What if the other person won't engage?
The last edition of my newsletter garnered thoughtful and passionate responses from readers. Thank you for sharing with me. It seems this aspect of the human experience that we broadly term ‘conflict’ resonates with many as a scary, fascinating, important phenomenon.
I want to springboard this edition from one particular reader response, an extract of which is below. The reader recently found themselves enmeshed in a classic cocktail of conflict-invoking ingredients: imagine a combination of personal relationships; staying in close quarters; and each party holding different, strongly-held beliefs; and each party drawing from very different lifestyles, environments and experiences.
If anyone didn’t end up with an order of conflictails here, that would be quite the feat. You’d expect a little pour of Bloody (Hell) Mary; an Old Fashioned-views; a Gin and Toxic; or a Death in the Afternoon to boot.
The reader describes their experience as conflict inevitably emerged:
I was reminded of my teacher’s words, “Would you rather be right, or would you rather be free?” I’d rather be free. It’s certainly teaching me a lot around tolerance… …”
The reader goes on to reflect:
“…This idea of generative conflict would have been really helpful, if both sides are bought into this thinking.
Which brings me to a question for you — what’s your view on conflict resolution? Is it needed? What about when not both parties are aligned in terms of self-awareness or are more on the side of attack. Is it better to simply agree to disagree, walk away (sometimes even in interests of self-preservation)?”
If you missed the last edition, I explored generative conflict alongside potential mechanisms we can employ to elevate our personal relationship with conflict. Generative conflict is typically characterised by an undertone of respect, listening, seeking solutions, exploring different perspectives, and keeping the conflict focused on the issue rather than the person.
So it becomes a pertinent question to ask… what if you enter a conflict space with this approach, but your counterpart didn’t get the memo? Is it still worth engaging in?
I enjoyed thinking about this question. Here are some ideas that came up…
A Stoic Approach to Conflict
We control very little
I think one of the most profound philosophical ideas I’ve ever encountered is from the Stoic Epictetus. He describes the importance of the Dichotomy of Control: The inherent truth in life that some things are within our control, and other things are not. When a negative thought appears, Epictetus suggests, we should first remind ourselves that it’s just a thought — it’s not a fact. Then,
“Next, examine it and test it by these rules that you have. First and foremost, does it involve the things up to us, or the things not up to us?
And if it involves one of the things not up to us, have the following response to hand: “Not my business”.
Not. My. Business. Or, perhaps an equivalent: Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Whether personal or professional, the dichotomy of control is useful to our thinking about conflict.
In a situation where conflict may emerge, we have control over our emotional response, our words, our stance, and our thinking. We don’t have control over how the other party will respond to us, whether the other party will be swayed by our compelling perspective, or even whether the other party will take the process (or us) seriously.
Acknowledging this from the outset can bring with it a kind of relief — that we are not responsible for how others respond to us. We are, ultimately, not in control of the behaviour, values, beliefs, or choices of others. This idea might support an approach to conflict that hopes to find a solution or positive outcome, but doesn’t tack on an inherent duty or personal responsibility for things to end a certain way, outside of one’s own behaviour. The act of engaging in the first place is itself, the feat.
Life is short
“It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it.”
(Seneca, Letter 49)
Another Stoic theme is the recognition and embracing of the fact that the present is all we have, and life is not to be squandered.
To take a different perspective, then, as we can only control ourselves, perhaps we have to make the judgement call as to whether the other party — the part of the equation beyond our control — is worth attempting to engage with. Is this conflict a cyclical one that re-emerges over and over again, never to be resolved? Is it a topic that has, in the past, brought with it only pain and no perceivable silver linings? Is the issue something so deeply attached to the identity and core values or beliefs of the parties involved that it becomes like two brick walls desperately trying to communicate with each other? If so, is the issue something you are comfortable to let lie, given the poor prospects of progress and likelihood of self-inflicted pain?
In sum: Is my fleeting time on earth better spent not engaging in this? Do I embrace, as the reader highlights, the freedom that comes with letting go?
A virtue orientation
The Stoics held up the virtues of Courage, Temperance, Justice and Wisdom. Arguably, living by these virtues could involve initiating conflict sometimes, simply because it is right: Because you need to speak up about the issue, regardless of the likely outcome.
If we make a genuine effort to engage in productive conflict and find that our counterpart is immovably static and cold in their thinking, then what does the conflict become to us? Perhaps it becomes something we could reframe as conflict as expression, or conflict as a vehicle for our truth, or conflict as learning, or conflict that seems extremely unlikely to make a positive impact but it feels like the right thing to do.
On the other hand, one might argue that to use our wisdom in a situation like this would be to accept the reality of the situation. To look at a boat and pretend it has not been firmly chained to its wharf, or hope that it will magically detach itself from the anchor holding it down, is surely irrational… and benefits no one.
Where do we land?
Of course, in some professional settings, we are given few choices but to address an issue, particularly if we hold a position of authority and a problem emerges within that remit. In many other cases still, conflict is an important and valuable process (discussed in the last edition). But what about some of the other contexts in which conflict could emerge, but we anticipate that it will sway towards the destructive and painful over the productive and respectful?
After working through this I suspect that, like most hard questions, there is no correct answer. Engaging in conflict with another party that is coming from a very different place and is pushing the interaction towards degenerative conflict can be a noble feat. But a noble feat can also be a poor prize to exchange for self-preservation.
I know that my tendency (as a natural avoider) is to defer to the kind of thinking that can get me out of engaging in conflict — to assume that it will not be worth it, that it will go nowhere, that the other party will not be open to listening to my perspective and we will never find alignment. For me, then, more often than not, I should be engaging in that conflict that I’m tempted to rationalise away. So, I know I have to be careful when evaluating different situations, and personally focus more on reframing conflict to ensure I actually do engage with it and reap its many benefits.
In some settings, we can also seek to alleviate negative tension by explicitly discussing and deciding on the ‘rules of engagement’ before commencing the conversation — so any diversion into negativity or destruction can then be promptly identified and stopped. (‘Hey, we agreed we wouldn’t bring [X] into this conversation. Let’s move back to [Y].’) In other settings, conflict might have a messy middle that feels uncomfortable but is not, in itself, degenerative, and we can still manage to work our way through to a solution (a solution that possibly even required the mess to emerge in the first place).
At the same time, of course, there exist circumstances in which conflict solves nothing and leaves everyone in the exact same spot as they started, except a little more drained individually and a little more tense collectively. In short, I think my personal response to this — to engaging with a party who is more interested in a destructive, raw kind of conflict, or even simply engaging with someone who is clearly, resolutely unwilling to test or challenge or even more deeply explore their perspective — is to agree to disagree and let it go.
The greatest difficulty in all of it, I anticipate, is discerning such destructive or immovable intentions in the first place.
How can we really tell, at the start of an interaction, how someone will respond to our different view? How can we arm ourselves for self-protection, but still avoid jumping to conclusions too quickly? This can be a fine line to walk, and perhaps an appropriate approach may require more self-awareness than we first anticipate, alongside astute observation of the other party.
What do you think?
I’d love to engage with some more dialogue around this reader’s insightful response — and feel free to respond with your own experiences or thoughts about how you know when to engage in conflict and when to let it go. Oh, and sign up to my newsletter to get more pieces like this alongside quotes, recommendations, and updates from me, here. It’s free!