Interpersonal Conflict-Resolution

In his book The Sovereign Soul – Sufism: a Path for Today, Phillip Gowins talks on the subject of solving personal problems, particularly on those stemming from disagreements with others. His two steps to solving those problems are 1) to change your perspective by getting into the consciousness of the other person and understanding their point of view, and 2) to find the cause that produces the cause of the problem. Once one can accomplish both of these goals, the problem is more or less solved. Of course, the specifics of each problem in particular are a major impact on the complexities involved with solving the problem.

For example, one would take a very different approach in an argument with a loved one than in an argument with a teacher. With a loved one, it is far easier to see from their point of view. I know that I personally know my loved ones and what goes on in their lives far better than I know my teachers (life teachers, professors, or otherwise), making it far more easy for me to get into the consciousness of my loved ones to understand exactly what they are going through to cause their end of the argument. This ease, coupled with the given understanding with siblings, parents, and friends alike that we will argue at times, makes the resolution of these problems far simpler.

It is also far easier to see the causes behind the causes if an open mind is kept; considering all of the possibilities and solutions helps in any kind of problem solving, but particularly here. Because our minds tend to be so limited, opening them and broadening them is a necessity, and makes the solving of problems far easier. Novel ideas for solutions and compromises are the mark of a good and imaginative problem-solver in all other aspects of the world, so why should conflict-resolution be any different? Just imagine how different the world could be if its leaders could think of new and novel ideas for solving international conflicts other than war, weapons, and death! After all, international conflicts do seem to simply be interpersonal conflicts, just on a much larger scale. If we were to apply the same rules that we do to interpersonal conflicts to all the bigger conflicts in the world, imagine the compromises that could have come about! Of course, I do not expect any world leaders to come to such a conclusion anytime soon, for it is far too big an idea to ask all of them to consider the points of view of their “enemies.”

Perhaps we will someday get to that point, though I am certain it will not be for quite a while. Perhaps someday politics will become about benefitting the people, rather than simply benefitting the country, and perhaps someday international interactions will reflect the similar types of interpersonal reactions between family, friends, and acquaintances. Though, in truth, perhaps that is simply my naiveté speaking, and I put too much faith in other people to think such things. For now, I will stick to keeping these conflict-resolution guidelines myself, and will put them into action in my own life. With hope, there will be those that will follow this lead.