One of our challenges in a dispute is to resist the urge to pick one side or the other. Rather than being firmly in one of the camps, we should understand our interest to be firmly in resolving the conflict.
Picking sides perpetuates conflict.
First, itcompromises our ability to push for the understanding required to actually resolve conflict. We need to be clear-eyed about this. If we end up prioritizing one side’s position over the other, it will lead us to at least partially turn a blind eye to the legitimate grievances of the other, and possibly accept spurious claims from our chosen side without subjecting them to the same scrutiny and burden of proof that we would require from others.
This reflects a poorer perspective-taking and critical thinking process, and so will impede our results.
Often, when we think we’ve dealt with a certain conflict, we are merely deferring it, suppressing it for the time being. It’s not until the fundamental causes for the conflict are addressed that it will actually end up being resolved.
Resolved cannot mean 100% suppression. If your approach to conflict resolution is dropping bombs, whether in person or across nations, you will be in for a lifetime of conflict. You can’t strongarm resolution.
Second, consider the difference in the social dynamics of a situation where in one instance, the third person in is focused on resolving the conflict, vs the third person in is picking sides.
Picking sides is the path to escalation.
The third person in, the first person unrelated to the dispute at hand, shifts the balance, and has the potential to break the ideological deadlocks that generate conflict. If the third person has is dedicated to resolving the conflict, they will seek to understand the interests of both sides, and ensure that both are fairly represented in the resulting agreement. If they create an environment that is perceived as fair by both sides, buy in from both will be higher than if the 3rd person creates an environment that is actively hostile to one of the participants. If the 3rd person is able to successfully resolve the dispute, it goes no further, and all 3 can move forward with a reinforced sense of common ground, even if there are still wide differences between the original two parties.
But it might be that the shifting balance of people causes one party to lose that particular dispute. It might be that the losing party withdraws from the conflict, yet it’s entirely likely that some degree of resentment is now simmering, repressed. There has been no ideological resolution, through actual engagement. Both sides need to buy into the results for it to be resolved.
How a conflict becomes a war:
If resulting loser (or would be loser) sees that they have or will lose as a result of their opponent having successfully recruited the third person to their cause, this will prompt similar recruiting behavior from them, in an attempt to even the odds, and then it becomes a race to see who can recruit the larger number of active participants.
The dynamic is the same whether it is happening in highschool, war, family disputes or politics.
Wedge politics is a particularly pernicious form of this that results in more extreme positions being highlighted, the ‘other-ing’ of the dispute partner, and creates a race towards what ought to be understood as the lowest form of democracy, as it becomes basically enshrined tribalism. Different ideological battlegrounds are identified, a position is staked out, and then it begins. The aim shifts from finding the best path forward and building on common ground to trying to find the most extreme positions of the other side in order to discredit them, and to defend your side from any attacks. Strawmans and shifting goalposts abound.
And then the electorate is slowly fractured along many fault lines within society. People filter each other out based upon the outline of the wedge. We start writing each other off, and our perceived differences multiply until our common ground seems far smaller by comparison. The most engaged actors are often more ideologically extreme examples; media, both social and otherwise, tend to gravitate towards these more extreme examples that get people talking and in a very real sense all of this fuels what might be called ‘performative engagement.’
Tribalism to a T
Performing is when you are acting because you perceive your ‘side’ to desire certain behaviours. People yelling at each other at protests are a good example of this. Individually, one on one, they would probably have a much higher likelihood of just having a normal conversation with each other, and potentially talking through some of their differences. But, in context, each person is usually more interested in getting the approval from their side of the picket line (‘yeah, you tell ’em!) rather than building any sense of nuanced understanding with the person they are addressing. Nuanced understanding has much greater capacity to properly account for things than binary, black and white thinking does.
Social media exacerbates this dynamic, because it makes the crowd ever-present. Your side comes with you in your pocket , and it leads to contrived situations, ‘gotchya’ moments and people using their daily interactions to try to prove some point to a third-party audience that may or may not exist. It lowers their desire and propensity to solve disputes as they arise.
It’ll be hard to find love if you are just dating to tell your friends about your exploits.
Social contagion works both ways:
If the third person shows a firm and unwavering commitment to expanding the common ground by understanding and accounting for each party’s interests, this sets a good example for the other two parties to follow, and encourages them to emulate the same. Often, it is this change in attitude that helps resolve conflicts. It encourages each side to be more flexible, by approaching the situation with more curiosity and less condemnation, when they see someone else doing the same. Likewise, if the third person in hurls insults – they are inviting, and will likely find, reciprocation of the same. This applies equally to individual interactions and global politics.