Conflict as Human Necessity

February 18, 1968
Plainfield

Conflict as Human Necessity

Anyone who has experienced that inside churning when in conflict may very well say, that if conflict is human necessity, it is one we should be able to eliminate in some fashion, "He has a conflict," we say, indicating that there is some contradiction between inner wishes or convictions and what one is able to do in society, or what one is permitted by society to do. When one speaks of conflict in a social organism, a political party, a church, a government, one usually refers to collisions of persons with consequences of ill-feeling. There's a biographical anecdote about John Hunter, a famous 18th century Scottish physician, who remarked, "I am at the mercy of any rascal who causes me to lose my temper," and immediately thereafter succumbed in a fit of rage to a heart attack (AMERICAN SCHOLAR, Vol. 15, #4, p. 413). Instead of defending conflict as human necessity, should not I better be about exhorting you about the line in the 37th Psalm, "Cease from anger – and forsake wrath"? Quite apart from the politically complex arguments which support conflict between nations, why should I speak of conflict as human necessity? Personally, can conflict do us any good? Andre Maurois wrote that personal quarrels (in the reign of Louis XIV) were so fierce and frequent that between 1589 and 1607, seven thousand men met their death in individual duels (Maurois, VOLTAIRE, p. 1). When one considers the irritations in the belly,
the poundings of the heart and the headaches which are the consequence of being in conflict with ourselves and others, how can it be asserted that conflict is human necessity? Would not better advice be to quote Norfolk who speaks to the enraged Buckingham (HENRY VIII):

"Be advis'd;
Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot,
That it do singe yourself: we may outrun
By violent swiftness, that which we run at,
And lose by over-running."

But I agree with Herbert Thelen that "conflict has become a dirty word, for our emotional reactions to the term blind us to the fact that without conflict neither growth nor education would be possible." To seek to avoid all conflict because stormy experiences may result is as unrealistic and self-defeating as it would have been for the Children of Israel to refuse to cross the path of divided waters because their feet might have become wet.

CONFLICT – Contradictory needs and desires within yourself.
CONFLICT – Contradiction between your needs and desires and needs and desires of others

Certain conflicts [are] basic within our personal and social structures:
1) Conflict - interaction of personalities within family jealousy – overprotectiveness – excessive domination, overpermissiveness
2) Sex conflict – adult sexually before [one can] marry and support family
3) Need to succeed in competitive activity – drive for status, need to identify group

All of these built-in limitations – hope [to] cope judiciously and [prevent] conflicts, inner/outer – from ruining inner or outer lives.

Religion too often is the symbol of, and thought to be, the instrument of reconciliation of conflict. Such a harmonizing purpose is worthy just so long as there is no retreat from necessary encounter and no attempt to avoid inevitable disagreement. To turn the other cheek does not require silent submission to ideas we believe harmful; to walk the second mile does not imply that we must plod in craven acquiescence along paths we believe to be wrong.

Someone saw a sign in an obscure, inelegant restaurant, “If you get bad service here and you resent it, you're right in resenting it. You'll still get bad service, but you're right.”

Similarly, the feeling of conflict is quite appropriate. Conflict is a vice when it generates only destructive collision; conflict is a virtue when it is the instrument of encounter, when it is in the vehicle of conviction, wherein meanings are made more clear. One of the continuing obligations of the human venture is to maintain such a distinction.

Some time ago I read of a research scientist who as a result of his research into the origin and behavior of minerals suggested that there may have been a surprising origin to some of the unique minerals discovered in meteors which have struck our planes. Some experts are convinced, tentatively, that certain rare minerals found only in meteor fragments did not exist in space either. When the meteor struck the Earth, the force of the collision – the heat and pressure of impact – created new minerals. These minerals dis not exist prior to collision. But the creation of the new was the product of great destruction – the fragmentation of the meteor and the damage to the earth it struck.

Now I'm not going to dispute any mineralogists who may have reason to dismiss this theory about creation of certain minerals, but the notion is suggestive of human behavior. Some great ideas and inventions are born of conflict. Medical techniques are developed, sometimes under the terrible necessities of battle casualties. Of course the advances in medicine made possible my war ... are paid for at too high a price. Like the minerals created by the impact of meteor, great destruction has been the companion of the new and valuable when war has been the cause of the discoveries. How [can we] maintain the conditions for creation born of dialogue and disagreement while at the same time avoiding the loss, pain and grief of destructive collision between persons or nations?

The totalitarian approach is not the answer. Pavlov demonstrated that living organisms could be conditioned in their behavior. After the training, the dog would salivate when Pavlov rang the bell. But such is not the human behavior we want. The dog was manipulated for an end, his appetites exploited, his needs made the means for Pavlov's ends. But all great religions of man assign a higher priority to the human personality and its potential for growth. Conditioned obedience is foreign to the values of [a] religion which hold[s] freedom as more essential for growth.

Because freedom for self-direction must allow for the differences and imperfections of the human condition, freedom can never walk alone. Error, struggle and the pains of conflict are perennial companions, but we should pay this price gladly. Conflict with oneself and others can be avoided only at the cost of giving up freedom. Such a price is much too high even to achieve good digestion and untroubled sleep.

Our task then is to live in ways that the creative results of conflict are maintained but the destructive impact of violent conflict is under control. How can we control (in Thelen's words) "the basic themes of conflict – conflict between our wishes and the wishes of others, between our present needs and our future capabilities, between our animal nature and our social ethic, between what we are and what we want to be, between our easy habits and our creative urges"?

In spite of all the criticisms that can be made of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution he headed in the 17th century, one development of that struggle demonstrated that the "priesthood of all believers" connected freedom and growth in the creative conflict of encounter – i.e., peaceful dispute. The historian writes,

"For him the purpose of such machinery (decision by discussion pointing to a consensus) is to find something out, to discover something which is there to be discovered – discovered by hearing what each man’s conscience has to say, but also by frank and open discussion among men wishing to learn the will of God. What he has learned from his experiences of the small democracy of the Christian congregation is the insight into the purposes of life which the common life and discussion of a democratic society can give as nothing else can. "The root of the matter is that if discussion is at all successful, we discover something from it which could have been discovered in no other way." (See the FREE CHURCH, Franklin Littel, Starr King Press, 1957).

When we are not steaming in a pressure situation, we are aware that some of our most difficult conflicts are not only with others, but also with ourselves. This is the plain truth contained in those words in the prayer of general confession of the Book of Common Prayer, "we have done those things we ought not to have done and we have not done those things we ought to have done, and there is no health in us." We would not agree with the outdated theology implied in these words but there is truth in the recognition that inner conflict weakens us. Inner conflict can make us feel that there is no health in us. As the poet, Siegfried Sasson wrote in the first three lines of "everyman",

"The weariness of life that has no will
To climb the steepening hill:
The sickness of the soul for sleep and to be still."

How [can we] deal with these inner conflicts? One of the famous preachers of 19th century America was the arch-fundamentalist, Dr. Lyman Beecher, father of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher. Robert Ingersoll called Lyman Beecher one of the wardens of the Puritan penitentiary. Dr. Lyman Beecher frequently worked himself into towering rages over the two movements which infuriated him most, Roman Catholicism and Unitarianism. Lyman Beecher kept a pile of sand in the cellar; and when his inner rage was getting near the uncontrolled level, he would go down to the cellar and shovel the sand back and forth until he regained his composure (THE TWO FRIENDS OF MAN, Korngold, p. 22). I have told some of you of a lady I knew who saved her cracked dishes. When inner conflicts started to boil too high, she would go to the cellar and throw the dishes against the wall as her safety valve.

However, one of the New Testament legends is a superb example of mastery over inner conflict. As the old story has it, Jesus went to the wilderness to struggle with temptation. This is a stylized legend which has been told in varieties of ways about the founders of other religions also. Toynbee has taken this type legend and fitted into his philosophy of history, asserting that great spiritual leaders assert their powers of leadership after such a wilderness experience, Toynbee called it, "withdrawal and return."

In symbolic framework, we can interpret that the "devil" who tempted Jesus was his own mixed feelings. Given the belief structure of his times, Jesus was torn up by [this] problem: Can a man demonstrate his conviction that he was speaking God's will if he had no magic powers? "Command this stone to be made bread." Ability to do miracles was a sign that God was with a man in those days.

Should not a man test God to discover if divine protection is assured before daring great things for God? "And he brought him to Jerusalem and set him on a pinnacle of the Temple and said unto him, ‘if thou be the son of God, cast thyself down from hence.’"

Then of course, the subtlest temptation of them all was the second, "and the devil taking him up an high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. All this power I will give thee and the glory of them...."

Jesus believed in the coming of the Kingdom of God, He was in conflict; should not men be compelled to be citizens in this kingdom, even though they did not understand it, nor yet want it? "If I seize power, everything will be well, for I mean well." This is the conflict of lust for power, the venerable soft spot to which so many persons of great
ability have yielded.

The old legend in Matthew says that when Jesus had resisted the temptations and resolved his inner conflicts creatively, "lo, angels came and ministered unto him." This, too, is a symbolic way of stating the peace and understanding that can come when the conflicts have been resolved creatively.

The same legend as told in Luke ends with a different note that suggests additional insight, "and when the devil had ended all temptation, he departed from him for a season." For a season – not forever. The nature of inner conflict ensures that it is a renewing encounter. Again and again we must wrestle with the conflicts within us. Life cannot be lived for long in quiet retreats or snug harbors; irresistibly our course becomes set for choppy waters. The times of inward testing persist.

Nothing is more difficult than to maintain the creative elements of conflict with ourselves and others. To master conflict creatively always is an emancipation struggle, great in its rewards, but gigantic in its difficulties. Aristotle said it well, thousands of years ago:

"Anybody can become angry—that is easy; but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree, and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody's power, and is not easy."

However, there is accumulated wisdom which can be brought to bear; there is guidance available from other experience; there is suggestion from the many human endeavors of man which can be helpful in making our conflicts part of the dynamics of maturity.

First, we need not restrain a sense of healthy indignation at outrageous acts. Not all indignation is righteous. One of the clippings I have treasured for ... years deals with Clark Kerr, then president of the University of California. He accepted the post of impartial chairman of a West coast waterfront dispute and called together the representative of the waterfront employers and the president of the Longshoreman's Union, Harry Bridges (See SRL 1/13/62).

President Kerr explained that he believed negotiations should proceed before the Impartial Chairman should [be] required to arbitrate. So he urged them to try to settle the dispute themselves. "All right, they said reluctantly, we'll negotiate."

President Kerr got up to leave them to their deliberations, but was told "sit down, this won't take long."

The representative of the waterfront employer's association leaned across the table to Harry Bridges and said, "Mr. Bridges, we don't know what you are going to demand, but, by God, the answer is no," Then Harry Bridges leaned across the table and said, "To tell you the truth, we haven't made up our minds on what we're going to demand, but by God, we won't take no for an answer."

Then both turned to Kerr and said, "Mr. Impartial Chairman, here is your case. We have negotiated."

One could suppose that Kerr could have exploded in righteous indignation, but bad temper solves no problems. He knew also that attitudes of both employer and labor were the opening passes of a duel. But calculated emotions are seldom creative. Nevertheless there are elements in situations which outrage human values and then indignation can be creative. There ought to be some issues in the social order about [which] each one of you should feel and express righteous indignation.

Conflict can be constructive too when we speak with our best voice. There is no one of us who is helpless in all situations. Some, maybe, but not all. Even those who are reticent or reluctant to speak out have strength to contribute to the causes in which they believe. This is not a choice between hostile and peaceful ways of living, but rather a decision to make your convictions count, or be lost in silence. The story is told by Indian gurus about the practice of non-violent protest. A ferocious king cobra had terrorized the cowherds of a village and prevented them from grazing their cows in a desirable meadow. The cobra was persuaded by a sadhu to take a vow of nonviolence and in fact, to meditate all day long on a sacred word. Some months later when the sadhu returned to the meadow, he discovered the cobra in very bad shape. Baffled and sorrowful the cobra explained that when he had attempted to make friends with the cowherds and they had learned he had vowed to be harmless, they had beaten him with sticks and left him for dead. "Reverend, sir," the cobra begged, "pray tell me where I have gone wrong?" "My poor friend, th teacher explained pityingly, I said you must not bite – not that you were forbidden to hiss as loudly as you like." (JOURNEYS ON THE RAZOR-EDGE PATH, Simon Roof, CR Well, 1959, p.125)

So if in the experiences of life wherein you feel torn by conflict but at the same time hold strong convictions you should speak with your best voice at all opportunities. How many causes were lost because of silence on the part of those who were supporters?

Last, it might be suggested that conflict can be constructive when affection remains warm. Do you know Paul Goodman's story ("The May Pamphlet", p. 18)? Tom says to Jerry,

"Do you want to fight? Cross that line!"
Jerry does.
"Now," said Tom, "You're on my side."

Conflict can be constructive when affection remains warm – toward yourself on inner conflicts, toward others on outer. It is not difficult to "get the message" when a mood changes and a person begins attacking you and not your point of view in the item of dispute. The change is always an unhappy one. When the person is the target, not the problem, then all the negative aspects of conflict work destructively. But when good-will and human love fulfill the law of right relations, then we may invest all vigor in the conflict of ideas. Out of such conflict can spring new ways and refined ideas.

The human enterprise needs the creativity that will come from the conflicts of problem solving. To that end, we can say with Carl Sandburg,

"Empty the last drop
Pour out the final clinging heart beat
Great losers look on and smile
Great winners look on and smile
Plunger take a long breath
And let yourself go."