict participants often are motivated by the ideology of their cause
to such an extent that they do not feel concerned with the eventual
outcome of, but simply the current political statement to be made by,
hostile action. And might does not always guarantee victory in struggle
– The United States – apparently the most militarily powerful nation in
the world, and in the history of the world – was eventually
defeated in the Vietnam conflict, and is currently similarly embroiled
in the Iraq conflict with no prospect of clear victory on the horizon.
Belief plays a very significant role in the human spirit and human
motivation. Whether one group or another likes or accepts a given belief
system is not nearly as important as acquiring the understanding that a
strong belief in anything is far more formidable than any
collection of weaponry or armaments, particularly once a given
population’s resentment of a perceived invader has been aroused.
This is a lesson that America
badly needs to learn about conflict. Our conviction that we
cannot be defeated in conflict makes us ready to use force to settle any
issue. We must learn that the arbitrary application of force and
violence as problem solving techniques in a conflict before the social
complexities of a situation are clearly understood merely tends to
engender the deep resentment of the target population, steeling their
resolve to stand and fight without regard to the outcome. We ourselves
have responded this way repeatedly in history when being exposed to
unprovoked aggression. Admiral Yamamoto has been famously quoted,
following the successful Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor, as saying ”I
fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with
a terrible resolve.” Yet, when the tables are turned, and we are
clearly placed in the aggressor’s role, we seem to have no
perception of this at all, but charge on blindly in the dogged certainty
that we are in “the right” no matter how much evidence exists to the
contrary, and this “right position” will somehow cause us to emerge
victorious. As was presented in Part I of this series, The
Origin of Conflict, resentment is one of the three most
powerful conflict generators, and should never be underestimated
as a factor in a disagreement! If the preceding arguments are valid,
then why do we persist in what would appear to be a doomed course
of ignorance and aggression?
One of the most influential
conditions at work in sustaining a conflict once it has been provoked is
profitability. Regardless of whether we won or lost the conflict
in Vietnam, or will win or lose in Iraq, certain classes of people in
both Vietnam and Iraq, both foreign and domestic, won and win
handsomely through their involvement. These are the purveyors of
weaponry and supplies to feed the war machines on all sides of the
struggle. This “organization” was frequently referred to as the
Military-Industrial Complex in the Vietnam Era, and included American
weapons manufactures and logistics suppliers at one end of the spectrum,
Vietnamese blackmarketeers and prostitutes at the other, and a graduated
hierarchy of intermediaries in between, from a variety of nations and
with a variety of motivations. There was of course, a comparable
“organization” on the “other side”, composed of similarly
profit-motivated vested interests (Communism or no Communism!), who
stood to reap enormous financial gains no matter who won the military
struggle. This conflict lasted well over twenty years all told
(including the French attempt to pacify Ho Chi Min in what was known as
Indochina at the time), with the Merchants of Death emerging as the
real winners! At this time, the modern Military-Industrial Complex
on both sides of the ideological fence is once again profiting
lavishly from the invasion of Iraq, as hundreds of millions of dollars
in “defense” contracts pour into open national and international
corporate pockets.
Yes, war is very
profitable – usually for those who do not have to do the hands-on
fighting. Presumably, there will always be a demand for the technology
of destruction, and the architects of this technology will also be in
demand. After the fall of The Third Reich in Germany, both the Soviet
Block and the Western Allies were involved in a frantic race to recruit
as many former Nazi weapons experts as possible, particularly in the
areas of rocketry and missile development. Everyone knew that this was
going to be the military growth front of the future, and nobody wanted
to be left behind! The moral questions that might have been raised
regarding the introduction of these individuals into the supposedly
progressive societies on both sides never even came up. So, there
is a world subculture of professional killers in uniform, colluded with
another world subculture of those who furnish them with supplies,
technology, and tangible rewards for their activities – the spoils
of war – a conjoint Culture of Conflict that has lasted
throughout history into prehistory and beyond. Why is this the case?
The attempt to answer this
simple question requires that we look beyond even the basic human
psychological motivations for engaging in conflict, and reexamine two
themes that have often graced these pages – Karma and the Soul.
A generally accepted
spiritual theory of existence, at least in the Eastern traditions, is
that God creates and releases a multitude of Souls as the outcome of
Divine Love. These Souls can be thought of as fragments or “pieces” of
the Divine Consciousness, infinite in variety and expression, and
manifest in every possible way – as pure energy (both Dark and Light
Angels), “imaginary” constructs (Fairies, Nymphs, etc.), as partial
energy and form in combination (i.e. human beings), and as dense
form (rocks, heavy matter, etc.). All of the Souls are on an
evolutionary path back to God. The whole process can be thought of as
God’s Cosmic Dance of Creation.
Karma, apart from whether one
believes in reincarnation or not, is the invisible “shape” of God’s
thoughts that holds a given Soul entity in an envelope of probable
expression. Through Karma, the Logos decides what the possibilities of
expression for a Soul are, and are not. As a Soul evolves within the
Mind of God, Karma is completed and released, changing the shape of
possible expression for that Soul. At a certain point in the process,
the Soul can emerge into human expression – where we are now – and will
eventually move on into other states of being after the “human” stage of
Karmic evolution has been completed. Eventually, the Soul returns to God
and completes the Divine Thought associated with it – in this sense,
even God evolves in manifestation, becoming ever more subtle and sublime
as an expression of Divine Love with the addition of each reabsorbed
Soul expression.
On the human Physical Plane
of manifestation – the sight of conflict in real time – there is an
apparent requirement for the occurrence of suffering as an
adjunct of human Soul evolution. If we accept the Eastern spiritual
theory of things, then the Soul and its evolution are the ultimate cause
of existence, and this process does not continue unless it is driven
forward by suffering. Discomfort is the crucible of all productive
transition. When we become too comfortable, growth – the Physical Plane
indicator of Soul evolution – stops, and does not resume until some
level of external motivation is reestablished. The wise among us have
learned this fact of existence, and lead lives of discipline and
austerity as measures of self-induced discomfort in acknowledgement of
this requirement of the Soul’s growth and development.
It would appear that the
global Culture of Conflict exists to fulfill the Karmic requirement for
an ever-present baseline of suffering. This culture is certainly
populated by the least compassionate, most sadistic, and
customarily most powerful, elements of humanity, elements that we
must all recon with for our ongoing daily existence. Thus, because the
rapacious tend to prosper, we are continuously challenged to evolve in
the Spirit! Somehow, the Soul is refined in the crucible of
suffering. Stagnation is simply not a possibility in the scenario of
life – we must move forward and ultimately upward as the Soul
evolves. Fascism is the secret friend of freedom – the two could not
survive without each other – the Yin and Yang of conflict. A terrible
truth of this life is thus revealed – Om Namo Shivae: “The
Godhead is Manifest in Shiva”, the Destroyer...
The German philosopher G.F.W.
Hegel expressed this concept very well in his famous theory on the
Dialectic of Change. When an idea or condition – a thesis –
is placed into manifestation, it inevitably begins to reflectively
generate its opposite – an antithesis – producing conflict
between the two. As this conflict develops, the interaction – even in
absolute hostility – between the two conflicting elements begins to
establish communication. Even if this communication is no more than an
assumed mutual hatred, that much understanding and agreement has
taken place. As the conflict between thesis and antithesis matures, and
even if one side appears to vanquish the other, the
inevitable communication process that cannot be avoided in human
affairs begins to generate the third stage of the Hegelian Dialectic –
synthesis – the emergence of a new, higher expression of Truth.
The synthesis represents the best elements of the thesis and antithesis
– the least functional elements have been purged by the conflict
process. This is precisely the mechanism of Soul evolution restated in
more strictly philosophical terminology. The dross is burned away
through conflict, and the conflicted elements are combined into a higher
Form of Expression of the Light – a more evolved Soul.
The final question to be
considered here is whether willful human agency can constructively
affect this inevitable mechanism of change through instrumenting the
final stage of the conflict process – resolution. Hegel felt that
the Dialectic was self-sustaining and self-justifying, simply occurring
throughout history as the process of change, and requiring no external
support or rational for its operation. “Winner take all” or not, the
result was still some degree of synthesis and, therefore, progress. Can
we regulate the outcome of conflict through negotiation? Should we?
Resolution approaches and techniques will form the subject of the third
and final article of this series on what is quite possibly the defining
element of human history, consciousness, and Karma – conflict!
- With Love, Alan -
(Copyright 2009, by Alan Schneider)
Return to Top
|