home Photo galleries

Positive sides of the conflict. Positive conflict “with your own hands”: how to get to the good consequences of the conflict? What is the positive meaning of conflict?

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 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. 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 pro-

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 socio-cognitive conflicts can be a source of intellectual development in children. Socio-cognitive 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 stronger its potential impact on their intellectual development (Levine, Resnick, Higgins, 1993). 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” (Lomov, 1984, p. 325). 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 (Psychology. Dictionary, 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 relationships and provide a chance to resolve them before a real collision of these relationships, fraught with harmful consequences” (Vasilyuk, 1995, p. , 94).

Conflicts perform a similar signaling function in interpersonal relationships. Let's return to the example of parents and child. 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. Pain is unpleasant, but any doctor will say that it performs 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 we reach a new level of adaptation at each stage of our relationships, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationships.

S. Minukhin and Ch. 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 slave for both of its members, although with the appearance of grandchildren, new relationships have to be developed here too. This period, often described as a period of confusion, may instead become a period rapid development, if spouses, both as individuals and as a couple, resort to accumulated experience, their dreams and expectations in order to realize opportunities that were previously unavailable due to the need to fulfill their parental duty” (Minukhin, Fishman, 1998, pp. 32-33).

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, I will give 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 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 don’t have a person closer to him, neither my mother, nor my child, no, he is my closest person. I can tell him anything and everything that’s on my soul.”

This new level She connects the relationship between them precisely 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.”

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. He has an unfinished work “On the “explosion”” (1949), in which he points out that in a team there is always a whole complex of various 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. “I call an explosion the bringing of a conflict to the 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” (Makarenko, 1958, p. 508). This one after-

This 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” (ibid., p. 510).

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 aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he was accustomed to his position as a spoiled child, with whom he was always fussed, and now in his suffering there is nothing but self-pity and self-pity. complete absence courage to cope with the current situation. I deliberately left no loophole to save the prestige of his “I”” (May, 1994, p. 99). 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. It can be considered generally accepted that not only positive meaning effective resolution and overcoming by a person of emerging intrapersonal crises, conflicts, contradictions, but also about 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.

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 is the creation of new meaning, “meaning generation”, “meaning construction”, when the result internal work For a person to overcome and experience critical life situations, changes occur in his inner subjective world - acquiring a new meaning, a new value attitude, restoring mental balance, etc. (Vasilyuk, 1984).

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 words of May already quoted: “...Our task is transforming destructive conflicts into constructive ones” (May, 1994, p. 30).

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 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. 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, in response to this signal, we try to make changes in our interaction, we come to a new state of adaptation in the relationship. If at each stage of our relationship we achieve a new level of adaptation, this ensures the preservation, “survival” of our relationship.

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 group will also be significant for intragroup conflict. external environment. Thus, groups that are in a state of more or less constant confrontation with other groups will tend to more fully involve their members personally in common 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.

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 aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had become accustomed 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.

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.”

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 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 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.”

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 more fully involve their members personally in common 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.

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 aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had become accustomed 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.

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

Every conflict can play both a positive and negative role. The duality of the nature of the conflict lies in the peculiarities of its influence on the life and activities of the warring parties. In addition, at different stages of its development, the same conflict can take on both constructive and destructive overtones.

From the point of view of the conflicting parties The following positive aspects can be identified in the conflict.
1. Conflict can fully or partially neutralize organizational contradictions caused by deficiencies in the organization of activities, unsatisfactory management, or a mismatch between the employee’s qualifications and the duties performed. The result is the resolution of approximately 65% of such contradictions.
2. The result of the conflict may be a more objective assessment of the socio-psychological qualities of people involved in the conflict. Methods of confrontation show the value orientations of the participants in the conflict, their true motives, and demonstrate the degree of their psychological resilience and stress resistance. Conflict helps bring out both negative and positive traits in a person. About 10-15% of conflicts improve relations between opponents after they end.
3. Participation in a conflict allows you to reduce the degree of psychological tension among the warring parties. The actions of opponents, which are often accompanied by strong emotional reactions, can reduce the intensity of subsequent negative emotions. For example, the phenomenon of catharsis arises, which means the release of accumulated negative energy that has put strong pressure on a person.
4. Conflict interaction can become an impetus for personal development and improvement of interpersonal relationships. Constructive conflict resolution allows a person to form a positive experience of action in conflict situations, gain effective interaction skills, improve your social status.
5. The result of the conflict may be an increase in the individual efficiency of the employee. For example, for managers, the result of conflict in 28% of cases is an increase in the quality of activity, and a decrease is observed in 17% of cases. For ordinary workers, on the contrary, as a result of the conflict, the quality of their work often deteriorates, since they fail to achieve the goals they pursued in the conflict.
6. A conflict can help increase the authority of one of the parties if during the conflict it pursued goals that were assessed as fair by work colleagues. This happens 4 times more often than when a party defends goals that are considered dubious.
7. Conflict can serve as a tool for socialization of the individual and significantly increase the individual’s self-esteem.

When assessing each conflict, one should take into account the impact it has on the macro- and microenvironment. In addition to the opponents involved in the conflict, it has a direct impact on the entire group. The degree of conflict is directly proportional to the strength of the relationship between the opponent and the group, the social status of the warring parties, and the intensity of their conflictual opposition. In this case, the following positive aspects of the conflict are highlighted:

serves as a tool to stimulate social activity small group or community (innovation conflict);
shows the relevance of some unresolved problems;
helps identify existing public opinion;
can serve to create new (and more favorable) conditions for the functioning of the organization;
sometimes it becomes an important factor in the unity of a social group (and even an entire nation).

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 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 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.”

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.

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 aimed to extremely aggravate his feelings and cause a crisis. I wrote that he had become accustomed 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.

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 is the creation of new meaning, “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 inner 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 already quoted words of R. May: “...Our task is to transform destructive conflicts into constructive ones.”

ARTICLES on the same TOPIC