In an essay entitled Constructive
Conflict, Mary Parker Follett suggests that we reconsider conflict, not as
something that is good or bad, or that must judged one way or another, or that is even considered
warfare. Rather, she states, conflict is, essentially, "the appearance of
difference, difference of opinions, of interests."
She shares that it's
not useful to condemn conflict, but that we ought to put it to use. I ask the reader to reflect on the similarities between Follett's psychology of constructive conflict and Allama Iqbal's philosophy of the nature of the social organism, consensus-seeking, and how to achieve a dynamic social stability.
I
personally find Follett's commentary on conflict as difference to be quite useful
in consideration of a spiritual psychology for not only the individual but for
nations as well. If we think of the political contention in various
nations (and between those nations), how refreshingly useful it would be to put to work this re-framing of
so-called conflict as difference toward attaining a new social harmony.
On the inevitability of difference, in
life, Follett references a passage from her very interesting book, Creative
Experience:
"What people often mean by getting
rid of conflict is getting rid of diversity, and it is of the utmost importance
that these should not be considered the same. We may wish to abolish conflict,
but we cannot get rid of diversity. We must face life as it is and understand
that diversity is its most essential feature...Fear of difference is dread of
life itself. It is possible to conceive conflict as not necessarily a wasteful
outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable
differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned."
Follett speaks to how conflict can indeed be constructive. She shares an analogy of how the
friction that comes about from the driving wheel of a locomotive and the track
is necessary to haul the train. She shares: "All polishing is done by
friction. The music of the violin we get by friction." In this
manner, she points out that the arising and meeting of differences is what
brings change.
Follett outlines three main ways of
dealing with conflict: domination, compromise, and integration. She describes
domination as the easiest way to deal with conflict, but not the most
successful in the long-run.
She states that compromise seems often
appropriate as a way to deal with conflict, but that it almost always leads to
the conflict arising again and again, in different forms. This is so, she
states, because we have to give up part of our original desire and, not being
content to rest there, we seek to get the whole of it. Conflict, therefore,
continues to re-emerge in various forms.
With integration, unlike domination and compromise, differences are brought out into the open so
that a solution can be found in which both desires (differences) find a place
in which neither side has to sacrifice their wishes. Each party's (underlying) needs are identified and met in what, in today's world, might be called a win-win arrangement.
Integration is, then, an
appearing and focusing of differences wherein something new is created out of
an original set of seemingly incompatible choices. Integration involves
"invention, and the clever thing is to recognize this, and not to let
one's thinking stay within the boundaries of two alternatives which are
mutually exclusive." While domination and compromise deal with what
already exists, and thus nothing new is created, integration, as "a moment
in the interacting of desires," creates something new. What Follett
describes is nothing less than Deep Consensus through a psychological, and one might even say alchemical,
coming-together of people and their differences.
She argues that "progressive
differings" can lead to "progressive integrations." This, she
writes, is how an individual and a society "becomes spiritually more and
more developed as our conflicts rise to higher levels." If conflict means the appearance of differences, as Follett describes, progressive differings and integrations may then point to a path of evolution wherein an individual or groups of individuals create more and more unity (integration being the channel of birth) in diversity.
So how do we integrate? Follett writes
that the first step is to bring the differences out into the open. She warns,
however, that one barrier to this is that, if our real aim is not to integrate,
but to dominate, then integration will fail. We must strongly desire to bring
the differences out into the open, to meet in a field of desires, and to create
something new for the benefit of everyone. We must really want conflict (i.e.,
differences) to become settled, and thus rise to higher conflicts (i.e., a
higher form of dealing with ever more subtle differences), and new creations of individual and social harmony.
Only integration, she argues, will
stabilize differences. She highlights, however, that “stabilize” is not
static. She states very simply, “Nothing ever stays put.” Particular
conflicts are settled after which further ones arise, but on a higher
level. There is a deep spirituality implicit in her discussion of integration.
When the differences are uncovered and
squarely faced, there is often a revaluation of them. She argues that many
contentious conflicts can be avoided by bringing "the desires of each side
into one field of vision where they could be viewed together and compared."
In her very quotable style, Follett writes: "Revaluation is the flower of
comparison."
If the first step is to bring
differences out into the open, the next step is to “take the demands of
both sides and break them up into their constituent parts,” something Follett
refers to as the “breaking up of wholes” in order to create something new, a
new whole. She advises, for this step, that one must seek to “find
the significant rather than the dramatic features,” and that a thorough
“examination of symbols” occurs. By this, she means that we must sink
beneath the claptrap of dramatic look-at-me behaviors (of the individual or group), seeking instead to find
the real, underlying reason behind conflicts.
She mentions how the person
“with a genius for leadership” is indeed the wo/man who can articulate the
whole-demand, instead of merely part of it. Focusing on only part of the
entirety of demands (differences) is a pathway into domination and/or
compromise. It is the wom/an who can speak for all people, including all, and excluding none.
Follett’s psychology of integration is
impressive. She goes on to describe how we need to be very aware of the
“circular response.” She writes: “We must remember that whenever we act
we have always ‘started something,’ behavior precipitates behavior in
others.” She adds, “I can never fight you, I am always fighting you plus
me. I have put it this way: that response is always to a relation.”
In a very practical way, Follett argues that we “should work always with the
evolving situation, and note what part our own activities have in that evolving
situation." She very much expresses an understanding of human interaction
that is nowadays put forth as Emotional Intelligence.
Concluding her essay, she highlights
some obstacles to integration. These include:
1. The
tendency for people to want to fight instead of coming together. This would even
include the addiction some people might feel toward the thrill of fighting.
2. Over-emphasis
on intellectual agreement alone. Follett warns against this, stating that
genuine integration is more likely to spontaneously arise when intellectual
theorizing ceases, and a definite course of action is initiated.
3. She
mentions that the language used to work toward integration is of vital
importance. We need to choose our words carefully, when seeking to come
together with others (e.g., political parties) just as we would choose our
words carefully to soothe the feelings of a spouse.
4. She
also cites the “undue influence of leaders – the manipulation of the unscrupulous on
the one hand and the suggestibility of the crowd on the other," as another
obstacle. She cautions that the “whole emotional field of human
intercourse has to be taken fully into account in dealing with methods of
reconciliation.” This is, again, an example of Follett’s identification
of priorities that would later become known as Emotional Intelligence. Having said this, however, I also acknowledge that Follett's philosophy is, in my opinion, of a unique depth distinct from Emotional Intelligence.
5. Follett
states that, by far, the greatest obstacle to integration is our lack of
training in it. She points to how we are taught to debate with others,
seeking always to be right. This, she argues does not support our skills or our desire for integration.
She states, and I agree, that “there should be classes in discussion which
should aim to teach the ‘art’ of cooperative thinking." Follett points out
not to confuse cooperative thinking with simple openmindedness (i.e., to
others’ opinions). Cooperative thinking “needs just as great a respect
for your own view as for that of others, and a firm upholding of it until you
are convinced. Mushy people are no more good at this than stubborn
people.”
In conclusion, Mary Parker Follett
shares this as the most important process, not only for business and
government, but for all human relations.
We are "not to adapt ourselves to a situation
– we are all more necessary to the world than that; neither to mould a
situation to our liking – we are all, or rather each, of too little
importance to the world for that; but to take account of that reciprocal
adjustment, that interactive behavior between the situation and ourselves which
means a change in both the situation and ourselves."
Follett was a change-agent,
disseminating her astoundingly progressive ideas for the benefit of
everyone. Perhaps we can pick up these ideas, create something new, and discover a new unity in our diversity.
People's relationships can be compared with two facing walls. Each wall is full of small holes in which nest black and white birds. Black birds are dark thoughts. White birds are pure thoughts.
