Conflict Wisdom
Last week during a sermon at Journey Community Church, the message was about the inevitability of conflict. The sermon was titled “Conflict Inevitable, Carnage Optional,” led by pastor Ed Noble. Despite many Bible verses aimed at finding peace through faith, I found it a very “real” and honest approach that even though a path for peace is ideal, it is unrealistic to think that conflict will not continue to resurface in one’s life somehow. However, the “carnage” that can accompany an intense conflict IS optional, which was another point of the sermon. Another way that Ed phrased it was that the ‘relational shrapnel’ that results from a conflict between two partners can be moderated depending on how much conflict wisdom is brought to the situation.
Ed used the term conflict wisdom. Perhaps in Bowenian terms, conflict wisdom means objectivity, or logic. Not the logic of a smart mathematician, but the logic that comes from removing the emotional film of a situation. It makes sense that perhaps an outsider, or someone neutral, can see a situation more “logically” because he or she is not involved emotionally. If we tried our best to remove the emotional film from our conflicts, we may find that they seem more manageable and result in less ‘shrapnel.’ I came up with the term ‘emotional film’ because to me it is an emotional layer that blocks a thoughtful or realistic response. I could be having a conversation about something trivial with my partner, but if I had a tiresome day, perceived my partner as being uninterested in the conversation, and therefore I up the ante a bit, I may be creating a situation that only exacerbates the problem.
A key part of the sermon was that answers are optional, and how an individual responds to someone in the face of conflict is completely under the control of that individual. To me, this could not speak more to what Bowen says about reactivity. Understanding reactivity is a big component to Bowen theory. Murray Bowen posits that if one can use objective thinking (versus emotional, see post titled “Differentiation”), that one can be less reactive in high-intensity situations. Reactivity looks like many different things. Perhaps most obviously, reactivity is yelling or shouting when a partner makes you feel upset. In an extreme form, it could be lashing out physically at a partner. Reactivity could be a physical sensation, such as feeling sick to your stomach, or crying your eyes out. For some people, reactivity looks like disengagement, or leaving the situation because it is too overwhelming. When we have reactivity, it can lead us to use whatever coping skills we have to calm the emotional situation down. Bowen suggests we can lower our chronic anxiety by lowering our reactivity to intense situations. To me, this parallels bringing ‘conflict wisdom’ to our emotional situations.
A bible verse that was used in the sermon comes from Proverbs 14:29, and says “He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.” Even if you, the reader, does not read from the Bible or practice a certain faith, I believe that slowing down and taking care to not react so quickly can bring much better results in relationships. The more thoughtful we are in responding, the less we may regret a response given out of an emotional mindset. We can be more thoughtful by not reacting on emotional impulse.
A component of reactivity that I specifically want to address in this post is cut-off, or disengagement. Clinicians often see in therapy that one partner, customarily the male, leaves the scene of an argument or conflict when it gets too heated. Some do this because they are trying to avoid more fighting. Or they may state, “I had nothing more to say and wanted the conflict to end.” Some are honest enough to admit that walking away was due to being frustrated and continuing to engage is exhausting and not leading anywhere. Although disengaging can be done with aims to “better the conflict,” or, prevent it from getting worse, there are many implications about walking away from an intense situation. Walking away has an effect on the partner and has implications on the partner who did the walking away. Disengagement can appear to be stopping the conflict, but according to Bowen theory, emotionally cutting oneself off from conflict can show a lot of sensitivity and comes from a place of intense reactivity.
Part of being a more differentiated self is taking responsibility for self. According to Roberta Gilbert in Extraordinary Relationships, if one of the conflicted partners in a relationship could learn to remain calm and thoughtful in the face of the anxiety of the other, there would be no conflict. This would mean keeping our reactivity under control- not verbally lashing out or walking away. These responses may come from an emotional pattern that one we are used to, but here is the good news: we have choices in how we respond TODAY! We can choose to think before giving an answer. We can choose to respond from a thoughtful place instead of a “feeling,” emotional place. This is not a light switch response: this takes work and practice. The best place to begin learning about our reactions and how we developed our behavioral patterns is in our family of origin. Often when a partner gets caught up in reactivity, it is a reflex to either fight back or walk away. This is learned behavior. Conflict can be less intense if we begin to examine what our usual responses are, and work towards trying something different. (It would be a good idea to stop and take note of our reflexes). Changing the way our conflicts ensue includes finding a way to remain calm when our partners are upset and continue listening and talking to them. This means NOT cutting off from them, or disengaging. To be a fully differentiated self, one must work on improving his or her own emotional functioning, not changing the other. This takes an incredible amount of personal accountability.
Getting the results we want does not come from attempting to change our partners or our family members. Change comes from attending to our own reactions. Our family of origin is the place where we learned how to “be” in a conflict. How could we not go “back” there?
Ed used the term conflict wisdom. Perhaps in Bowenian terms, conflict wisdom means objectivity, or logic. Not the logic of a smart mathematician, but the logic that comes from removing the emotional film of a situation. It makes sense that perhaps an outsider, or someone neutral, can see a situation more “logically” because he or she is not involved emotionally. If we tried our best to remove the emotional film from our conflicts, we may find that they seem more manageable and result in less ‘shrapnel.’ I came up with the term ‘emotional film’ because to me it is an emotional layer that blocks a thoughtful or realistic response. I could be having a conversation about something trivial with my partner, but if I had a tiresome day, perceived my partner as being uninterested in the conversation, and therefore I up the ante a bit, I may be creating a situation that only exacerbates the problem.
A key part of the sermon was that answers are optional, and how an individual responds to someone in the face of conflict is completely under the control of that individual. To me, this could not speak more to what Bowen says about reactivity. Understanding reactivity is a big component to Bowen theory. Murray Bowen posits that if one can use objective thinking (versus emotional, see post titled “Differentiation”), that one can be less reactive in high-intensity situations. Reactivity looks like many different things. Perhaps most obviously, reactivity is yelling or shouting when a partner makes you feel upset. In an extreme form, it could be lashing out physically at a partner. Reactivity could be a physical sensation, such as feeling sick to your stomach, or crying your eyes out. For some people, reactivity looks like disengagement, or leaving the situation because it is too overwhelming. When we have reactivity, it can lead us to use whatever coping skills we have to calm the emotional situation down. Bowen suggests we can lower our chronic anxiety by lowering our reactivity to intense situations. To me, this parallels bringing ‘conflict wisdom’ to our emotional situations.
A bible verse that was used in the sermon comes from Proverbs 14:29, and says “He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.” Even if you, the reader, does not read from the Bible or practice a certain faith, I believe that slowing down and taking care to not react so quickly can bring much better results in relationships. The more thoughtful we are in responding, the less we may regret a response given out of an emotional mindset. We can be more thoughtful by not reacting on emotional impulse.
A component of reactivity that I specifically want to address in this post is cut-off, or disengagement. Clinicians often see in therapy that one partner, customarily the male, leaves the scene of an argument or conflict when it gets too heated. Some do this because they are trying to avoid more fighting. Or they may state, “I had nothing more to say and wanted the conflict to end.” Some are honest enough to admit that walking away was due to being frustrated and continuing to engage is exhausting and not leading anywhere. Although disengaging can be done with aims to “better the conflict,” or, prevent it from getting worse, there are many implications about walking away from an intense situation. Walking away has an effect on the partner and has implications on the partner who did the walking away. Disengagement can appear to be stopping the conflict, but according to Bowen theory, emotionally cutting oneself off from conflict can show a lot of sensitivity and comes from a place of intense reactivity.
Part of being a more differentiated self is taking responsibility for self. According to Roberta Gilbert in Extraordinary Relationships, if one of the conflicted partners in a relationship could learn to remain calm and thoughtful in the face of the anxiety of the other, there would be no conflict. This would mean keeping our reactivity under control- not verbally lashing out or walking away. These responses may come from an emotional pattern that one we are used to, but here is the good news: we have choices in how we respond TODAY! We can choose to think before giving an answer. We can choose to respond from a thoughtful place instead of a “feeling,” emotional place. This is not a light switch response: this takes work and practice. The best place to begin learning about our reactions and how we developed our behavioral patterns is in our family of origin. Often when a partner gets caught up in reactivity, it is a reflex to either fight back or walk away. This is learned behavior. Conflict can be less intense if we begin to examine what our usual responses are, and work towards trying something different. (It would be a good idea to stop and take note of our reflexes). Changing the way our conflicts ensue includes finding a way to remain calm when our partners are upset and continue listening and talking to them. This means NOT cutting off from them, or disengaging. To be a fully differentiated self, one must work on improving his or her own emotional functioning, not changing the other. This takes an incredible amount of personal accountability.
Getting the results we want does not come from attempting to change our partners or our family members. Change comes from attending to our own reactions. Our family of origin is the place where we learned how to “be” in a conflict. How could we not go “back” there?
