If we could learn how to "conflict" (I'm using this as a verb here, for fun) effectively, like at a person-to-person level, our lives would be so much better, right? I mean, most of what makes life meaningful is interpersonal connection, whether romance, friendship, or meaningful work with colleagues. Imagine a life where your relational needs could truly be expressed and met. Imagine what kind of connection could blossom and take on new dimensions of beauty — dimensions unknown to us all, still stuck in conflict 1.0 — if we could just, get along.

I realized how much hinged on getting getting along right about 15 years ago, and sought to solve this problem. I admittedly wish I had done better, but I have also learned that this task was more daunting than I had realized. We're all carrying our fun personal loads of trauma, and we all have such conflicting and ever-increasingly-fragmented world views.

So there's a lot here. I'm going to discuss one aspect of getting getting along right, that I think is absolute necessary — although maybe not sufficient — but really, seriously necessary. It's pretty core to Marshall Rosenburg's Non-violent Communication model. So in a sense, it's really just one important exploration of a discovery someone else has already made. The TLDR is:

We don't realize, but we're all living in a right/wrong, fault/blame/shame, who's the bad guy conflict model paradigm. Let's upgrade our paradigm.

A little more about the what.

In a conflict (let's keep it one-to-one for simplicity) one party always starts with a felt sense and an intellectual belief that the other party is wrong and should, at least a little, be faulted.

"Oh, that's overly compressed, and I'm often not like that" you might be thinking. I'm not usually a fan of compressions either, but this truly is a pillar of every interpersonal conflict I have observed, and I have come to believe it's the most important pillar.

Let's look.

Think of an interpersonal conflict which instantiated from your personal dissatisfaction with the other party's behavior. What did you feel about that person or their behavior, when the conflict began? Did you feel totally neutral? Look closely. I think you will find some felt sense of blame, shame, fault, "they're in the wrong", "ugh", "how could they?". If you don't see it, give it a few days to settle and keep looking. Was there also an intellectual belief matching this felt sense? I'm guessing that was there too. I will be truly surprised if anyone high in introspection, phenomenology, and emotional intelligence, cannot find any of these things, even a little, when they look closely.

Now, think of an interpersonal conflict which instantiated from someone else's personal dissatisfaction with your behavior. What did it feel like that person felt towards you? Did it feel like they felt a sense of blame, shame, fault, "they're wrong", "ugh", or "how could they?" towards you?

That's our what here. That's what I'm pointing to. I'll use the word "fault" from here on out to point to this.

Why it doesn't work.

Faulting is actually a manipulation tactic. It's a tactic that has likely been used against most of us, if not every one of us, from a very young age. It's basically like "If I can make you feel bad about yourself, if I can turn your own self-model against you, that will feel pretty bad. I can use the threat of this bad feeling to control your behavior".

I know this sounds extreme. But really, look. Look to your childhood, because that's our current general location in space-time.

When you parents did not like your behavior, did they ever make you feel bad about your behavior? How did that feel?

When your teachers did not like your behavior, did they ever make you feel bad about your behavior? How did that feel?

Did this subsequently change your behavior? Okay I know, I know. I'm asking about something up to 30 years ago for us millenial LWers, or maybe further for the more OGs. If you can't remember, look at how most adults tend to modify childrens' behavior today. Or, take my word for it. For me: Not talking during school, not asking for bathroom breaks even when I really needed to go, not putting my elbows on the table, not wearing certain clothes, not expressing that I didn't want to go to school, always doing my homework, not outwardly questioning adult authority... The list goes on of so many things I didn't do because adults told me I should feel bad about myself for doing it.

So here's my take: You were manipulated quite badly, quite many times, and you carry childhood trauma from it. [insert party you are in an interpersonal conflict with] (from now on I'll call this person "party") was also manipulated quite badly, quite many times, and they carry childhood trauma from it. Is my assertion too strong? It parallels, I think, every one of my observations, but even if it is not the rule, I think exceptions are just that: exceptions.

Now let's continue. Why did adults do this? Okay yes, to manipulate someone's behavior. But how did they learn this manipulation tactic?

I personally argue that faulting is the default conflict paradigm, what I was calling conflict 1.0. We learn it as kids because it's everywhere. And, if you're with me so far, we can conclude that you've learned being faulted is harmful, and it's worth protecting against... But ironically, I think you've also learned faulting as the default sentiment towards a party whose behavior you are dissatisfied with, a party whose behavior has harmed you. We all have — I mean, this really is the grammar most of us have been handed for conflict — the wiring runs deep in pretty much everyone. But party has also learned these two things.

See the problem here?

In case not, here's a quick scenario. Party's behavior has caused you harm. You approach party with a conditioned felt sense and belief that they are at fault. But party has been manipulated with this so many times. Party has a seriously valid agenda to protect against this kind of manipulation.

Uh oh 🙃.

The alternative

But we can't take away faulting, can we? It feels natural, it seems to make sense, I don't see a clear alternative.

If you feel this way, I argue that this is conditioned, and can be unconditioned just as much as anything else. Let's look closer.

Where in the narrative "Party's behavior has caused me harm" is "party should be faulted" necessary? The faulting sentiment is not going to effectively meet your needs unless the person is a child. Quite contrarily, it will backfire, and very understandably so.

Consider this scenario:

Party's behavior has caused you harm. You approach party to disclose this harm, with an intention to cooperate to find a solution that prevents this harm from recurring. You do not carry a sentiment or belief of fault towards party and you disclose this lack of faulting verbally and non-verbally. You, on the contrary, carry a sentiment of understanding, openness, forgiveness. Party's childhood trauma is not activated, and party does not feel any threat of being manipulated. Party probably cares about you and the relationship because, like I said earlier, they — being human — also derive meaning from personal connection, and would enjoy a world in which personal connection blossoms into new, yet unknown, dimensions of beauty. Party works with you to prevent future harm.

This is conflict 2.0.

Vision for a better world

What if interpersonal relationship was free of just this one variable? Think of how much more love would be made, how many more romantic glances would be had, how many more warm feels would be felt, how many more hand would be held.

I am not saying un-conditioning faulting is easy. I am saying it can be done. It is up to you to decide whether it is worth it.

Discuss