Conflict Transformation, Day Three

Conflict Transformation Course, Day Three (Earlier Day One, here and here, Day Two here.) This bagged up information from the other two, with a chance to rework the medical ethics problem from day 1 in the light of all we'd learnt about Integrative Complexity and Relational Contextual Reasoning. I came to the same conclusion, but was rather surprised by how many extra facets about the problem and its various contexts came into play when I applied the IC/ RCR toolboxes. We were each given a personal profile describing how we react to conflict, based on the work we'd handed in. I wish I’d studied this stuff years ago. I don’t think it would have lessened the amount of conflict in my life, but it would have felt more like White Water rafting, and less like falling over Niagara Falls!

Finally, a lot of the course so far rather assumed rational people acting rationally. Whether it's an angry person somewhere under the ceiling, or a sullen manipulative bully, not everybody is sensible all the time. Some people and groups make a living out of being difficult. What about them?

We were introduced to a bit of Game Theory (Robert Axelrod) called, rather unattractively, “Tit for Tat” indicating tactical options in relation to a variably collaborative or defecting protagonist which might be able to get things back on some sort of negotiable track in the face of person or persons behaving badly.

I think this project offered considerable potential for church conflict at all levels. Here's a classic statistic out of the air — 46% of church conflict is more driven by the personal dynamics than the actual bone of contention. We need to grow greater understanding about how we interact and why, along with some practical skills for alternative strategies and tactics. I’m certainly exploring how we might be able to access this resource better in the diocese and wider church. It will be interesting to walk towards Lambeth with this perspective in mind.

Peacemaking Boot Camp 2

Transforming Conflict Session Two (One, here and here). The plot thickens. On the train there, I got out some Integrative Complexity homework I’d done, and suddenly saw another way of mapping the second phase of it, leading to an actual (low wattage ecological) light bulb moment. During the day it got more complicated, and our group is now going to try our hand at working a homework problem with RCR, an 8-phase method which incorporates but transcends IC. Hmm...

These methods certainly provide effective, practical ways to slow down the reptile fight-or-flight bits of the brain whilst the intelligent bit catches up. That’s got to be worth knowing how to do, even more than waggling your ears.Their Achilles Bugbear could be that whilst proven peacemaking techniques infallibly help people who actually want to make peace, they only annoy small-minded thugs who derive their energy from getting into punchups, and stave off their terror of insignificance by terrorizing others. Or do they? More will be revealed in workshop 3, which I'm booked into on 26 February.

Don’t make a Drama out of a Crisis

People have been asking me all about last Friday, the first of my 3 days as a guinea pig on a research project about Integrative Complexity. It’s resourced by theologically literate Cambridge research psychologists. What did I learn, and what is Integrative Complexity anyway?

1. You measure IC by language — not what’s said, but how it’s said. It’s a psychological discipline, grounded in our understanding of the functions of different brain parts, and with a big experimental base. People studying Osama’s IC level (as you do) noticed it hit the floor just before 9/11.
   
2. People Integrate Complexity, when they hold the whole picture = all the particular information in a diverse field simultaneously. Telescoping things into simple yes/no’s, Not relating them, or eliminating them are strategies for avoiding rather than integrating complexity. If you can hold things in view for what they actually are in their own terms, you achieve higher integration. The higher your integrated complexity level, the higher your capacity to understand, and the less likely you are to end up punching people's lights out.
3. OK, Wittgenstein fans! Remember those Duck/rabbits? being realistic about what you see and not telescoping one into the other whilst remaining aware of both possibilities, demands a higher level of IC than the ‘be right and persist’ approach.
4. Hi-IC isn’t always the best way. Some situations call for it and others don’t. Before World War 2, for example Hitler’s low IC posturing required Churchill’s low IC, not Neville Chamberlain’s high IC response. We studied a five-phase model of how people evolve tension into full scale wars, along with tell-tale signs of transition between stages. We also worked through other case studies, using an IC toolbox.
   

Violence flares from low to obscenely high in ways that can be described in almost any context. This study is all about how religious leaders use and could use IC awareness in leadership. Different approaches to faith and leadership profile differently in IC terms. This study is finding out how.

Why bother? Scripture tells Christian leaders to accept the prospect of conflict, but to aim for peace and steer away strenuously from fruitless punch-ups. I want to learn how. I am particularly interested, having written a thesis on religious conflict in the Church of England between 1880-1914. I’m furiously scribbling questionaires, writing up notes, and looking forward to stage 2 next year. Watch this space...