How can this framework for understanding the behavior of an individual be applied to the behavior of states?


 


          Everywhere there is conflict and people are involved in such presence of conflicting issues and ideas such as in homes, in schools, in businesses and mostly in the government wherein there is a union of states as reflected through individual norms and how they approach and responded to conflict, which implies matters that involve the general public and the society. There is one author in his book, the Dynamics of Conflict Resolution in which discuss such related factors, as it does involve with ways of thinking, set of values and precise focus into it. Ideally, I agree from the author that, “culture signifies power and when there is power, several conflicts do happen from within the integration of individual beliefs and values as conformed by the principles and rules handed by the state” (2000). 


 


 


 


 


          Amicably, in order to resolve conflict, such personal skill must be present from within the ability to understand the kin power and authority of certain persons and or groups that are involved in conflict issues, and it can be that, groups do not have equal power, as it is being express in diverse ways. Moreover, for resolving conflicting ideas of the states, negotiation should not be considered as chess game that there begins with similar pieces and there must not be any form of dependence on such skills with which the states in power may use as available resource that can include individual aura of such personal characteristics and values from within. As the notion emphasize as according to  that, “people may derive power from broad set of personal characteristics that they bring to bear in conflict such as their intelligence, communication skills, physical stamina and strength, concentration, wit, perceptiveness, determination, empathy and courage as used in determining how well their needs will be met in any conflict” ( 2000).


 


 


 


 


 


          In addition, the essence of avoiding and engaging in conflict,  it can be that, acceptance is the key to it as such ways of dealing with people linked to the behavior of the states that can be potentially involved in such societal disputes must be realized so that no one can feel ignored as it may be necessary to let conflict soar somewhat, enough to deal with emotions but not so much as to impair people’s ability to deal with the situation fruitfully. Then, there comes the “art of dealing with conflict often lies in finding the narrow path between useful expression of emotions and destructive polarization” (2000).


 


          Speaking of such styles of conflict, there can be such personal sense of ideological principles that deviates people from what is expected of them in their actions and decisions and so with the states as such government leaders do act and feel different about themselves in dealing with other people such as the issues of terrorism, US leaders may have different behavior approach towards the situation as compared to the thinking as well as stand points of the Middle East countries for instance and boom from there, unknown conflicts are happening even without recognizing it.


 


 


          Thus, often conflict exists because one person feels in conflict with another, even though those feelings are not reciprocated by or even known to the other person. The behavioral component may be minimal, but the conflict is still very real to the person experiencing the feelings. This does not mean that every individual member of each country shares the same feelings or perceptions respectively. Instead, it means that the conflict evokes certain reactions and attitudes from the dominant leaders and significant number of people in each society. Similarly, some Democrats and Republicans do believe that, it is imperative to understand the attitudes, feelings, values, and beliefs that these groups have toward each other if people are to understand what is occurring.


 


          The roles people play in conflict are being connected to such conflict in styles, that is by considering conflict along the cognitive, emotional as well as behavioral dimensions; people can begin to see that it does not proceed along one simple, linear path such as when states and individual groups are in conflict, they are dealing with different and sometimes contradictory dynamics in these different dimensions, and they behave and react accordingly. The states do engage in conflict either because they have needs that are met by the conflict process itself or because they have needs that are inconsistent with those of others.


 


          Truly it can be that, culture affects conflict because it is embedded in individuals’ communication styles, history and way of dealing with emotions, values, and structures. Aside, states in due power can adhere to such elusive concept, one assumption that will confuse individual thinking or help people understand culture dynamism and candid interaction among people and the state as a whole essence. As there is no solitary right response to conflict, but that does not mean that there are not wise and just responses to any particular form of conflict in motion since, it can be that, the choice in conflict is not whether to use power but how the states utilize it to remain in power over anything and anyone else and the fact that, when people try to meet their needs facing the reality of resistance, there is the exercising power over them as controlled by the behavior cycle presented by the states and by the people with political, societal and economic influence to rule and decide on such matters.


 


          Ideally, same as people, states can employ power to create momentum for constructive dialogue and collaborative negotiations or they can use it to beat others down and to prevent cooperation. In addition, the behavior of states can also be seen if there are incidence of negotiation such as with other nations and thus, it is when alternative options rule them out, and if there has been integrative and distributive solutions that do converge from within issues so, it is imperative for the involved parties to address such issues properly and avoid further conflicts as if ever there can be confrontation, state parties should ask what causes the situation and know if there can be useful options in satisfying such societal needs and be in control of whatever behavior they have to impose on people and not to tie up with problems of the greater majority due to unresolved conflicts such as from government officials and people in authority.


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top