Harmony with Conflict

We homo sapiens are a strange species.  Individually and collectively we are very active but the activity manifests itself in constructive and destructive ways with a multitude of views as to what constitutes each category.  Let me explain with three scenarios, starting with the so-called war on terror.  Many people are fighting each other with an intent to kill and destroy.  Each group believes opposing groups are wrong.  Each individual believes he or she belongs to a group that is right.  The logic doesn't stack up does it?

The second scenario is a work environment where the employees expect decent wages, the shareholders require adequate returns on their investments and customers expect value, quality, responsiveness and support.  It is rare that all these expectations are in harmony, even though the Chairman might spin a tale at the Annual General Meeting that suggests otherwise.

Lack of harmony can be experienced in my third scenario, family life.  There are conflicts between children and parents, brother and sister, husband and wife.  Not continuously, of course, but nevertheless lack of harmony is not unusual.

So far in each of the three scenarios I have described, I have highlighted conflict.  On the other hand, harmony also exists.  So between individuals, between groups, within societies and nations, there is plenty of harmony and good feeling living alongside conflict and contempt.  So where's all this leading to?  Well the question I ask myself is, can harmony exist without conflict?  I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the answer is no.  I will try to explain my thinking.

Harmony requires a preponderance of agreement whereas, conversely, conflict requires a preponderance of disagreement.  The key issues in each case can include matters such as religion, politics, recreational pursuits, distribution of wealth, racial and gender equality, territorial ownership, access to education,........  I'm sure you can think of many more.  But views vary widely and subjective consensus is often very difficult to achieve.  Declarations of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' add fuel to disagreement or conversely, can be a catalyst for harmony.  Of course, 'right' and 'wrong' are the two extremes of a black-to-white spectrum where there are many shades of grey.

Achieving subjective consensus is very difficult when you consider the complexity of the relationships arising from the issues that I have raised thus far.  I do believe it is naive and potentially very dangerous to try to control this complexity with very simple initiatives.  Consider, for example, the conflict in the Middle East between Islamic State and a number of opposing forces.  The current military strategy adopted by a US-led coalition of assuming Islamic State is 'wrong' and the opposing forces are 'right' and continuing to play-out a pseudo zero-sum game where the winner takes all, is, in my opinion, destined to fail.  There needs to be a desire on all sides to look for strands of harmony within the current backdrop of violent conflict because if harmony can be reinforced it is possible, in my view, for it to live alongside some residual conflict and achieve a workable equilibrium.

I like this quote from Frank Matobo: "True learning always creates a paradox of promoting disagreement in order to create a consensus."