War is obsolete

Every interaction with another has a desired outcome. There could be several desired outcomes depending on how many are engaged in the interaction or there could be one common one. The element that decides whether the interaction will be relaxed or heated is whether or not the desired outcomes conflict. Where desired outcomes (I’m gonna call ‘em DOs because I’m already sick of typing the phrase) conflict, the interaction can become heated and possibly violent, sometimes crossing the barrier between violent language and violent action.

Is there a way to avoid this? Of course… but our emotions often override reason. The only way to avoid this is for all parties to suspend their own individual DOs to find a common resolution that benefits all. Let’s take a common example: A newly divorced couple are negotiating what to do with the house they shared. He wants to sell the house and split the proceeds so they can both buy a smaller home each. She wants to stay in the house and carry on paying the mortgage while he, free of mortgage obligations, can buy or rent his own property. The first question we need to ask is are there any children and who has main custody?

Let’s assume there are two children and they live with their mother. She has this on her side of the argument because she has an identified need to remain in the house. It would be less disruptive for the children already traumatised by their parents’ split. She also needs a house big enough to accommodate them, which would be hard to find with her share of the proceeds. This implies that the Right outcome would be for her to keep the house.

But then let’s assume that, as she is able to continue paying the mortgage, she is not dependent on her ex partner for an income. Let’s assume she has a fairly good income from a home-based business but her partner has only a small income. The mortgage is based on her income as she is the main breadwinner. We could even assume that the mortgage was in her name.

This twist to the usual balance of position within the family puts him at a distinct disadvantage… one could even say an unfair disadvantage. He doesn’t earn enough to be able to buy or rent anything better than the cheapest and most bleak bedsit. Although she pays most if not all of the mortgage, what has been his contribution to the home? For example: is he on a small income because he has taken on only part-time work so he could take care of the house while she conducts her business? Now we seem to have a swing in his favour. It would now appear that the Right outcome would be to sell the house and each use the proceeds toward the best they could afford.

What is the best possible outcome? That she has a home that is big enough to accommodate her and the children and that he has a home that reflects not only his current income but also the contribution to the home that he must leave. Perhaps the trauma of moving house would be less of a problem for the children than having to live in a hovel would be for the father.

There could be other issues to consider that may swing the Right outcome the other way but all these things must be taken into consideration. As long as we can do this, there has been no need for violent language or emotional conflict. The interests of each party conflicts so the negotiation must be without conflict. 

What is a negotiation without conflict?

It is a negotiation in which each party, having declared their individual DOs, suspends their personal ideal outcomes and submits to what is commonly accepted as the Right outcome. The Right outcome just has to tick enough boxes in each person’s ideal to be a beneficial outcome for all.

A well-conducted conflict results in two winners.

So often in any conflict the declared DOs are brushed aside for a more demanding DO: to win. The desired outcome is now to be the one who can declare: “I was right and you were wrong!” and more often through clever twists of logic than because this is actually the case. Some people tend to be more competitive than others but we all have this streak of competitiveness in us. We are preoccupied with winning… or, at least, not being the loser. Why is this? It is reflected in our almost global interest in sports and declaring war on one another. Business, politics and even our entertainments are largely focused on triumph and failure.

We all have a war raging within us and, in some, this can reach a point at which the person becomes unbalanced. This is our natural precaution; our permanent Red Alert. There was a time early in our development when conflict between tribes and villages were inevitable. Each village needs enough territory around it to provide for the whole village. Anyone living too close encroaches on this territory and threatens survival. Today, this could be discussed rationally but then we didn’t have the language or the other communication skills we have today to achieve this so conflict was the inevitable result. This became so hardwired into our nature that, even today, when we have the means of global communication at our fingertips, the same conflicts exist. Israel and Palestine are a case in point. It has become less about land and territory and more about which side wins.

But we no longer need this wiring. It is obsolete. War is obsolete. The original objective of war between tribes was (a) territory and (b) the need to bring fresh genes into the tribe by abducting women and even children. Neither of these two issues need apply now. The old wiring needs to be stripped out because it is impacting on the New wiring. This is the responsibility of each of us. In every conflict, we must ask ourselves: What is my desired outcome? What are the conflicting desired outcomes and what would benefit each desired outcome? Most importantly, you must ask yourself (and answer honestly): Is my desired outcome simply to win?

To enter into any interaction with a desire simply to win is fruitless. The competitive party is committed to rejecting opposing views regardless of merit. Even if the argument is ‘won’, the Right outcome is lost by both parties.

We all have to enter into any kind of conflict with the willingness to give ground. If there is no willingness to give ground, there is no discussion. Total inflexibility always results in snapping. We must bend with the wind.

When the objective is simply to win, perceived points are gained by casting a negative light on the opposing party. The objective is to come out of it better than the opponent. A draw is not the desired outcome. But a rational argument must always seek to achieve a draw. When all parties submit to losing some ground in return for gaining some ground because the Right outcome is always for everyone involved to be better off to some degree than they were before negotiations began. This means that most if not all will not be quite so well off as they had initially hoped.

Conflict is not bad. It is vital in our development and it is a vital part of communication. Conflict enables us to consider far more options than would be possible if we were always all of a single mind. Conflicting interests and opinions, conflicting needs and conflicting ideologies are the necessary ingredients for growth. Without conflict, we would stagnate. But conflict does not have to be conducted violently. That is just part of our obsolete wiring. So, before you punch somebody’s lights out because they support a different political party or football team (and the pairing of these is deliberate), ask yourself what the likely outcome would be.

Big-Enders and Little-Enders

In Gulliver’s Travels, the Liliputians are split into two factions: The Big Enders and The Little Enders and have an ongoing conflict over which end of a boiled egg should be cracked open: the big end or the little end. This was a deliberately ridiculous conflict to illustrate the folly of war. The conflict was not really about which end of the egg should be opened but about which of the opposing ideologies was right. It was about being right. It was about being the winner. With such an objective, there can be no middle ground. The right outcome, of course, is that everyone should open whichever end of a boiled egg they wanted as this would not impact on anyone else. But this conflict demands victims. This conflict demands that opponents suffer.

Always, the outcome that would best suit all of our needs must be put aside if it conflicts with the interests of another. This is something that both or all parties must agree if negotiations are to be meaningful. We don’t have to abandon entirely our own objectives but we must always acknowledge where they conflict with other interests and the pros and cons must be measured objectively. We agree to lose a little ground in one area in return for gaining a little ground in another and we gradually tick-off objectives as they are met. The aim is to reach a point at which everyone has enough of their own objectives ticked-off to be able to agree on a conclusion.

Judgments, personal attacks and the imperative to win are all symptoms of the old wiring impacting on the new. Just as in a house that has dangerously faulty wiring, we must be rewired. We can only do this ourselves individually. Yes, we can remind others that they need to rewire too but we can’t do it for them. We are each responsible for our own wiring.

So communicating these ideas is important but, unless we actually take responsibility to adjust our own wiring, nothing will be achieved. The only path that will save humanity is the path away from violent conflict and toward creative conflict.

It is good to argue over which end of the egg to open. The narrow end gives a smaller opening that conserves the heat for those who like their boiled eggs hot. The wider end allows the egg to cool more rapidly for those who like them cooler. Discussion brings the various pros and cons into the equation and allows us to make more effective decisions. Where this becomes distorted is when a belief becomes a belief system. The belief that a cooler egg is more pleasant to eat could be changed by a pleasant experience eating a hot egg. But a belief system invests everything into the belief so that it must be protected. Opposing beliefs are vilified. Religion is the clearest example where it is considered sinful to hold a belief other than that established by the religion. But science has historically defended belief systems just as much as religion.

Opposing beliefs or views should be welcome. It is like having an infinite selection of gems with which to make a necklace. You won’t use all of them, of course, but the wider your selection, the better the necklace will be. The more points we have to consider, the better equipped we are of arriving at the right resolution.

Lions and gazelles

There are times when a conflict can only go one of two ways. The lion and the gazelle are a classic example. Here, there is neither a right nor a wrong outcome. Either the lion eats or the gazelle escapes. The gazelle has no desire to deprive the lion of its meal… it just doesn’t want to be its meal. The lion has no desire to cause the gazelle pain and suffering. It simply wants to eat. What is gained from conflict of this nature? If lions decided to be vegetarians, they would not get the nutrition that a lion needs and they would become extinct. If all gazelles were suicidal and wanted to die at the jaws of a hungry lion, they, too, would become extinct very quickly. The lion develops its strength and the gazelle develops its swiftness. Conflict forces improvement. This is conflict at its most primitive and savage. That is where we once were and it was then that this now obsolete wiring played its part. The wiring is still there and firing off at what are perceived as threats but in actual fact, are simply obstacles to winning as opposed to finding the best outcome. It simply isn’t playing a positive part anymore. It is presenting obstacles to growth and improvement… something that conflict is best suited to enhancing.

So it is not conflict that is the problem but the way we approach conflict. If we are committed to seeing opponents as the bad guy, we can never arrive at the best outcome. All we get is more conflict. Conflict should be seen as an opportunity to explore other options. We must learn to see conflict as something with which to make discoveries not as something we must win. There can only truly be one of two possible outcomes to any conflict: one in which all parties win or one in which all parties lose. Even if there is a perceived victor, it is a hollow victory because nothing has really been improved. Maybe the victor’s personal experience of life has improved at the loser’s expense but the world that the victor inhabits is still the same. The opportunity to improve life in general has been lost.

Think back. Imagine yourself living in a cave and having to constantly deal with the threats of starvation, lack of shelter, predators and warring neighbours. Can you imagine how awful that would be for us? But, for our ancestors, it was commonplace. It was the way things were. Happiness and joy are the moments found against this backdrop. Yet it is the very conflicts that presented such challenges that have brought us to a point at which we live in civilisations that provide the needs for the society. Most of us in the West are not faced daily with the threat of starvation or predation or conflict. The very pattern of nature is irreversibly set on a course of continual improvement. Things over time have to keep getting better. There is no finite point at which everything is as good as it can possibly get because the boundaries of possibilities are continually being expanded. There are no limits to possibilities but there are distinct boundaries to how we arrive at them. We are restricted by our level of understanding.

Our obsession with war and triumph is the most destructive and dangerous symptom of this restriction to our level of understanding. When you find yourself at an impasse, you probably think it’s because the other person won’t give way. It is not. It is because you won’t give way. An impasse is when neither party is prepared to give ground and both must accept full responsibility for the failure to reach a resolution.

Think of the interaction that takes place when bartering. The vendor wants the highest price you are prepared to pay and you want the lowest price the barter is prepared to accept. The vendor starts at the highest price he or she has the nerve to ask and you start at the lowest price you have the nerve to offer and the suggested figures come up and down respectively in increments until you arrive at a price you are both prepared to accept. You both arrive at the desired outcome. The vendor gets the highest price he or she could get and you get it at the lowest price you could get…. Not as low as you’d have liked and not as high as the vendor would have liked but acceptable to both. Neither resorts to violence. You have both achieved the best possible outcome. You have arrived at a price that is both the lowest that the vendor was prepared to accept and the highest you were prepared to pay. You both get the best you can get and this is the best possible outcome… but it takes non-violent, intelligent conflict to achieve that.

We are trained in violence from an early age. Most TV drama is about the good guy versus the bad guy. It is not enough to simply right the wrongs of the bad guy… we need to see him suffer. Our schools teach us to compete and, in so doing, teach enmity. Humans are in so many ways extraordinary creatures and it is perhaps understandable that we see ourselves as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. But we are animals and many of our most instinctive responses are very primitive. Among our most primitive instinctive responses are sex and violence. However, our progressive sophistication has ritualised these acts so deeply that the root is buried beneath protocol. However, not only has the sex act become ritualised (and long may it remain so) but so has our instinct for violence. We now live in a world in which a person can be beaten even to death for supporting a particular football team. Sports are a ritualisation of our fixation with violence… and so is war. There is no need for war and war has never achieved anything that cannot be achieved with negotiation. But we have an inbuilt concept of ‘us against them’. We see it in sport, we see it in politics and we see it in our foreign policies. The Sun is currently working hard to demonise Argentinians, describing them as ‘Argies’ and implying that simply being born in Argentina is enough to be identified as ‘enemy’.

We need to grow beyond this crap!

A rational society will not be achieved by politicians, it will not be achieved by government policy, it will not be achieved by Local Authority ‘initiatives’ and it will not be achieved by laws. The only power that can create a rational society is the power of the people within the society. That means you and me and everyone else. It is our responsibility… no one else’s

How? Simply by following Ghandi’s advice: Be the change you want to see in the world.

In every interaction, we must always strive for the best possible outcome… which is not the same as the best outcome for us, but the best outcome for all.

The objective of an argument is not to win but to arrive at the right conclusion.