Positive conflict “with your own hands”: how to get to the good consequences of the conflict? Conflict for good Described the positive functions of conflict.

Modern understanding of conflicts in social sciences is based on the idea of the positive functions of conflict.

This is easily accepted when it comes to the theoretical arguments of sociologists about the processes occurring in social systems. But the psychologist deals with living people and sees in front of him a suffering person who is having a hard time experiencing life’s difficulties, which can be emotionally difficult to combine with reasoning about the benefits of conflicts.

However, modern psychology is also characterized by the recognition of the dual nature of conflict, including its positive role.

Conflict is the source of development. The most important positive function of conflict is that, being a form of contradiction, conflict is a source of development. The more significant the conflict is for the participants in the situation, the potentially stronger its impact on their intellectual development. The thesis about contradictions as a source of group development, including possible competitive processes, can also be considered generally accepted. Thus, B.F. Lomov believes that in joint activities “rivalry (cooperation) plays the role of a kind of “catalyst” for the development of abilities.” Competition plays a similar function in stimulating activity and development in a group.

Conflict is a signal for change. Of the other positive functions of conflict, the most obvious is the signaling function. Discussing the types of critical situations, F. E. Vasilyuk emphasizes the positive role, the “need” of internal conflicts for life: “They signal objective contradictions in life relationships and provide a chance to resolve them before a real collision of these relationships, fraught with disastrous consequences.”

Conflicts perform a similar signaling function in interpersonal relationships. Let’s take the relationship between parents and child as an example. If parents perceive the child’s disagreement, his new claims and attempts to discuss them with parents solely as disobedience, then they will fight his disobedience, insist on their own, and thereby most likely worsen, and perhaps even destroy, their relationship with the child. The gradually accumulating tension is like steam, the pressure of which bursts a tightly closed boiler.

A constructive response would be to perceive what is happening not as disobedience, but as a signal of the need for change. Perhaps an analogy with pain would be appropriate here. The pain is unpleasant, but any doctor will tell you that it serves an important and useful function. Pain is a signal that something is wrong in the body. By ignoring or drowning out the pain with sedative pills, we remain with the disease. Conflict, like pain, serves as a signal, telling us that something is wrong in our relationships or in ourselves. And if we, in response to this signal, try to make changes in our interaction, we come to a new state of adaptation in the relationship. If we reach a new level of adaptation at each stage of our relationships, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationships.

Conflict is an opportunity for rapprochement. Examples can be found on psychological material that illustrate other positive functions of conflict, for example, “communicative-informational” and “connective” (in Coser’s terminology).

As an example, here is the story of one young woman. She got married very early, she was not yet nineteen years old. Her chosen one was several years older than her, and although he was also young, it seemed to her that he was wiser and more experienced. Perhaps this is what led to the fact that, despite her good relationship with him, she felt some kind of constraint in her soul, felt the distance separating them. After the birth of the child, their relationship began to deteriorate and finally approached that dangerous point, after which, perhaps, separation awaited them. However, there was that often unexpected breakthrough for which there is always hope. They began to sort out their relationship and during this frank conversation they understood each other. Having told this rather banal story, the woman added at the end: “I am so glad that this conflict was between us then. Because since then, my husband and I have become absolutely close people to each other. I can tell him anything and everything that’s on my soul.”

She associates this new level of relations between them with the conflict that occurred. The moment of breakthrough, when people have nothing to lose when they try to break through to each other, can be their last opportunity for mutual understanding. No wonder sociologists of the Chicago school said: “Conflict is an opportunity to talk openly.”

Positive functions of intragroup conflicts. The traditional point of view not only of sociologists, but also of psychologists who worked with groups was that conflicts are a negative phenomenon for the group and the task is to eliminate them. The tendency to seek social harmony in groups dates back to the “human relations” school: avoiding conflict, seen as a “social disease”, and promoting “equilibrium” or a “state of cooperation”. However, thanks to the conflict, it becomes possible to initially establish unity or restore it if it was previously broken. Of course, not every type of conflict will contribute to the strengthening of the group, just as not in all groups conflict can realize similar functions. The presence of these positive conflict potentials is determined by its type, as well as by the characteristics of the group.

Every group contains the potential for conflict due to the periodic rivalry between the demands of individuals. The nature of the group will significantly influence the characteristics of these conflicts, in particular their functions. Thus, Coser believes that the closer the group, the more intense the conflict. If, nevertheless, a conflict arises in such a close-knit group, then it will proceed with particular intensity due to the “accumulated” discontent and complete personal involvement characteristic of a group with close ties. Conflict in groups of this type will threaten their very foundations and therefore be destructive.

The nature of the group’s relations with the external environment will also be significant for intragroup conflict. Thus, groups that are in a state of more or less constant confrontation with other groups will tend to involve their members more fully in their personal activities and to suppress deviations from group unity and disagreement. Greater tolerance to intragroup conflicts will be characteristic of groups whose relations with the external environment are more balanced.

Internal conflict also serves as a means of identifying conflicting interests among group members and thereby contributes to the possibility of a new agreement, ensuring the restoration of the necessary balance.

Conflicts often lead to the creation of associations and coalitions within groups, which ensures interaction between members of the entire association, reduces isolation, and creates the ground for individual activity of group members.

In general, pointing out the positive possibilities of conflict in flexible social structures, L. Coser calls it the most important stabilizing mechanism, a mechanism for adapting norms to new conditions.

Conflict is an opportunity to relieve tension and “heal” relationships. The function of relieving tension, “improving” relationships, which the conflict potentially contains, can be purposefully used in pedagogical practice. For example, A. S. Makarenko considered conflict as a pedagogical means of influencing people’s relationships.

It is interesting that R. May considers it possible to use the same technique of intensifying experiences to initiate a beneficial crisis in psychotherapeutic practice. He writes about how he once received an extremely emotional letter from a young man who asked him for help: “In my response letter, I set out to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had gotten used to his position as a spoiled child, who was always carried around, and now in his suffering there is nothing but self-pity and a complete lack of courage to cope with the current situation. I deliberately did not leave any loophole to save the prestige of his “I”. May believes, judging by the response, that his goal has been achieved and has led to constructive steps.

Emphasizing the potential positive possibilities of conflict should not make us forget about its likely destructive role in the life of an individual. The idea can be considered generally accepted not only of the positive significance of an individual’s effective resolution and overcoming of emerging intrapersonal crises, conflicts, and contradictions, but also of the negative and even destructive impact that their failure to overcome can have on the development of a healthy personality. We can evaluate a person's recovery from a conflict or crisis as productive if, as a result, he is truly “freed” from the problem that gave rise to it in such a way that the experience makes him more mature, psychologically adequate and integrated.

The emotional experience of a crisis situation, no matter how strong it may be, does not in itself lead to overcoming it. In the same way, analyzing a situation and thinking about it only leads to a better understanding of it. The real problem lies in the creation of new meaning, in “meaning generation”, “meaning construction”, when the result of the individual’s internal work to overcome and live through critical life situations are changes in his internal subjective world - the acquisition of new meaning, a new value attitude, restoration of mental balance and etc.

On the contrary, those strategies that, in essence, are psychologically ineffective, no matter how the individual himself evaluates them, actually turn out to be aimed at weakening, mitigating the severity of the crisis being experienced and the emotional states accompanying it. If we recall the previously used medical analogy, we can say that in the first case, a person, having felt pain, tries to find out its cause and cope with it by curing the disease, and in the second case, he simply takes pills, trying to drown out the unpleasant sensations.

The general practical position can be expressed in the already quoted words of R. May: “...Our task is to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.”

interpersonal conflict psychological emotional

When discussing the understanding of conflict in the social sciences, it was noted that the modern point of view is based on the idea of the positive functions of conflict.

This is easily accepted when it comes to the theoretical reasoning of sociologists about the processes occurring in social systems. But the psychologist deals with living people and sees in front of him a suffering person who is having a hard time experiencing the difficulties of life, which can be emotionally difficult to combine with reasoning about the benefits of conflicts.

However, modern psychology is also characterized by the recognition of the dual nature of conflict, including its positive role.

Conflict is the source of development.

The most important positive function of conflict is that, being a form of contradiction, conflict is a source of development. This function of conflict, taking the form of a crisis, found its most obvious expression in Erikson’s concept. Along with it, there are many other more specific applications of the general thesis about the positive role of contradictions in the development of the individual. For example, a number of studies based on the ideas of Jean Piaget and his school have shown that sociocognitive conflicts can be a source of intellectual development in children. Sociocognitive conflict refers to a situation where individuals have different answers to the same problem and are motivated to reach a joint solution. The more significant this conflict is for the participants in the situation, the potentially stronger its impact on their intellectual development. The thesis about contradictions as a source of development of groups, including possible competitive processes, can also be considered generally accepted. B.F. Lomov believes that in joint activities “rivalry (cooperation) plays the role of a kind of “catalyst” for the development of abilities.” Competition plays a similar function in stimulating activity and development in a group. The acceptance of this point of view was manifested in the fact that the term “productive conflict” was first introduced into the psychological dictionary in 1990.

Conflict is a signal for change.

Of the other positive functions of conflict, the most obvious is the signaling function. Discussing the types of critical situations, F.E. Vasilyuk emphasizes the positive role, the “need” of internal conflicts for life: “they signal the objective contradictions of life’s relationships and provide a chance to resolve them before a real collision of these relationships, fraught with disastrous consequences.”

Conflicts perform a similar signaling function in interpersonal relationships. For example, if parents perceive the child’s disagreement, his new claims and attempts to discuss them with parents solely as disobedience, then they will fight his disobedience, insist on their own, and thereby most likely worsen, and perhaps even destroy, their relationship with the child. The most acute and painful conflicts with teenagers arise in those families where they have been in an atmosphere of suppression since childhood. The gradually accumulating tension is like steam, the pressure of which bursts a tightly closed boiler.

A constructive response would be to perceive what is happening not as disobedience, but as a signal of the need for change. Perhaps an analogy with pain would be appropriate here. The pain is unpleasant, but any doctor will tell you that it serves an important and useful function. Pain is a signal that something is wrong in the body. By ignoring or drowning out the pain with sedative pills, we remain with the disease. Conflict, like pain, serves as a signal, telling us that something is wrong in our relationships or in ourselves. And if we, in response to this signal, try to make changes in our interaction, we come to a new state of adaptation in the relationship. In the same way, an adequate reaction of parents will be to adapt their behavior, their requirements and expectations to the new level of the child’s development, his independence and autonomy. If at each stage of our relationship we reach a new level of adaptation, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationship.

S. Minukhin and C. Fishman describe the situation associated with the departure of adult children from the family, which they call the “empty nest period” and which is often associated with depression in women: “however, in fact, the marital subsystem again becomes the most important family for both its members holon, although when grandchildren appear, new relationships have to be developed here too. This period, often described as a period of confusion, can instead become a period of rapid development if the spouses, both as individuals and as a couple, draw on their experiences, dreams and expectations to realize opportunities previously unavailable due to the need to fulfill their parental duties. .

Conflict is an opportunity for rapprochement.

There are other examples illustrating the positive functions of conflict, such as “communicative-informational” and “connective” (in Coser’s terminology).

As an example, here is the story of one young woman. She got married early, she was not yet nineteen years old. Her chosen one was several years older than her, and although he was also young, it seemed to her that he had a good relationship with him, she felt some kind of constraint in her soul, felt the distance separating them. After the birth of a child, they are wiser and more experienced than her. Perhaps this is what led to the fact that, despite the relationship, they began to deteriorate and finally approached that dangerous point, after which, perhaps, separation awaited them. However, there was that often unexpected breakthrough for which there is always hope. They began to sort out their relationship and during this frank conversation they understood each other. Having told this story, the woman added at the end: “I am so glad that this conflict was between us then.

Because since then my husband and I have become absolutely close people to each other. I don’t have a person closer to him, neither my mother, nor my child, no, he is my closest person. I can tell him everything that’s in my soul.”

She associates this new level of relations between them with conflict. The moment of breakthrough, when people have nothing to lose when they try to break through to each other, can be their last opportunity for mutual understanding. No wonder sociologists of the Chicago school said: “Conflict is an opportunity to have an open conversation.”

Conflict is an opportunity to relieve tension and “improve relationships.”

The function of relieving tension, “improving” relationships, which the conflict potentially contains, can be purposefully used in pedagogical practice. For example, A.S. Makarenko viewed conflict as a pedagogical means of influencing people’s relationships. He has an unfinished work “On the Explosion,” in which he points out that in a team there is always a whole complex of different contradictions “of varying degrees of conflict.” Choosing “from the general chain of conflict relations the most striking, prominent and convincing, understandable to everyone,” Makarenko recommends resolving it using the “explosion” method. He calls “explosion” the bringing of a conflict to its final limit, to such a state when there is no longer any possibility for any evolution, for any litigation between the individual and society, when the question is posed bluntly - either to be a member of society or to leave it.” This last limit can be expressed in various forms, but in all cases its main task is to break down incorrectly established relationships, in the place of which new relationships and new concepts are built. Makarenko showed great interest in the phenomenon of “explosion,” although he stipulated that “an explosive maneuver is a very painful and pedagogically difficult thing.”

R. May considers it possible to use the same technique of intensifying experiences to initiate a beneficial crisis in psychotherapeutic practice. He writes about how he once received an extremely emotional letter from a young man who asked him for help: “In my response letter, I aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had gotten used to his position as a spoiled child, who was always carried around, and now in his suffering there is nothing but self-pity and a complete lack of courage to cope with the current situation. I deliberately did not leave any loophole to save the prestige of his “I.”26 May believes, judging by the response, that his goal was achieved and led to constructive steps.

F. Vasilyuk notes that the emotional experience of a crisis situation, no matter how strong it may be, does not in itself lead to overcoming it. In the same way, analyzing a situation and thinking about it only leads to a better understanding of it.

The real problem lies in the creation of new meaning, in “meaning generation”, “meaning construction”, when the result of the individual’s internal work to overcome and live through critical life situations are changes in his internal subjective world - the acquisition of new meaning, a new value attitude, restoration of mental balance and etc.

The general practical position can be expressed in the words of May: “...Our task is to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.”

Conflict- a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, opinions or views of two or more people. There are many types of conflicts; they can be classified, for example, by factors. Thus, according to their direction, conflicts are divided into horizontal (they do not involve people subordinate to each other), vertical (between managers and subordinates) and mixed (between a manager and subordinates who are not directly subordinate).

Another typology of conflicts is presented in Fig. 12.1.

Rice. 12.1. Typology of conflicts

By origin. Conflicts can be objectively determined. These are those conflicts that are associated with objective reasons and do not depend on the relationships of workers (unclear division of labor and responsibility, social tension, etc.). Subjectively determined conflicts are associated with the personal characteristics of those in conflict and with situations that interfere with the fulfillment of desires and the satisfaction of people’s Interests.

By nature of occurrence. We can distinguish social conflicts - the highest stage of social contradictions in the system of relations of social groups. Organizational conflicts - improper regulation of an individual's activities (job descriptions, management structures). Emotional conflicts - dissatisfaction with the interests of an individual, clashes with others (envy, hostility, antipathies). Sometimes it is very difficult to outwardly determine the motivation for such a conflict.

According to the duration of conflicts are short-term. They arise due to misunderstandings or mistakes; usually they are quickly recognized and resolved. Protracted conflicts are often associated with moral and psychological trauma. The duration of such conflicts depends on the characteristics of the people in conflict and on the subject of the conflict.

By direction of impact conflicts are vertical. They involve people at different social levels: boss - subordinate, department - institution, etc. The conflicting parties initially have an unequal amount of power. In a horizontal conflict, the parties have an equal amount of power and are at the same hierarchical level (heads of departments, suppliers among themselves, etc.).

By severity of conflicts are open (impulse) - this is a direct collision of the parties, it manifests itself in arguments, shouting, fights, etc. The regulation of such conflicts will depend on the level of their manifestation and on the situation itself. Measures can be legal, social, and even international. Hidden conflicts (latent) do not have a pronounced form; they occur hidden, but indirectly affect the opposite side. Most often, this happens when it is impossible to openly resolve the conflict (the difference in the social status of the parties: boss - subordinate, apprehension and even fear for one’s well-being arises). Regulatory measures in this case depend on the individual, the level of her upbringing, and moral and ethical principles. The presence of an object and an opponent creates a conflict situation. But a conflict situation does not always provoke a conflict. If there is no incident, then we can talk about a potential conflict.

The scale of the conflict (in terms of the number of participants) may be small. Thus, intrapersonal conflict consists of a collision of oppositely directed, but equal in strength, motives, needs and interests within the individual - one person. It can arise due to a discrepancy between external requirements and internal values and needs of the individual. Interpersonal conflicts arise due to claims on limited resources. Intergroup conflicts arise within the same group or between groups. For example, between formal and informal groups. Conflict between an individual and a group is the contradiction that arises between the requirements of the individual and the norms established in the group. There may also be a conflict between the manager and employees due to different views on the management system.

By resolution method conflicts are antagonistic. They are resolved by forcing all participants except one to renounce any claims. Compromise conflicts are resolved through mutual agreement of the conflicting parties.

There are many different opinions about the benefits or harms of conflict situations. Conflicts are an extremely complex and contradictory phenomenon that cannot be defined unambiguously. Conflicts can play both a negative and a positive role. Despite all the pros and cons, conflicts are inevitable. Let us carefully consider the positive and negative functions of conflicts.

Positive functions of conflict:

1 helps to identify a problem and consider it from different points of view;

* relieves tension between parties to the conflict;

* makes it possible to better know the properties of your opponent;

directs relationships in a new direction;

Stimulates change and development;

The cohesion of like-minded people is growing;

Stimulates creative activity.

Negative functions of conflict:

Causes strong emotional stress;

Increases nervousness, creates stress;

Employee layoffs occur;

Reduces the level of cooperation and mutual understanding;

Damages work;

Creates the belief that “victory” is more important than resolving the conflict in essence.

Modern understanding of conflicts in social sciences is based on the idea of the positive functions of conflict.

However, modern psychology is also characterized by the recognition of the dual nature of conflict, including its positive role.

The general practical position can be expressed in the already quoted words of R. May: “...Our task is to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.”

Natalia Grishina
Based on materials from Elitarium

Psychology: personality and business

Keywords:

1 -1

Region: Conflictology
Publisher: Kompos Magazine

The title of this article seems paradoxical. Most people associate conflict with negativity: breakups, scandals, clashes, struggles, wars, emotional distress, etc. And such associations are largely true. Most conflicts in the historical past and in our everyday life were and are not resolved in the best way.

We live in a conflict-ridden world and a conflict-ridden society. And this should be taken for granted. Social conflicts are objectively inevitable in any social structure. Moreover, they are a necessary condition for social development. The entire process of social development consists of conflicts and consensuses, agreement and confrontation. The very social structure of society, with its strict differentiation of various classes, social strata, groups and individuals, is an inexhaustible source of conflict. And the more complex the social structure, the more differentiated the society, the more freedom and pluralism it has, the more divergent and sometimes mutually exclusive interests, goals, values and, accordingly, the more sources for potential conflicts. But at the same time, in a complex social system, there are more opportunities and mechanisms for successfully resolving conflicts and finding consensus. Therefore, the problem of any society, any social community is to prevent (minimize as much as possible) the negative consequences of the conflict and use it to positively resolve the problems that have arisen. Therefore, each person needs to acquire a certain minimum of theoretical knowledge on conflict management and practical skills of behavior in conflict situations in order to effectively solve emerging problems and achieve success in all their affairs.

From the point of view of resolving specific contradictions, we can talk about the constructive and destructive functions (dysfunctions) of the conflict. The first are aimed at resolving the contradictions that have arisen, the second - at deepening them. Conflict theory also uses such concepts as positive (positive) and negative (negative) functions of conflict. These concepts largely reflect a subjective-objective assessment of the development and consequences of social conflict. For example, the October (1917) Revolution divided not only Russian society, but also the world community into those who assess this event as positive and those who give it a negative assessment.

Besides, there are objective and subjective assessments of the conflict in terms of its consequences for specific people. For example, the reconstruction of an enterprise, which became possible as a result of an industrial (social-labor) conflict, is an objectively positive phenomenon, but from the point of view of a certain part of workers forced to leave the enterprise as a result of staff reductions, this conflict will be assessed as negative.

Positive or negative impact of conflict is also largely due to the social system in which there is conflict. In loosely structured groups and open societies, where conflict is accepted as the norm and a variety of mechanisms for resolving it exist, conflict tends to promote greater vitality, dynamism and receptivity to progress. In a totalitarian society, social conflict is not recognized in principle, and the only mechanism for resolving it is suppression by force (for example, the shooting of a workers’ demonstration in Novocherkassk in 1962). A suppressed conflict becomes dysfunctional, leading society to disintegration, exacerbation of old and the emergence of new contradictions. Unresolved contradictions accumulate, and if they manifest themselves in the form of conflict, they lead to serious social upheaval.

In December 2006, a presentation of the book “The Strategy of Conflict” by 2005 Nobel Prize winner in economics Thomas Schelling took place in Moscow, which had just been published in Russian. The book is written mainly within the framework of the social (sociological) paradigm, which is based on the theory of social action and interaction. According to Schelling, a conflict is an interaction in which the actions of one party depend on the actions of the other party. The interdependence of the parties to the conflict “forces” them to seek and find common interests. “A pure conflict,” according to Schelling, “in which the interests of two opponents are completely opposite, is a special case; it applies in cases of war to the point of complete extermination...For this reason, “winning” in a conflict does not have a strictly competitive meaning; it is not a victory won over the enemy. This implies a gain relative to one’s own value system, and it can be achieved through negotiations, compromises, and also by avoiding actions that cause mutual harm.” Schelling calls this strategy in conflict the theory of interdependent decisions.

The theory of containment and the theory of limited war developed by Schelling also deserve special attention. These theories can be used either individually, to solve specific problems, or as part of a single conflict strategy. Moreover, deterrence is “as appropriate between friends as between potential adversaries.”

The main idea (philosophy) of the theories proposed by Schelling is that even in the most complex conflict situations it is impossible (undesirable) to perceive the opposing side as an absolute enemy. It is necessary to leave at least some chances for each other to find compromises. Then the conflict will contribute to solving common problems.

So, we can name several main criteria, according to which the functions and consequences of a particular conflict can be assessed as positive (functional, constructive, positive) or negative.

The conflict is assessed as positive:

functional, contributing to the development of the social system (organization, society);
constructive, as a result of which the contradictions that arose were resolved;
subjective-positive, when it is assessed as positive only by the party that, as a result of the conflict, received a certain benefit or achieved the intended goal; when a positive assessment of the conflict by some people does not coincide with the opinion of others based on the principle of ambivalence (duality) in the perception of the same phenomena;
value-positive, when it is assessed not from the point of view of benefit-disadvantage or victory-defeat, but from the point of view of the significance of the conflict action itself: “our falcon died, but drops of its flammable blood will soar into the sky and ignite many brave hearts” (Song of falcon. M. Gorky);
emotionally positive when it helps relieve mental stress (get out of frustration) for subjects and participants in the conflict.

Similarly, only with the prefix “not” it is possible to list options when the conflict is assessed as negative, for example: dysfunctional - not conducive to the development of the social system, etc.

Let's consider some positive functions of conflict that are most characteristic of open social structures.

Conflict reveals and resolves contradictions that arise in relations between people and thereby contributes to social development. Timely identified and resolved conflict can prevent more serious conflicts leading to serious consequences.
In an open society, conflict performs the functions of stabilization and integration of intragroup and intergroup relations and reduces social tension.
Conflict greatly increases the intensity of connections and relationships, stimulates social processes, gives dynamism to society, encourages creativity and innovation, and promotes social progress.
In a state of conflict, people are more clearly aware of both their own and opposing interests.
The conflict contributes to obtaining information about the surrounding social environment, about the relationship between the power potential of competing formations.
Social conflict contributes to the development and adoption of urgent management decisions and monitoring their implementation, forms among the participants in the conflict a sense of belonging in solving public problems, and develops the skills to protect their interests.
External conflict promotes intra-group integration and identification, strengthens the unity of the group, nation, society, and mobilizes internal resources. It also helps to find friends and allies, identifies enemies and ill-wishers.

Internal conflicts (in a group of organizations, societies) perform the following functions:

creating and maintaining a balance of power (including power);
social control over compliance with generally accepted norms, rules, values;
creating new social norms and institutions and updating existing ones;
adaptation and socialization of individuals and groups;
group formation, establishing and maintaining normative and physical boundaries of groups;
establishing and maintaining a relatively stable structure of intragroup and intergroup relations;
establishing an informal hierarchy in a group and society, including identifying informal leaders;
the elimination of some and the emergence of other leaders.

The positive functions of conflict also lie in the fact that it reveals the positions, interests and goals of the participants and thereby contributes to a balanced solution to emerging problems, establishes and maintains a balance of power between opponents.

In an open social system, conflict plays the role of a “safety valve,” promptly identifying emerging contradictions and preserving the social structure as a whole.

Many conflicts in different directions neutralize each other and thus prevent the collapse of the social system.

There are conflicts of the following types: “dispute”, “confrontation”, “war”. Conflict situations are possible when the same conflict can go through the stages of dispute - confrontation - war, and depending on what stage the conflict is at, the parties perceive each other as opponents, adversaries, enemies (Table 1).

Table 1

Interdependence of the dynamics of the conflict, the parties’ subjective perception of each other and mutual conflict attitudes

From Table 1 it follows that the conflict attitude of the parties, the dynamics of the development of the conflict, the methods of fighting, and the methods of ending the conflict largely depend on which category - opponent, adversary, enemy - the opposing side of the conflict is classified into. Therefore, in each specific case it is necessary to take into account the features of these definitions and their adequate application. Let's consider how and in what cases these concepts are applied.

The conflict, in its dynamics, can go through various levels (stages) of confrontation , both in the direction of escalating confrontation (dispute - confrontation - war), and in the direction of reducing the intensity of the struggle (war - confrontation - dispute). Other parameters of the conflict change accordingly (see Table 1). This property of conflict dynamics can be used in the course of conflict management and resolution. To do this, it is necessary, for example, to first transfer (transform) a conflict of the “war” type into a conflict of the “confrontation” type, and then transfer the latter into a conflict of the “dispute” type. It must be remembered that a dispute (like any other constructive conflict) is not a sporting competition in which victory is important. In a conflict, each side strives to solve its problems. Therefore, it is not victory that is important here, but success.

Conflict is a form of social interaction in which the actions of one party are largely determined by the actions of the other party. Therefore, it is advisable to solve problems that arise through joint efforts. A joint search for a way out of a conflict situation requires compliance with a number of conditions, for example the following:

separate the real causes of the conflict from the incident - the formal reason for the start of the clash;
focus on existing problems rather than on personal emotions;
act according to the “here and now” principle, i.e. solve problems that directly caused this conflict, without remembering other controversial events and facts;
create an environment of equal participation in the search for possible options for resolving the conflict;
speak only for yourself; be able to listen and hear others;
maintain a respectful attitude towards the opponent’s personality, talk about facts and events, and not about the qualities of a particular person;
create a climate of mutual trust and cooperation.

In order to successfully prevent and resolve conflict situations, it is necessary to develop (form) such qualities as assertiveness - the ability to negotiate, finding mutually acceptable solutions. The following qualities are characteristic of a person with assertiveness:

achieve your goals without making enemies;
the ability to negotiate even with opponents;
do not allow others to manipulate you;
respect the rights of others, but do not indulge other people's lust;
adequately evaluate one’s “merits”, i.e. do not be upset if you receive a refusal of something you had no right to expect;
clearly formulate your positions, without aggression and hatred towards opponents;
be able to find compromises that satisfy both sides of the conflict.

One of the main ways to resolve intrapersonal conflicts is to adequately assess the situation in which the individual finds himself. The famous psychotherapist, Dr. Maxwell Moltz, in his book “I Am Me, or How to Be Happy,” offers readers a lot of useful advice that can help a person resolve their personal conflicts. Most of these tips are based on the phenomenon of self-reflection.

Let's look at some of them:

create the correct image of your own self. Know the whole truth about yourself. Be able to face the truth;
respond to facts, not ideas about them;
do not pay increased attention to what people think about you, how they evaluate you;
not to react too emotionally to external stimuli, to be able to delay your reaction to them (“I will only worry tomorrow”);
do not cultivate feelings of resentment or self-pity;
be able to forgive yourself and others, forgiveness has a healing effect;
be able to direct your aggression in the right direction.
Don't "fight windmills." React emotionally only to what really exists here and now;
do not make a mountain out of a mountain, realistically assess the situation with all the ensuing consequences;
whenever possible, set yourself potentially achievable goals;
have a clearly defined goal and strive steadily to achieve it;
act decisively, purposefully, attack and not defend.

But if there is such a possibility, then the contradiction should not be brought to the point of conflict. And to do this, you need to remember the following: if a conflict situation has arisen, then before “getting involved in a fight,” you need to seriously weigh all the possible pros and cons in the proposed conflict and ask yourself a few questions:

Are there really contradictions that are worth fighting over?
Is it possible to solve the problems that have arisen in other ways without resorting to conflict?
Are there any guarantees that you will achieve the desired results in the upcoming conflict?
what will be the price of victory or defeat for you and your opponent?
what are the possible consequences of the conflict?
how people around you will react to the conflict.

It is advisable that your opponent in the proposed conflict, from the same positions, analyze the conflict situation that has arisen and possible ways of its development. A comprehensive analysis of the conflict situation helps to find mutually acceptable solutions, prevents open confrontation between the parties and helps not only to maintain normal relations between former opponents, but also to establish mutually beneficial cooperation between them.

The above methods of preventing and resolving conflict situations suggest that contradictions and conflicts can be used to solve emerging problems. This topic is presented in more detail in the author’s just published book, “Fundamentals of Conflictology.”

Literature

Schelling T. Conflict strategy. M.: IRISEN, 2007. 373 p.
See: Encyclopedia of Psychological Tests. M., 1997. S. 297 - 298.
Moltz M. I am I, or How to become happy. St. Petersburg 1992.
Kozyrev G.I. Fundamentals of conflictology: textbook. - Publishing house "FORUM" - INTRA-M, 2007. 320 p.