Third is the cultural acceptance of the means to maintain the social hierarchy, typically through power plays, acceptance of the elites and the use of violence and the threat of violence. Indeed, as noted, humans have been very prepared to watch and endorse the most horrific cruelty of individuals deemed undesirable via crucifixion, burning, flogging, stoning, and so forth (Gilbert, 2018). The crucial issue, however, is not power itself, but how power is gained and how it is used and in particular how it is used to deal with inherent conflicts and issues of resource distribution (Mulgan, 2006). While some competitive behaviors can be beneficial, unregulated competitive behavior that seeks to suppress others can have a terrible dark side. Indeed, it is the use of power to suppress and exploit or act out the traumas of childhood (as people such as Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, and co have) rather than to help, that is the issue.
The advent of COVID-19, and our local responses to it, have illuminated an outpouring of compassionate courage, a sense of interdependence, self-sacrifice and helpfulness. In addition, it has raised the issue again that many of us want a more compassionate, cooperative world, whilst recognizing the means to achieve this is unclear and fraught with problems, one being callousness. These are partly in our evolution and partly in our cultures and history of agricultural societies. Adopting these compassionate approaches not only enhances our conflict-resolution skills but also strengthens our relationships and communities.
- Embracing compassionate conflict resolution nurtures healthier connections with others—and with ourselves—paving a path toward greater peace in our lives and communities.
- Many on the right-wing argue that competition is important because it drives enterprise, and you cannot share resources unless you create them.
- These are partly in our evolution and partly in our cultures and history of agricultural societies.
- Conflict resolution should be aimed at finding solutions that work for all parties involved rather than forcing one side’s viewpoint over another’s.
So, it is not only the politician that is problem, but also the strategies they ignite to ripple through the groups they lead. The essence of the story so far then is that we are biologically designed with a whole suite of potential motives and social mentalities which organize our minds and bodies. We think these are all under our control, but in reality, they have been designed and evolved to be sensitive to the social contexts and niches we grow up in and have to function in Wilson (2019). While we are hard-wired for caring and sharing (Keltner, 2009; Ricard, 2015; Narvaez, 2017, 2020), we are also hard-wired with potentials to be a much nastier species. We now have insight that a major choreographer of these potentials that affect us all, right down to our epigenetic profiles and physiological organization, is resource allocation strategies and the management of the conflicts of interest.
By utilizing compassionate empathy, individuals in conflict can move from merely engaging with their own feelings and perspectives to genuinely connecting with others’ experiences, laying a foundation for resolution. Conflict is an inevitable part of our daily lives that can impact our personal growth and mental well-being. As a manager, mentor, and coach, I have worked with people worldwide who are struggling with conflicts. Based on my experiences, I strongly believe that exhibiting kindness and compassion is one of the most powerful ways to respond to conflicts.
Keep Emotions In Check
He highlighted the human potential to be compliant and submissive in carrying out orders (Milgram, 1974). Zimbardo’s Stanford experiments at the same time implied that, give people a role (like a prison guard) and they will gradually adopt the (callous) behaviors of that role. Later, Zimbardo went onto explore a whole range of processes that facilitate good people doing very bad and cruel things that he labeled the Lucifer effect (Zimbardo, 2008). He was one of the investigators of some of the tortures that happened at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq war. Zimbardo (2008) and Sapolsky (2017) both highlight the contextual and social conditions that stimulate the worst in us and that we cannot understand humans as autonomous beings – a treasured but completely erroneous belief of the right-wing.
Yet, we have inherited these same forces that trap us, so that now we have become what Madeline Bunting (2004) calls willing slaves. We cannot easily survive without being part of a production process that eats deeply into our lives. And many have a need-hate relationship with it in the sense that we need to work in the factories or wherever but we hate having to spend such a large percentage of our lives doing so. Yet without that opportunity we would not have the resources to be free of poverty. Everyday we have to spend hours in traffic jams and doing things we do not want to do. Some feel so disengaged from the joys of living, sacrificed on the altar of routinized working, that we live in varying states of frustrative, envious and helpless anger, and emotionally dissociated states (Bunting, 2004).
Leading with compassionate unity in conflict is not only beneficial but necessary for effective leadership in today’s diverse environments. When leaders approach conflicts with empathy, inclusivity, and a commitment to shared goals, they set the stage for collaborative problem-solving and stronger relationships within their teams. Before delving into fostering compassion in conflict resolution, it is essential to define what compassion means. Compassion is more than mere empathy; it involves a deep awareness of the suffering of others coupled with a desire to alleviate that suffering. In the context of conflict resolution, compassion entails understanding the perspectives and emotions of all parties involved while maintaining a commitment to finding a just and equitable solution. In other words, we should not underestimate the dynamics of, and regulation of, those who have access to power (Gilligan, 2011; Owen, 2020).
While negative reactions to conflict may include punishment, blame, shame, or manipulation, healthy conflict asks something greater of us. It may mean taking responsibility for our part without collapsing into self-blame. Often in conflicts, individuals become entrenched in their positions without considering shared objectives or interests. Shifting focus towards common goals can transform adversarial stances into collaborative efforts.
To distribute resources and create opportunities to contribute to a sharing and caring world has never been the desire of competitive, neoliberal politics or the right-wing (Gilligan, 2011; Sachs, 2012). It is competitive self-interest to control and hold as much of the resources as one can. Resource control buys freedom from hunger, comforts, pleasures, and medical care; ways to make the world more enjoyable and safe for oneself and kin (Galbraith, 1993). It is sold under the banner of liberty and freedom to secure as much personal wealth as we so wish, but this is exactly what would have been shamed in hunter-gatherers! And commonly, it comes with shedding of responsibility for others and extraordinary justifications for exceptional wealth (Galbraith, 1993). Indeed, as history shows so clearly this so-called “freedom and liberty” also involves freedom and liberty to exploit and use others as a resource if you possibly can.
Encouraging each side to suggest potential solutions empowers all involved and creates a sense of ownership over the resolution process. When forgiving, we free ourselves in the first place from any negativity that occupies space in our minds and heart. It is not about condoning disrespectful behavior, we can still set boundaries and speak our truth in a calm and powerful way.
Although the data on early attachment experiences and these fear based orientations to the world is a little thin, it is probable that some of them were set up for this fear-focused phenotypic orientation because of problematic backgrounds. One of the most salient dimensions underpinning shifts into control and hold (and away from share and care, in both the poor and the wealthy but for different reasons) is the perception of threat. In the wealthy it is the threat of losing what they have, and in the poor is the threat of not having enough. Both types of threat sensitivity can make us manipulable to threat messages and tribal aggression (Hobfoll, 2018).
The hormones oxytocin and vasopressin also played a crucial role in the evolution of caring behavior for infants, pair bonding and close friendships (Carter et al., 2017). Rockliff et al. (2011) found the nasal oxytocin made it easier for people to imagine a caring other being caring of them. Morhenn et al. (2012) found that receiving touching massage reduced stress hormones and increased oxytocin. In social mentality theory (Gilbert, 2017a), both the giving and receiving of signals impact similar systems. Hence we are biologically set up with systems designed for the giving and receiving of care. Whether it arises in personal relationships, the workplace, or broader societal contexts, how we approach conflict can significantly impact our mental health and the outcomes of the situations we face.
In a world where division often seems easier than Signing up on Secretmeet collaboration, leading with compassion becomes a powerful tool for creating lasting change and fostering resilient teams capable of overcoming any challenge together. Give your partner your full attention, listen to their perspective without interrupting, and seek to understand their feelings and needs. Repeat back what you’ve heard to ensure accuracy and show that you value their viewpoint. When discussing conflicts, utilize “I” statements to express feelings rather than accusatory “you” statements which can trigger defensiveness (e.g., “I feel upset when deadlines are missed” instead of “You always miss deadlines”). Establishing a compassionate tone from the outset sets the stage for constructive dialogue. Consider starting conversations with affirmations of mutual respect and a shared goal of resolution rather than blame or defensiveness.
Approach With Empathy
Rather than (just) thinking about individuals competing with one another, we can also consider these different resource regulation strategies as competing within populations shaping psychophysiological patterns; both wealth and poverty change the brain. One of the challenges to creating a more compassionate society is to find ways to create the social and economic conditions that regulate control and hold strategies and promote care and share. The other strategy in contexts of low care is a riskier up rank strategy, to really push one’s luck, display confidence (perhaps even grandiose), seek power and accumulate resources, foregoing sharing caring strategies. These are linked to certain types of narcissism and psychopathy both of which involve toning down caring and sharing motives (Del Giudice, 2016). One version links to a sense of entitlement to treat others as a resource, and in the extreme regulate their relationships through fear.
This is sometimes egged on by the sections of the media (Mulgan, 2006; Sachs, 2012). Indeed, as Gilligan (2011) reveals, some politicians are ‘more dangerous’ than others. Many right wing policies, which are basically invigorated control and hold strategies, tend to increase mental health difficulties, crime, social inequalities and social division and increase a sense of threat.
You understand their emotions, but you maintain enough distance to offer support without being overwhelmed by their feelings. Another problem is that in our ancestral groups our drive and resource seeking motives were regulated by resource shortage and their immediate use. Wanting more and better is of course a natural psychology and the psychology of contentment and sufficiency is tricky, particularly when people socially compared to their own reference group (Naish, 2008; Cordaro et al., 2016). Table 1 brings together some of the themes addressed above in terms of how different strategies organize the brain. Of course, minds do not operate Lego-like systems but complex networks of dissipated circuits that produce patterns of electrochemical activity underpinning motives and behaviors.
