
Have you ever offended or disappointed a friend or loved one and been unable to understand what happened?
Conflict is a complex and painful human experience, and its consequences far surpass the two people at odds.
We all want to be understood, loved, and accepted for who we are. We want people to see and acknowledge that our response is reasonable and that we are good. I have attended training on conflict resolution, peacemaking, and healing betrayal, participated in conflict resolutions, sought help for myself in conflict with others, and helped clients heal from the discards they experienced from others. The principles of peacemaking taught in these training sessions are helpful in many situations, but not all.
In my experience, one type of conflict that does not benefit from traditional conflict resolution is the one that affects me but has nothing to do with me. The pattern is often something like this:
Friends Judy and Vera have a conflict. Maybe Judy cancels plans due to an illness, steps aside from a position, or has a different political perspective. Vera lashes out self-protectively by discarding, blaming, accusing, or picking a fight. Judy feels confused, betrayed, and discarded.
Judy tries to apologize, but Vera rejects it. Judy’s apology does not resonate with Vera, who carries unresolved hurt from a past event or trauma into the current conflict. Vera gets angrier and angrier with Judy over time despite limited contact. The conflict has nothing to do with Judy.
Letting the situation "roll off your back" does not help anyone move forward and heal. Pretending not to care about Vera's actions is denying reality. Denial of reality creates a cesspool of pain, revenge, entitlement, and victimhood.
Signs that the conflict stems from another person's trauma rather than a present offense are:
1. Emotions of the offended person intensify with time despite no contact
2. The offended person is not interested in reconciliation or personal responsibility
3. The offended person does not accept or acknowledge an apology
4. The offended person often refuses to speak of the event or define the offense.
5. The offended person discards the relationship with little warning.
6. The discarded person stonewalls instead of trying to work things out.
7. The conflict feels confusing.
8. People's perspectives on the conflict suggest that they are discussing different situations—there is no starting point for conflict resolution.
When approaching conflict, essential questions to ask yourself are
1. Who or what am I responding to? Is this something I did or someone's trauma?
2. Is engaging in the healing process worth the emotional energy?
3. Is the offended person emotionally safe?
4. Is there a reasonable and reachable goal?
Conflict resolution implies that we will come to an acceptable agreement on how to move forward, let go of the past, and be able to share spaces neutrally. Reconciliation restores the relationship. A third option, neutrality, diffuses the energy around the conflict.
Before I discuss action, I think it is essential to state that this technique is not always appropriate. Do not try this strategy with a professionally diagnosed personality disorder or someone who means you harm. Do not engage in this conflict resolution strategy with an abuser. Get help if you need help!
Neutrality finds resolution by dialing down the heat. The relationship is not coming back. You cannot fix someone's trauma or change the past.
In conflict resolution, neutrality is not having emotional energy around a person or situation. Neutrality does not seek reconciliation, but it benefits Judy and Vera by dialing down the heat of the conflict and creating a more comfortable environment in shared spaces.
Neutrality acknowledges your adversary's good qualities—decency and good intentions—but it also acknowledges painful experiences, feelings, and seemingly wrong or irrational judgments. For example, the conversation might begin with, "It must be hard to give your best and feel judged and as if you are not enough."
The conversation cannot be about you, the offense you experienced, or anything related to you. Gratitude and validation are not goals in this strategy. Remember, the goal is to dial down the heat of the conflict and feel more comfortable in shared spaces.
It is not worth the emotional investment if Vera requires Judy to take responsibility for the offense. Once the neutrality strategy is tried but rejected, you may be dealing with a personality disorder. Walk away from further engagement.
Do not expect instant results from this type of conversation. Your feelings still need to be processed, and you may need professional help.
This strategy may not work, but it respects the dignity of both parties. What have you got to lose?
Healing is slow and does not necessarily mean reconciliation in conflict resolution. Neutrality acknowledges pain and works towards acceptance and peace, even though the relationship will not return to its previous state.