![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
|
Individuals or countries may seek to avoid conflicts by avoiding them. Neutral countries do this by avoiding alliances, by not belonging to power blocs, by being internally stable, and developing trade links with every other country irrespective of creed or political system. Switzerland is the conspicuous example of this policy in Europe. Switzerland has made its neutrality its most valuable asset. People all over the world proverbially deposit money in Swiss banks because it is safe, multinationals have their headquarters there because they are safe from political upheaval, and international organizations like to be there because they, too, want to be neutral. Switzerland was helped to be a neutral country by its inaccessible geography. It's just not a country that other countries want to march through or occupy. Individuals may similarly choose to be conflict avoiders, but find that their is little intrinsic value in being neutral as an individual. Avoidance of conflict may make for superficially easy relationships but it is likely to become increasingly frustrating for others in longer-term relationships. Some personal conflicts are certainly worth avoiding, but in the end some personal conflicts do need to be acknowledged, if only to expose deeper layers of relationship. People who avoid conflict may experience sudden apparently inexplicable rages, or may comfort themselves in addictive activities like eating disorders, gambling, or substance misuse. Avoidance is a better social or organizational strategy. Sub-groups can co-exist without overt hostility even if they have conflicting views, beliefs, or values if there is a stable boundary around them that restricts interaction to safe, non-conflictual topics. I have always interpreted the expression, "An Englishman's home is his castle" in this way. Not so much that every Englishman has secret ambitions to be a lord of the manor, but that English culture makes it possible to be in considerable personal or family conflict within the home and yet so control communications with the neighbours that no hint of this leaks out. Sub-group formation can increase an organization's creativity, and is one way that differing points of view can be preserved until the right time is reached when they can be assimilated into a more generic value system. But sub-groups slow the response time of the organization as a whole and may become the focus for conflict rather than a means of resolving it. Sub-groups fail when the members of one sub-group stereotype and denigrate the members of another. This is particularly likely to occur when the sub-groups are based on ethnic or religious lines. Sub-groups reinforce the identity of their members but also create a sense of being excluded by other sub-groups. Differences between social groups can be managed by sub-grouping, but only if this resentment does not become a source of conflict itself. Reinforcing the boundaries between sub-groups, by creating ghettoes or by legislating to protect the interests of one or other sub-group, may avoid everyday conflict but may, in the long-run, increase resentment and make conflict more likely.
|
|
||||
This project
is funded by the Leonardo da Vinci programme, project number UK/01/B/F/PP/129_387,
2000-2003 |