Conflict Resolution: Can a ``Basic Unit of Conflict'' Model Help in Therapy?
Cedric Wood, M.A., L.P.C.
January 27, 2000
Basic Premises
A. In every serious conflict there is an inordinate amount of misunderstanding that inflames and complicates the situation beyond the initial exchange. If the conflictants were to be given a diagram that could create some understanding, they would be more likely to control and mitigate the conflict.
B. This model allows the participants to simplify an argument initially and then to analyze the conflict more deeply and in more detail for better understanding.
C. Using this model makes conflict parameters seem more ``4th'' person or abstract so the conflictants can accept it. To say ``Bob's behavior is innocent'' is much harder to accept by a mistrusting spouse that saying ``Person A's behavior is innocent.'' The annoyed person is more likely to hear the concept and begin to accept it if it is true.
D. As the participants look at this model with its emphasis on ``egocentric'' vs. ``altruistic'' they will begin to examine how each of their behaviors falls on those two scales. The A Person examines how inconsiderate his behavior may have been and the B Person examines how retributive her behavior may have been.
E. It is posited that using this model will increase consciousness of ``form,'' ``process,'' and ``metacommunication.''
25 Postulates for The Conflict Theory
1.
In most conflicts, there can be found an initial act or acts which the actor deems as innocent, unprovoking, and non-reactive. This is Person A
2.
In most conflicts there is a person who is bothered by another's behavior and decides to react in a way that can be described as a habitual pattern of behavior. This is Person B.
3.
In most conflicts the A Person will react in some overt way after being confronted by the B Person. This is circle 5 or ``A3''.
4.
Both the B Person and the A Person first have thoughts and feelings about the other's behavior even if the ``thoughts'' are unconscious and even if the ``feelings'' are unfelt. This is B1 and A2, respectively.
5.
A person's potential for behavior is called the personality. Every living person has a personality. It is made up of genetic influences and the Self System. This potential can be divided into a ``tendency'' to behave and a ``capacity'' to behave.
6.
Every person in conflict carries within him or herself a history of experience. These experiences shape the person's sense of self. The history of experience is called the Self System. (H. S. Sullivan, Albert Bandura). This Self-System shapes most of the reactions that we are calling the ``B'' behavior.
7.
There are times when the A Person is unconsciously reacting to Person B's past behavior without realizing it. This past behavior is called the ``B phantom behavior.''
8.
There are times when Person B's behavior is augmented by past behaviors of Person A. This past behavior is called the ``A phantom behavior.''
9.
Most often Person A will not initially be conscious of and willing to admit to the provoking nature of their behavior that has influenced B's behavior.
10.
Even more often Person B will not be aware of how his or her Self System influences and shapes his or her reaction to Person A's behavior. They will lay complete blame of the behavior of ``A'' as an explanation for their behavior, no matter how exaggerated.
11.
In most conflicts, Person A will construe his behavior as being innocent and Person B will construe A's behavior as being willful and morally bankrupt.
12.
In most conflicts, Person B will construe her behavior as being understandable and justified and Person A will construe her behavior as being exaggerating and judgmental.
13.
A phantom behavior does not have to be the exact same behavior as in the 1 and 3 position. (Pavlov's Generalization and ``Dynamic Stereotype'', [cortical mosaic])
14.
The more Person B is willing and able to examine their self-system as a precursor, the more that person can begin to disconnect the influence and become an independent thinker, feeler, and actor (become more differentiated.)
15.
The more Person A can examine his self-system as a shaper to his behavior, the more that person can begin to disconnect the influence and become a non-reactive thinker, feeler, and actor (become more differentiated.)
16.
The more maldeveloped the A Person is, the more likely the A behavior will be selfish, egocentric, and thoughtless and focused on a malignant need for self aggrandizement.
17.
The more maldeveloped the B Person is the more likely they will exaggerate, pathologize, and demonize Person A's behavior and the more they will dismiss their Self System as a central issue in the conflict.
18.
The more maldeveloped the B Person is the more he or she will construe and perceive A's behavior as being selfish, egocentric, thoughtless and focused on a maldeveloped need for self satisfaction..
19.
As long as an A behavior is unconscious and not reactive it can be considered an A behavior. But when it becomes more overtly conscious as a reaction it can be construed in the analysis as a ``B'' behavior.
20.
As the A's behavior becomes more characterological, or perceived as characterlogical, the B's behavior will increase in inappropriateness and may disregard interpersonal guidelines.
21.
As the B Person's pain increases, the ability to stay calm decreases, the ability to be non-judgmental decreases, and the tendency to ``blame'' the A Person increases. This is emotional intelligence and decreasing.
22.
When the B Person is reacting appropriately, there is no reason to analyze their ``personality'' or ``self-system." That is only necessary when they act aggressively or in a withdrawing manner.
23.
The more therapy that Person B has had the more likely his or her ``external reaction'' will be appropriate, effective, or non-provoking (i.e., differentiated and in the Adult.)
24.
Therapy will not be expected to change the internal feelings that the B Person may experience after the A Person acts. There is no shame in simply feeling a reaction to an annoying behavior.
25.
There are times when the B Person responds appropriately and the A Person reveals a maldeveloped personality style by a. Getting angry, b. Being defensive and egocentric,
c. Showing rigidity and using self-justification to resist changing for the appropriate B Person, and d. Being strangely unsympathetic to the B Person's needs.
Further Thoughts
1.
This model rejects the notion that behavior cannot be judged in a linear fashion. Cause and effect can be considered since behavior is circular in a monadic way before it becomes ``systemic``.
2.
Furthermore, all behavior falls on a continuum from innocent to malicious. The further down the egocentric/narcissistic levels the behavior falls, the more likely the behavior may be judged as inappropriate and in need of modification. Post-modernism notwithstanding, all behaviors can be construed as being on a continuum between ``right'' and ``wrong``, or better said, ``effective'' and ``ineffective'' at ``creating relationship'' and maintaining harmony.
3.
This model does not reject the notion of ``systems thinking''. On the contrary, it makes an attempt at explaining the systemic experience of individuals in conflict. Systemic conflict and Murray Bowen's ``emotional field'' are created by a long series of these A-B exchanges.
4.
The accurate labeling of behavior as ``A'' and ``:B'' is not so important as the use of the model to discover the relationship variables, i.e. Were you aware you were trying to get back at for what she did? Did you realize how what she did affected you? Was your retribution effective? How did it work/didn't it work for you? How might you have reacted differently?
Further Ideas
There is the innocent B person who puts up with A's behavior for years, staying calm and not reacting. Then one day he/she explodes or puts the foot down in a definite way leaving the B person to feel as if they are responding inappropriately! See the story in Toxic Parents by Susan Forward.
Pertinent Quotes
``If one person wants to influence another person's behavior, there are basically only two ways of doing it. The first consists of trying to make the other behave differently.....The other approach consists in making him behave as he is already behaving.'' The Pragmatics of Human Communication. Watzlawick, Bavelas, and Jackson (1967).
``One cannot ``see'' gravity, nor can one ``see'' the emotional field. The presence of gravity and the emotional field can be inferred, however, by the predictable ways people behave in reaction to one another'' (p. 55). Family Evaluation: An Approach Based on Bowen Theory by M. Kerr and M. Bowen (1988).
References
Bowen, M.
|
|