Is conflict really a negative phenomenon?

A reflection on the negative connotations of the concept of conflict.

Although it may be unconscious or automatic, there is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term "conflict", there is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term "conflict".This has been accentuated more significantly in recent decades in today's society.

This negative conception is causing individuals to present more and more difficulties in its adequate management and coping. Thus, a pathogenic functioning is being normalized by which either one tends to avoid conflict or one chooses to resolve it in an impulsive, reactionary, andIs conflict really a negative phenomenon?A reflection on the negative connotations of the concept of conflict.

• Although it may be unconscious or automatic, there is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term "conflict",

there is a marked tendency to attribute an adverse meaning to the term "conflict".

This has been accentuated more significantly in recent decades in today's society.

This negative conception is causing individuals to present more and more difficulties in its adequate management and coping. Thus, a pathogenic functioning is being normalized by which either one tends to avoid conflict or one chooses to resolve it in an impulsive, reactionary and/or aggressive manner.

At the turn of the century, society is undergoing a major transformation at a very rapid pace. As a result of globalization, in recent decades it has become possible to transmit and exchange any type of information between any two points on the planet almost immediately and at low cost. Inevitably, this has had consequences on the economy, on the national and international policies pursued and on the values that the population has been internalizing in its development, both at the level of each individual and more collectively.

With globalization, it seems that physical and symbolic borders have been eliminatedA fact that can lead to the conclusion that there are no limits, that everything is possible, and that the more the better.

Such expressions underlie some of the foundations of the capitalist system in which we find ourselves enveloped (trapped?) and which is promoted by the mainstream media, in the sense that the quantitative is prioritized over the qualitative and, therefore, the qualitative is prioritized,

individualistic competitive attitudes are favored over more cooperative and empathic ones individualistic attitudes are favored over more cooperative and empathetic ones, and values such as individual freedom or the satisfaction of personal or self-centered desires are emphasized over generous behavior oriented towards the common good.Along with globalization and capitalism, technological development, exposure to constant change, as well as increasingly frequent and habitual multicultural coexistence are other factors that are making today's society much more complex than in the past.

• All these factors together can generate in the individual a feeling of permanent uncertainty.

The ability to adequately manage such uncertainty becomes a challenge for individuals, as it requires a psychological coping effort that sometimes cannot be carried out in a natural and satisfactory way, causing some emotional affectations. The ability to adequately manage such uncertainty becomes a challenge for individuals, since it requires a psychological coping effort that sometimes cannot be carried out in a natural and satisfactory way, causing some emotional and/or behavioral personal affectations.

Under such circumstances, the phenomenon of "conflict" is an aversive and unpleasant obstacle to solve, making it difficult to keep up with the accelerated pace imposed by society. A conflict, from the outset, implies time, it implies the need for reflection and analysis and this seems to have no place in the schemes that govern the globalized and capitalist functioning.

And it is as a consequence of this biased perception of "I want it ALL and I want it NOW" that increases the probability of exercising attitudes of violence and aggressiveness (in order to achieve the (in order to achieve the proposed objective) or also of flight and avoidance of adversity, as indicated above. These generalized ways of dealing with conflict, which do not seem psychologically adaptive and effective, are not subject to particular or specific situations but are institutionalized, forming part of the current social structure.

Meaning of the terms conflict, aggressiveness and violence. Faced with such a scenario, it seems essential to recover a rational and realistic notion of what the word "conflict" implies in order to recover the possibility of adaptive coping with it.According to the literature published by experts in this field, authors such as Fernandez (1998), argue that

conflict should not be confused with its pathology, violence.

. For this author, conflict is simply a situation of confrontation of interests that produces antagonism between different parties. Cabanas (2000) adds that such a situation can be resolved in a non-violent manner. It follows that conflict should not be confused with a problematic entity in itself, which does not necessarily involve a confrontation but consists of a discrepancy of positions. The fact that there are differences of perspective is inevitable, natural and inherent to human beings, since each person is incontestably unique in his or her own subjectivity.On the other hand, violence is learned, not learned,

violence is learned, not innate, and mediated by the environment.

. In the words of Fernandez (1998), violent behavior imposes force, power and status against the other in order to harm him or her. Thus, violent behavior responds to a voluntary and conscious act to achieve the satisfaction of a specific objective.

Nor should violence be equated with aggressiveness. The definition of the frustration model proposed by Dollard, Doob, Miller and Sears in 1939 indicated that aggressiveness is an impulsive behavior in which the consequences of such action are not considered. This statement is complemented by that of Auran (2003) who adds that aggressiveness is a defense mechanism to reaffirm the survival instinct.

Therefore, it also has a positive adaptive component, it also has a component of positive adaptation

being another natural phenomenon. It is when this aggressiveness is not adequately channeled that it turns into violence and becomes problematic. Finally, a distinction should be made between aggressiveness, a disposition or tendency, and aggression, which becomes the concrete act by which aggressiveness is expressed.

Therefore, the key point behind the above definitions lies in understanding that conflict and aggressiveness, natural and adaptive elements, should not lead to aggression or the exercise of violence, both of which are learned principles and therefore avoidable. By way of conclusion After what has been exposed throughout the text, it can be concluded, therefore, that a change of perspective in the connotation given to the existence of conflict is necessary. Conflict can be a valuable opportunity for reflection, decision making, change, as well as for dialogue and agreement.

• Conflict can enhance the critical spirit, a deeper analysis of situations, and can foster empathetic functioning.
• and can foster empathetic and other-oriented functioning.
• However, this increasingly less common positive attitude must also be combined with other types of processes that similarly question to what extent the values promoted by today's globalized and capitalist society are hindering precisely the adoption of such an introspective and cooperative aptitude.