Escalating conflict- This is a process that determines conflicts grow with an increase in their severe consequences over a certain period of time. These can be conflicts between groups of people or individuals with interpersonal relationship, it is also often applied in determining escalation during combat in a tactical or militaristic context. In systems theory, the conflict escalation method is modeled through positive feedback.

Despite the fact that the word escalation was used as early as 1938, this term became especially popular during the Cold War because of two books: “On escalation” (Herman Kahn, 1965) and “Escalation and the nuclear option” (Bernard Brody , 1966). In this context, the term is referred to in a war between two states using weapons of mass destruction.

Conflict escalation has a tactical role in military conflicts, and is often framed in accordance with the rules of participation (note ROE - a set of actions for the armed forces). Highly successful military tactics have used a special form of conflict escalation, for example, to control the enemy's reaction time to allow tacticians to chase or trap the enemy. Napoleon and Guderian used this approach. Sun Tzu applied it in a more abstract form.

Continuum of strength

The United States Marines' Continuum of Force documents describe the stages of certain and detailed descriptions of the escalation of the conflict in the fight with a typical object:

Stage One: Compliant (co-op)

The subject reacts fairly normally and obeys verbal commands. He avoids physical contact.

Second stage: persistent (passive)

Object resists verbal directions, but follows orders immediately after physical interaction. Refrains from close combat.

Stage three: stubborn (active)

Initially, the object resists commands physically, but it can be subdued using special technologies, which include holding, and gentle physical impact, the use of painful techniques, inducing manipulation and pressure.

Stage four: aggressive (physical contact)

The enemy conducts unarmed physical attacks. In response, defensive tactics are used, incl. blocks, counterattacks, increased compliance measures for blocking contact combat with the use of various types of weapons.

Fifth stage: aggressive (lethal force)

Subject possesses a weapon and is capable of killing or wounding an enemy if not controlled. Control can only be restored by brute force, which may require firearms or other weapons.

A warning

One of the main directions of the world and conflict theory is the containment of the escalation of the conflict or the creation of thinking, in order to be able to avoid such conflicts in the future. Theory nonviolent conflict resolution, however, involves escalating the conflict in the form of protests, strikes, or other direct action.

Mohandas Gandhi, one of the main method advocates nonviolent conflict resolution, uses satyagraha, to to demonstrate, what :

  • It is possible to peacefully lead a group of people with a common cause;
  • One can achieve goals through solidarity without surrendering to a violent attack;
  • His method provides mutual support;
  • You can refuse punitive justice.

With this escalation method, Gandhi avoided technological escalation and showed that:

  • Group came based on my own beliefs rather than for the purpose of using violence;
  • Authoritarianism can surrender without being violent;
  • Authoritarianism can leave safely;
  • Authoritarianism can transfer power without hindrance and become an effective political party.

Escalation curve conflict

Conflict escalation curve concept developed by Michael Nagler. The escalation curve of the conflict suggests that the intensity of the conflict is directly related to how long the process of dehumanization continues... In other words, conflicts escalate to the extent that the parties dehumanize each other (or one party humiliates the human dignity of others).

Depending on the stage of the conflict, a certain set of answers is needed. Curve divides the corresponding answers in three steps:

Stage One: Conflict Resolution

At the first stage, no serious dehumanization processes happened on either side. Mostly attempts are made to make their views known, with the expectation that the other can respond immediately or respond to conflict resolution when nonviolent communicating with a provocateur. Tools used at this stage: petitions, demonstration protests, negotiations, mediation and arbitration.

Stage Two: Satyagraha

Escalating conflict in Satyagraha, or nonviolent direct action, applies only when conflict resolution has been tried and the other party is not convinced for any reason, or have been tried other tools used in the first step. Satyagraha refers to what Gandhi called "The law of suffering",- which is based on the concept of taking on oneself, rather than inflicting suffering, which is inherent in the situation.

The challenge of satyagraha is a way of influencing the heart of the provocateur, and not an appeal only to the head, at the first stage. Gandhi remarked:

"In my confidence is growing that things are fundamentally important - people are not react the same but must be made up for in their suffering. If you want to do something really important, you must not just satisfy the cause, you must reach out to hearts. The appeal to the heart comes from suffering. "

Tools used at this stage: strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, violation of orders.

Stage Three: Sacrifice: The Lastrecreation

When the intensity the conflict has reached life or death and when there is a petition for nonviolent resisting this, then satyagraha sometimes deliberately conveys the possibility of death as a last resort to open the heart of the adversary. Gandhi's famous "fasting to death" during the Indian struggle for freedom is an example of this, and also selfless the work of activists like Katie Kelly, who has traveled to war zones on numerous occasions to share the fate of victims and awaken their oppressors when everyone other solutions failed.

The philosophy of the third stage is that the desire to take risks can often be awakened by the stubbornness of the enemy, even if death does not occur. Fasting to death, such as juxtaposing with self-immolation, gives the enemy a chance to react and save the life of Satyagraha. Self-immolation should perhaps be seen as an extreme form of protest, rather than a final stage nonviolent beliefs.

How use curve escalation of the conflict

Escalation curve conflict helps those who have a sense of where they are in conflict and that they can provide an adequate response; achieving an extreme method, such as fasting (this is the third stage: sacrifice) in situations, it would be wrong when all the available funds of the first and second stages are not undertaken.

For example, in 2003, US President George W. Bush rejected the global anti-Iraqi protest, the largest protest since the Vietnam War. Absence recognition of the President demands of the protesters, as well as his reluctance to negotiate testify that it was necessary to move quickly to stage 2 if he was to receive any answer.

Austrian economist and conflictologist Friedrich Glazl in his book Conflict Management. The Leader and Consultant Handbook ”offers a model for escalating conflict. How can managers benefit from the researcher's findings?

The author called his approach to conflicts “social and ecological” (social ecology). He believes that if the analysis of the conflict is not carried out in accordance with the socio-ecological approach, then, as a result, mistakes are almost inevitable when intervening in an already arisen conflict.

The Eye model allows you to:

  • to recognize the latent conflict, to call things by their proper names (to understand whether communication remains within the framework of the discussion as a search for the best solution);
  • to determine the stage of the conflict, which means to understand how far the confrontation of the parties has gone, how difficult it is to resolve it;
  • evaluate the dynamics (the conflict grows or fades away);
  • to realize their own contribution to the course of the conflict (by doing this, will I help to resolve the conflict or will I only strengthen the confrontation between the parties?).

F. Glazl deduced nine stages of conflict escalation:

  1. Fierceness.
  2. Debate and controversy.
  3. From words to deeds.
  4. False images and coalitions.
  5. "Loss of face".
  6. Threat strategy.
  7. Limited crushing blows.
  8. Defeat.
  9. "Together into the abyss."

Let's consider these stages in more detail.

Stage 1. Fierceness

Level one conflict occurs when differences of opinion or frustration in a relationship defy attempts at reconciliation. The problem persists and leads to irritation. Repeated attempts to overcome disagreements fail, the natural exchange of opinions is blocked. The parties constantly see that in some area they are not moving forward. Interests and opinions crystallize in the form of fixed points of view. These points of view are not compatible. Support groups are formed around them. The boundaries between groups are becoming more visible. Each group considers the incoming information through its own perceptual filter, accepting one and discarding the other. As the clashes progresses, the group members begin to become disillusioned with attempts at dialogue and suspect that the opposing side is not interested in it and, perhaps, even guided by some base beliefs. However, they are still trying to be honest and treat each other humanly.

The transition to the second stage occurs when one or both parties lose faith in the possibility of solving a problem in an honest discussion. Arguments are rejected in favor of manipulative tricks.

Stage 2. Debate and controversy

To defend their point of view, parties are beginning to pay more and more attention to how they appear - how successful, strong, and smart (and by no means insecure, incompetent, or malleable). The main thing in the dispute is not rational, substantive arguments, but the acquisition of a tactical advantage over the rival. Quasi-rational arguments are used:

  • bickering about the causes of the problem, in order to avoid feelings of guilt;
  • exaggeration of the significance and consequences of the enemy's position, attempts to present it as absurd;
  • assumptions about the connection of the main topic of the dispute with other problems, preferably more significant, value problems;
  • references to authorities and traditions in order to give their point of view more legitimacy;
  • attempts to present alternatives as "black and white" in order to persuade the adversary to a "reasonable compromise"

In fact, the struggle is already underway to get the opponent out of emotional balance, to move away from arguments to emotions and issues of domination. The parties can no longer be sure that words mean what they mean, but are forced to look for hidden messages. A bit of mistrust is mixed into the relationship. Every small win forces the opposing side to look for a way to compensate for it. Everyone is very afraid to seem weak, and although they are still trying to communicate on an equal footing, from time to time they lose control of themselves. And they are trying to rectify the situation by improving their image as fair and strong-minded people.

The transition to the third stage occurs when the basic right of each party to be heard is questioned. When one of the parties decides that further conversations are useless and moves from words to deeds without asking the opponent's opinion, the conflict moves to stage 3.

Stage 3. From words to deeds

At the third stage, the parties no longer believe that words can help the cause and move on to action. At this moment, there is a very strong feeling that your opponent has driven you into a dead end, and contact with her is very weak. Your task becomes to change interdependence to one-sided dependence, find a way to block your opponent, dominate her.

The pressure within the parties is increasing, forcing people to behave conformally, to obey common opinion and a common interpretation of events. Images and assessments are simplified, the perspectives and problems of the opposing party are less and less taken into account, since due to mistrust, feedback from it is almost impossible, except in the form of the same stereotypical caricatures and assessments. As a result, fantasies about possible motives and covert strategies develop without critical scrutiny.

The parties have the feeling that they have become prisoners of external circumstances that they cannot control, and therefore they tend to deny their responsibility for the course of events. Their actions are supposedly just a necessary reaction to what is happening.

The transition to stage 4 is a covert attack on the social reputation, position, relations of the enemy with third parties.

Stage 4. Image and coalitions

At stage 4, the conflict is no longer about a specific topic, but about victory or defeat, and the main thing in it is to protect your reputation.

The parties have formed a clear stereotypical image of the enemy, which is practically unaffected by new information. The parties attribute collective traits to all members of the opposing coalition. And, of course, the parties do not recognize the correctness of their image in others. A noticeable sign of this stage is that it is very difficult for the parties to name the positive traits of the enemy when asked by the conciliator. “These people don't change,” they usually think of each other.

Attempts are being made to find holes in social norms that allow harm to the enemy. The norms are followed formally, using every chance to avoid responsibility for hostile actions. Typical behavior at this stage is "denied attempts to punish". The enemy is provoked, insulted and criticized, but formally everyone is kept on the verge of the norms of etiquette. Irony, skepticism, body language are used, and accusations of bad intentions are vigorously denied. And since the second party cannot openly discuss the incident, it resorts to similar actions. The hidden nature of the attack so far prevents public loss of face.

At this stage, the parties actively recruit outsiders. They plan and carry out actions that improve their image, deliberately try to make their dispute public in order to recruit allies.

Attacks target the identity, attitudes, behavior, position of the enemy, and do not address the cause of the conflict. The reasons are no longer points of view, but invariable parts of the personality of the parties, indisputable values.

Proceeding to stage 5 are actions that lead to a public loss of face by one or both parties. If someone's dignity is repeatedly and purposefully humiliated, especially in public, the conflict slides into stage 5.

Stage 5. Loss of face

The transition to stage 5 is dramatic. The face here means the status that a person has in the eyes of others. He is perceived as a decent citizen and has a person who provides him with the right to fair treatment and respect. "Face" is supported by all members of the theme group. Secret gossip and individual personal opinions cannot drop the "face", the attack is carried out in public. The parties to the conflict seem to suddenly penetrate behind the mask of the enemy and discover that he is immoral, insane or criminal. It feels like a sudden insight, awareness of the "true" appearance. The conflict is now being interpreted completely in a new way - the other side undoubtedly followed an immoral strategy from the very beginning. All their "constructive" steps were sham. There is no more duality, everything is clear.

Now it's not about the fact that one side is better and the other worse, but about the fact that we are angels, representing light forces, and they are demons, a collection of everything disgusting in the world. The enemy is not just annoying, he is the embodiment of moral baseness. A characteristic feature is a bodily reaction to the enemy of the type "they feel sick."

The effort required from the parties so that they can regain at least minimal trust at this stage is gigantic. For example, the parties must make a public apology for past statements. But the parties are afraid that even such concessions will be a sign of weakness and they can only humiliate each other.

Losing face often isolates parties from third parties, further reducing the possibility of feedback. The transition to Stage 6 begins when countries begin to voice ultimatums and strategic threats.

Stage 6. Threat Strategies

With no other means in sight, the parties begin to resort to threats of harm. Threats are different from "denied attempts at punishment", they were only an outlet for frustration, and threats are actively used to force the opponent to back down.

Within this stage, three stages are distinguished:
- The parties begin to threaten each other to show that they will not back down. In this way, they attract attention to themselves, demonstrate their independence and try to force the opponent to agree to their demand under the threat of punishment.
- Threats are becoming more specific and confident, the parties declare that they intend to keep their words, in the end, they are putting their reputation on the line.
- The threat takes the form of an ultimatum, the opponent is required to give an answer in the form of "either-or".

One of the consequences is the loss of control of the parties over the dynamics of the conflict. By their own actions, they create pressure to act quickly and radically.

The parties' perception of the situation is fundamentally at odds with reality. The threatening party only sees their own needs and views threats as a necessary tool to protect themselves from violence. The opposing side does the same, as a result, both feel in danger, fear and rage grow.

It becomes very difficult to intervene in the conflict, both sides feel that time is running out. Each side also requires that its requirements be met strictly in the form in which it presents them - this is an attempt to regain control over a chaotic situation.

People tend to panic at this stage. All actions that can lead to a powerful effect seem attractive to them. At this stage, people often turn to the media with their complaints.

A threat can only be effective if you can actually execute it. Therefore, the parties try to convince their supporters and observers that they are serious. For example, they may publicly vow to carry out a threat or engage in petty acts of aggression. Thus, the parties tie themselves hand in hand in the search for alternative solutions.

A serious risk in stage 6 is that stress, uncontrolled aggression and confusion of conflict lead to disintegration within the parties themselves into small, independently acting factions. Now, even if the main participants oblige themselves to stop, resolve the conflict, this may not work, since the rest will continue it.

The transition to stage 7 occurs when the parties are actively looking for a way to reduce the opponent's potential.

Stage 7. Limited crushing blows

In Stage 6, mutual threats undermined the sense of security of the parties. Now they expect very dangerous actions from each other. The enemy is now an absolute enemy with no human qualities. No respect for the person prevents you from hitting him, it is only an object standing in the way. The words "destruction", "destruction" appear in speeches.

Attacks are designed to undermine an adversary's ability to attack, they are preemptive strikes against their financial resources, legal status, or control. They cause retaliatory sanctions, sometimes even more destructive. The exchange of blows creates a temporary sense of power, control, thus there are secondary benefits leading to greater escalation. The enemy's losses are considered gains for themselves, even if they do not really bring any benefit. The parties themselves are ready to suffer if the enemy suffers from this even more.

The goal so far is to neutralize the enemy's forces. There is no communication. At stage six, the parties at least figured out how the enemy reacted to the ultimatum, now they don't even ask if he received the message. Ethical norms have been dropped. Previously, the parties looked for holes in the norms, bypassed them, now they only hinder them, because this is a war and normal rules do not apply.

The parties also understand that victory is impossible, the situation is loose-loose. The main goal is to survive with fewer losses.
The transition to stage 8 occurs when the attack is directed not at the enemy's resources, but at his very heart.

Stage 8. Defeat

Attacks are intensifying, they are aimed at destroying life support systems, the basis of the enemy's power. They are trying to break up his group and deprive him of the ability to make decisions. In the group, blows are delivered to the leaders, negotiators, representatives, in the hope that without them the remnants of the group will fall apart themselves under the weight of internal contradictions.

Therefore, within the groups, stress and internal pressure increase, they themselves split into factions that are at war with each other, which further worsens control.

The only limiting factor is your own survival. The transition to stage 9 occurs when it is also discarded.

Stage 9. Together into the abyss

In the final stage, enemies throw aside the instinct of self-preservation. Bankruptcy, imprisonment, physical harm - nothing is scary anymore. The bridges have been burned. This is a war of annihilation in which there are no innocent victims, no neutral parties. The only goal is to make sure that the enemy is flying into the abyss with you while falling.

Escalation of the conflict according to F. Glazl

  • Psychology: Personality and Business

Keywords:

1 -1

Something about identification

  • Tashfel builds all cognitive processes in a chain in which identification precedes differentiation.
  • In reality, people have more options than full identification with one of the ethnic communities. An individual can simultaneously identify himself with two relevant groups. Not only people from mixed marriages, but also people living in a multi-ethnic society can have such an identity. Their “nationality for themselves” can be denoted not in one word, but descriptively: “closer to Russian nationality”, “rather between Russians and Ukrainians” (from the responses of Polesie residents to a question about their nationality).

Escalating conflict

Conflict is a complex situation in which there are several stages.

The conflict is prone to self-expansion. Additional reasons for its deepening arise all the time. Some trends appear:

Ø From soft to hard action - from talking to action.

Ø From smallest to largest - new objects of dispute appear.

Ø From private to general - "You are all like that!"

Ø At first, there is a striving for the result, but gradually it all comes down to striving to defeat the enemy, up to causing damage to him.

Ø From the participation of a few, to an increase in the ranks - an increase in the number of participants in the conflict up to mass.

(The end of the 60s, the beginning of the 70s - the time of great social conflicts, into which the student body was drawn, both in France and in the USA)

The conflict can be resolved (solution of the underlying problem), or it can be resolved (elimination of one of the parties).

MODELS of conflict escalation

1. The aggressor-victim model.

It works for the parties to the conflict, but each side feels like a victim.

The aggressor attacks - the victim defends himself - the aggressor increases the pressure ... and so on. - either settlement or permission.

This type of action is typical for political conflicts. The model is not natural enough for a complete explanation. It is difficult to distinguish an aggressor from a victim.

2. Spiral model.

The movement of the conflict occurs in a spiral: Peak - Lull - New round.

Can also be represented linearly as waves.

Popular with those who view the escalation of the conflict as a vicious circle of actions and counteractions.

Hostile actions of one side cause fear, frustration, anger, etc. on the other side -> retaliatory actions.

This model is not as one-sided as the previous one, but it is not much better.



3. Structural Change Model.

The previous two models cannot explain why the conflict in a damping situation does not fade at all, why a new wave is formed.

How do parties change psychologically during a conflict?

The spiral model (sociological) studies only the temporary states of people in conflict - emotions and anger.

Basic changes in the conflict:

v Increased group cohesion

v Leaders change (more aggressive)

v Social identity becomes brighter and more positive

v Cognitive changes.

Cognitive processes and real IHOs are in a state of circular interaction. How do cognitive processes change?

Ø Categorization à group members are perceived to be more similar than they really are. à deindividualization of members of one's own and that of another's group! This effect works in such a way that it makes it easier to decide about aggressive actions. Deindividuation has been made easier with the advent of new technologies, where you don't have to personally interact with the members of the other group you kill. à increasing the possibility of displaying aggression towards the group due to the lack of direct interaction.

Experiment: Female volleyball players, 2 teams. 1- in suits, 2- who in what. Group 1 was more aggressive.

The deindividualized group is more aggressive, because she sees herself as a group and knows that others also see her as a group. à diffusion of responsibility.

D. Campbell - checked on African tribes - the more identical elements in the design of appearance, the more aggressive the tribe.

Ø Illusory correlation - two classes of events are perceived as related, although there is either no connection between them, or the connection is insignificant. Many negative stereotypes are built on this. It manifests itself in stereotypes about minority groups among the majority, with rare interaction and the presence of a clear difference in the former.

Ø Each group in a conflict situation seeks to differentiate from the other group and does everything not to compare them once again. Each country tried to remain in the system of its views.

Ø The parties are looking for "scapegoats", which can always be found using the mechanism of social causal attribution (attribution of responsibility). People constantly have a desire to look for someone responsible for the event. Very often they are groups of a real minority. If he is not found, some plausible minority (for example, agents of enemy intelligence). If these are not found, they come up with a fantastic minority (witches in the Middle Ages, after the expulsion of the Jews for the spread of the plague). That. all this is a specific type of attribution-attribution of a conspiracy, giving simple explanations for any complex phenomena. The consequences for the scapegoats are expulsion or death. You can talk about dehumanizing enemies. Deligitimization on B. Talu ... Those. taking out beyond the limits of the human race and human laws. This facilitates the destruction action !!!

That. there is a certain fear of minority groups. Why does this fear of weak minority groups arise?

S. Moskovisi put forward the concept of conspiratorial thinking: Any minority in their lifestyle, views, religion, etc. violate the norms of the majority. From the point of view of the majority, the minority finds itself in a certain pre-empted position and can do whatever they want. à they have a certain mysterious power associated with the power of evil à conspiratorial attributions in which fantastic attributions are manifested. Members of the majority group exhibit feelings of weakness. Hatred and contempt for minority groups is complemented by envy.

It manifests itself in situations of crises and conflicts. In a normal and stable situation, the majority does not need to look to blame. Then they leave the conspiracy attribution and don't use it.

Moskovisi distinguishes right and left, in the political sense of the word, attribution. Right - the person himself is responsible for everything that happens to him (attribution of responsibility). Left - the causes of all misfortunes in the conditions created by society; the system is to blame! The left is especially characteristic of the minority groups themselves. Promotes the protection of self-esteem, but at the same time gives a feeling of being out of control of one's life, which increases selfishness, aggressiveness and anxiety.


Initially, the word "stereotype" (hard print) appeared in the printing industry to denote a printed form - a copy from a typographic set.

In each case, specific personal qualities were suggested as reasons - stereotypical, individual and anti-stereotypical for a “typical American” and “a typical Soviet person,” as well as external circumstances.

Escalating conflict(from Latin scala - ladder) - the development of the conflict, progressing in time, the aggravation of the confrontation, in which the subsequent destructive effects of opponents on each other are higher in intensity than the previous ones. An escalation of a conflict is a part of a conflict that begins with an incident and ends with a weakening of the struggle, a transition to the end of the conflict.

Signs of escalation conflict:

1) narrowing of the cognitive sphere in behavior and activity;

2) displacement by the image of the enemy of the adequate perception of the other. The image of the enemy as a holistic representation of the opponent, integrating distorted and illusory features, begins to form during the latent period of the conflict as a result of perception determined by negative assessments.As long as there is no resistance, until the threats are realized, the image of the enemy is focal in nature. In the course of the escalation of the conflict, the image of the enemy manifests itself more and more expressively and gradually replaces the objective image. The fact that the image of the enemy becomes dominant in the information model of a conflict situation is evidenced by:

• distrust - everything that comes from the enemy, either bad or pursuing dishonest goals;

• blaming the enemy - the enemy is responsible for all the problems that have arisen and is to blame for everything;

Negative expectation - everything that the enemy does, he does with the sole purpose of causing harm;

• identification with evil;

· Presentation of "zero sum" - everything that is beneficial to the enemy harms us;

Deindividualization - everyone who belongs to this group is automatically our enemy;

· Refusal of sympathy - we have nothing to do with our enemy, no information can induce us to show humane feelings towards him, it is dangerous and unreasonable to be guided by ethical criteria in relation to the enemy.

The strengthening of the image of the enemy is facilitated by: an increase in negative emotions, the expectation of destructive actions of the other side, negative stereotypes and attitudes, the duration of the conflict;

3) the growth of emotional stress. It arises as a reaction to an increase in the threat of possible damage, a decrease in controllability by the opposite side, the inability to realize their interests in the desired volume in a short time, the resistance of the opponent;

4) the transition from arguments to claims and personal attacks. When the opinions of people collide, they usually try to argue for them. The surrounding people, evaluating a person's position, indirectly evaluate his tendency to argumentation. A person gives a significant personal coloring to the fruits of his intellect, and criticism of the results of his intellectual activity can be perceived as a negative assessment of him as a person. Criticism in this case is perceived as a threat to the self-esteem of the individual, and the dust to defend himself leads to a shift in the subject of the conflict to the personal plane;


5) the growth of the hierarchical welfare of violated and protected interests and their polarization. The whiter intense action affects the more important interests of the other side. Therefore, the escalation of the conflict can be viewed as a process of deepening contradictions, i.e. as a process of increasing the hierarchical rank of violated interests. With escalation, the interests of opponents are, as it were, diverted to opposite poles. If in a pre-conflict situation they could coexist, then with an escalation of the conflict, the existence of some is possible only by ignoring the interests of the other side;

6) the use of violence is a hallmark of conflict escalation Aggression is associated with internal compensation (lost prestige, decreased self-esteem), compensation for damage Physical violence and aggression are provoked not only by an already implemented threat, but also by a potential threat. The intensification of physical violence in a conflict is associated with an increase in the intensity of mutual actions caused by inadequate retribution for the destruction of the “I”;

7) the loss of the original subject of disagreement is a process when the confrontation, which began because of the disputed object, develops into a more global clash, during which the original subject of the conflict no longer plays a major role;

8) expansion of the boundaries of the conflict. There is a generalization of the conflict, i.e. the transition to deeper contradictions, the emergence of many different points of collision, the temporal and spatial boundaries of the conflict are expanding;

9) increasing the number of participants In the course of the escalation of the conflict, there can be an "enlargement" of the opposing subjects by attracting more and more participants. funds.

De-escalation of the conflict- this is a decrease in tension, a fading of the conflict, a transition to a peace process.

Blind point of conflict- This is the process of stopping the conflict at a certain stage without changing the situation in a positive or negative direction.

Escalation - what is it? The word is often used in scientific and journalistic literature, but its meaning is not widely known. The escalation of the conflict is usually called the period in which the discord passes through the main stages of its development and approaches its end. The term came from the Latin language and in translation means "ladder". Escalation shows a conflict that progresses over time, characterized by a gradual aggravation of the confrontation between the conflicting parties, when each subsequent attack, each subsequent attack or pressure on the opponent becomes more intense than the previous one. The escalation of a dispute represents a path from an incident to a weakening of struggle and confrontation.

Signs and types of conflict escalation

Various help to highlight such a significant part of the conflict as escalation. It is really difficult to understand what it is without any special signs. When describing the current incident, you need to refer to the list of those properties that relate specifically to the escalation period, and not to another.

Cognitive sphere

In behavioral and activity reactions, it narrows, there comes the moment of transition to less complex forms of reflection of reality.

Enemy image

It is he who blocks and weakens adequate perception. Being a holistically formed analogue of the opponent, he combines invented, fictitious properties, as it begins to form during a conflict. is a kind of result of empirical perception, predetermined by negative characteristics and assessments. As long as there is no confrontation and neither side poses a threat to the other, the opponent's image is neutral in color: he is stable, fairly objective and mediated. In essence, it resembles poorly developed photographs, the image of which is pale, indistinct, blurry. But under the influence of escalation, illusory moments are more and more manifested, the occurrence of which is provoked by a negative emotional and personal assessment of each other by opponents. In these cases, there are some "symptomatic" features inherent in very many conflicting people. In their enemy, they see a person who should not be trusted. The blame is shifted onto her, only wrong decisions and actions are expected from her - a harmful personality, which at the same time is the result of antagonistic deindividualization, when the enemy ceases to be an individuality, but becomes a generalized, collective, so to speak, allegorical image that has absorbed a huge amount of evil, negativity, cruelty, vulgarity and other vices.

Emotional stress

It grows with terrifying intensity, the opposite side loses control, the subjects of the conflict temporarily lose the opportunity to realize their interests or satisfy their needs.

Human interests

Relationships are always built in a certain hierarchy, even if they are polar and contradictory, therefore the intensity of actions leads to a more serious impact on the interests of the opposing side. It is appropriate to define here that this is an escalation of the conflict, that is, a kind of environment in which contradictions deepen. In the escalation process, the interests of the opposing sides become "multipolar". In the previous confrontation situation, their coexistence was possible, and now their reconciliation is impossible without harming any of the disputants.

Violence

Serves as an excellent tool during the escalation of the conflict, being its identification mark. The striving for compensation and compensation by the opposing party for the harm caused provokes the individual to aggression, cruelty, and intolerance. The escalation of violence, that is, the intensification of ruthless, belligerent actions, often accompanies the course of this or that misunderstanding.

The original subject of the dispute

It fades into the background, no longer plays a special role, the main attention is not focused on it, the conflict can be characterized as independent of the reasons and reasons, its further course and development are possible even after the loss of the primary subject of disagreement. The conflict situation in its escalation is becoming generalized, but at the same time deeper. Additional points of contact of the parties arise, and the confrontation is already unfolding over a larger territory. Conflict experts at this stage record the expansion of the spatial and temporal framework. This indicates that we are facing a progressive, serious escalation. What it is, and how it will affect the subjects participating in the conflict or observing it, it will be possible to find out only after the end of the confrontation and its careful analysis.

Growth in the number of subjects

With the growth of confrontation, the "multiplication" of the participants also takes place. An inexplicable and uncontrollable influx of new subjects of the conflict begins, which takes on a global scale, growing into a group, international, etc. The internal structure of groups, their composition, and their characteristics are changing. The range of funds is becoming wider, or it can go in a completely different vector.

At this stage, you can turn to the information provided to us by psychiatrists. They concluded that in the course of any conflict, the conscious sphere regresses significantly. Moreover, this happens not at all by a chaotic glamor, but gradually, with the preservation of specific patterns.

Step-by-step escalation

It is necessary to understand what are the mechanisms of conflict escalation. The first two stages can be combined under one common name - the pre-conflict situation and its development. They are accompanied by an increase in the importance of their own interests and ideas about the world, the fear of the impossibility of finding a way out of the situation exclusively by peaceful means, through mutual assistance and concessions. The tension of the psyche increases many times over.

At the third stage, the escalation itself begins, most of the discussions collapse, the parties to the conflict move on to decisive actions, in which there is some paradox. By harshness, rudeness and violence, the opposing sides try to influence each other, forcing the opponent to change his position. At the same time, no one is going to concede. Wisdom and rationality disappear as if by magic, and the main object of attention is the image of the enemy.

Surprisingly, at the fourth stage of confrontation, the human psyche regresses to such an extent that it becomes comparable to the reflexes and behavioral properties of a six-year-old child. The individual refuses to perceive someone else's position, to listen to it, is guided in his actions only by "EGO". The world becomes divided into "black" and "white", into good and evil, no deviations or complications are allowed. The essence of the conflict is unambiguous and primitive.

In the fifth stage, moral convictions and most important values ​​are broken. All sides and individual elements that characterize the opponent are collected in a single image of an enemy devoid of human features. Within the group, these people can continue to communicate and interact, so an outside observer is unlikely to be able to influence the outcome of the conflict at this stage.

In the conditions of social interaction, the psyche of many people is under pressure, regression occurs. In many ways, the psychological stability of a person depends on his upbringing, on the type of moral norms that he has learned, on personal social experience.

Symmetrical Schismogenesis, or Scientific Escalation

The theory developed by the scientist G. Bateson, which is called the theory of symmetric schismogenesis, will help to describe the escalation of conflict from the outside. The term "schismogenesis" refers to changes in the behavior of an individual as a result of his socialization and gaining new experience at the level of interpersonal and intrapersonal collisions. For schismogenesis, there are two options for external manifestation:

  1. The first is a change in behavior in which certain types of actions of individuals who come into contact complement each other. For example, when one of the opponents is persistent, and the other is conformable and compliant. That is, a kind of unique mosaic is formed from the options for the behavior of different subjects of the conflict.
  2. The second option exists only if there are identical behavioral patterns, say, both attack, but with different degrees of intensity.

It is obvious that the escalation of the conflict refers precisely to the second variation of schismogenesis. But also different forms of escalation can be classified. For example, it may not be interrupted and be marked by increasing tension, or it may become wavy, when sharp corners and the mutual pressure of opponents on each other move either in an ascending or descending trajectory.

The term "escalation" is used in various fields, not only in psychology and sociology. For example, there is tariff escalation - the meaning of this term can be read in any economic encyclopedia. It can be steep, when the movement from calmness to hostility is incredibly rapid and non-stop, and sometimes it is sluggish, slowly flowing, or even keeping the same level for a long time. The latter characteristic is most often inherent in a protracted or, as they say, chronic conflict.

Conflict escalation models. Positive outcome

A positive escalation of the conflict is the possibility of its elimination with the emergence of a common desire for a peaceful settlement. In this case, both parties must analyze and choose those rules of conduct that do not violate the principles and beliefs of either of the opponents. In addition, it follows from the entire spectrum of variable solutions and outcomes to choose the most preferable ones, and they should be developed at once for several possible outcomes of the situation. Among other things, disputants need to clearly identify and concretize their desires and interests, explain them to the opposite side, which should also later be listened to. From the entire list of requirements, select those who are responsible and fair, and then begin attempts to implement them using means and methods that must also be accepted and approved by all opponents.

Of course, you cannot ignore the conflict. It is similar to negligence, when people leave a switched on iron or a burning match in the apartment - there is a threat of fire. The analogy between fire and conflict is not accidental: both are much easier to prevent than to extinguish after ignition. The time component is of great importance, because both the fire and the quarrel are terrible in their spread with greater force. In these signs, the basic principle of escalation is similar to that of a disease or epidemic.

The escalation of the conflict is often confused, because the contradiction is replenished with new details, features, intrigues. Emotions rush with increasing speed and overwhelm all participants in the confrontation.

All this leads us to the conclusion that an experienced leader of any group, upon learning that a serious or insignificant dissonance flares up between its members or is already proceeding in full force, will immediately take measures to eliminate it. Inaction and indifference in this situation will most likely be condemned by the collective, will be taken for meanness, cowardice, cowardice.

Conflict escalation models. Dead point

It should be noted that sometimes escalation slows down or stops altogether. This phenomenon also has predetermining reasons:

  • One opposing side is ready to make a voluntary concession due to the fact that the conflict for some reason becomes unacceptable to it.
  • One of the opponents is persistently trying to avoid the conflict, to "fall out" of it, since the conflict situation becomes uncomfortable or harmful.
  • The conflict is approaching a dead center, the escalation of violence is becoming ineffectual and unprofitable.

A dead center is a state of affairs when the confrontation comes to a standstill, stops after one or more unsuccessful collisions. The change in the pace of escalation or its completion is due to certain factors.

Blind point factors


Objectively speaking, this stage is not characterized by profound changes, however, one of the parties begins to have a completely different attitude to the conflict and the methods of its resolution. When both sides agree that the predominance of either of them is impossible, they will have to give up, give up the victory, or agree. But the essence of this stage lies in the realization that the enemy is not just an enemy who personifies all the vices and sorrows of the world. and a worthy opponent, with its own shortcomings and advantages, with whom it is possible and necessary to find common interests, points of contact. This understanding becomes the initial step towards resolving the conflict.

conclusions

Thus, when figuring out what escalation means in social, cultural and economic terms, you need to understand that it develops according to different schemes and models, and its outcome can be chosen by the parties to the conflict, because it depends on them how competently they can overcome the arisen contradictions, and how sad the consequences will be.