PSYCHOLOGY OF CONFLICT
N. V. Grishina
Psychology of conflict
Series "Masters of Psychology"
Chief Editor V. Usmanov
Head of psychological editorial A. Zaitsev
Deputy editorial manager V. Popov
Lead Editor A. Rapoport
Cover artist V. Queen
Literary editors Y. Levchenko, P. Predbannikova
Correctors M. Roshal, N. Romanova
Design and layout A. Rapoport
BBK 88.53Ya7 UDC159.9
Grishina N.V.
G85 Psychology of conflict - St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Peter", 2000. - 464 p.: ill. – (Series "Masters of Psychology")
ISBN 5-314-00115-2
The Psychology of Conflict is the first edition that fully and systematically outlines the psychological problems of conflict. Types of conflicts, psychological approaches to their understanding, analysis of the interaction of people in conflict situations, features of human experience of conflicts, patterns of people's reactions to difficult situations in communication, negotiation models of conflict resolution, psychological help people in the event of conflicts - this and much more is presented on the pages of this unparalleled book. It can provide the necessary assistance in practical work to psychologists, teachers, social workers, managers, and sociologists.
© Grishina N.V., 2000
© Series, design. Publishing house "Piter", 2000
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.
ISBN 5-314-00115-2
Publishing house "Peter". 196105, St. Petersburg, st. Blagodatnaya, 67.
License LR No. 066333 dated February 23, 1999.
Signed for publication on March 21, 2000. Format 70x100/16. Conv. p. l. 43 8
Circulation 10,000. Order No. 856.
Printed from ready-made transparencies
in the Order of the Red Banner of Labor State Enterprise "Technical Book"
ministries Russian Federation for the press,
TV and radio broadcasting and mass media
198005, St. Petersburg, Izmailovsky pr., 29
From the author
Today, no one needs to prove that the problems associated with the study of conflicts have the right to exist. Not only professional psychologists and sociologists, but also politicians, leaders, teachers, social workers, in a word, all those who in their practical activities associated with human interactions. Unfortunately, this ever-increasing interest is to a large extent connected with the growing tension in various spheres of social interaction, with acute need and various social structures, and individuals in practical help in conflict resolution.
We were unprepared for this difficult situation. Orientation towards the “conflict-free” development of society made the problem of conflicts unpromising. This led not only to its actual exclusion from the field scientific research but also to the fact that mechanisms for dealing with conflicts have not been formed in society. There is a lack of trained specialists, and incompetent efforts to overcome conflict only exacerbate the situation. Attempts to copy the experience of foreign conflictologists, especially in the field of social problems, which, of course, are not designed for universal application in any socio-cultural conditions, turn out to be little successful.
To some extent, this contradiction is the awareness of the need for scientific understanding and practical work with conflicts and unpreparedness for it - also applies to psychologists. At the same time, the problem of conflicts is fundamental to psychological science. In many theoretical approaches, psychological conflicts, their nature and content become the basis of explanatory models of personality. Contradictions, conflicts, crises experienced by a person are the source of personality development, determine its constructive or destructive life scenario.
They play an equally important role in social life person, both in his interpersonal relationships and in intergroup interaction. Thus, the problem of conflict passes through different areas of psychological knowledge.
There is no need to talk about the practical interest that is associated with working with conflicts. All practical psychology with its various modern forms work, one way or another, is connected with the problems of psychological difficulties of a person, including those experienced in the form of conflicts.
Despite the obvious significance of the problem of conflicts for psychology, we do not have today any complete publications devoted to it. To some extent, this was a consequence of the already noted insufficient attention of science to the “negative” problems. However, perhaps it is the fundamental nature of the problem of conflict that most of all complicates attempts to elucidate it. In psychology, there are many works directly or indirectly devoted to the problem of conflict; V last years they also appear in domestic science. However, the phenomena of the conflict turned out to be “divided” between various areas psychology in the first place general psychology, personality psychology, social psychology. The need for a holistic description of the conflict required a different, problem-oriented approach.
The solution of this problem seems not only difficult, but also doomed to criticism of the inevitable gaps and omissions. Having dealt with this problem for more than twenty years, I am aware of this, perhaps better than others, just as I am aware of the responsibility that comes with such a publication. I was driven, first of all, by the conviction of the expediency of a preliminary systematization of the ideas available in this area, which is necessary for their further clarification, development of ideas and practical work with conflicts. It was this task - the introduction into scientific use of systematized material on the psychology of conflict - that I set myself. This, to some extent, determined the genre of the book, in which I wanted to reflect the most significant theoretical ideas of many remarkable psychologists of the 20th century, their work experience and the results achieved, although due to the volume of material in most cases this had to be done very briefly.
This work is written primarily for psychologists, as well as anyone who is aware of the huge role that psychological factors play in conflicts of any kind.
A huge role in my work was played by the Department of Psychology of St. state university the opportunity to read a series of lectures on the psychology of conflicts, where for the first time in the country this issue was introduced in learning programs training of psychologists. Over the years, time itself has changed, our ideas about conflicts have changed, but the huge interest of students and the friendly attitude of colleagues have remained unchanged. In fact, it was he, as well as many of those who shared with me their personal stories, with my life dramas and victories, helping to better understand the complex and elusive world of human conflicts, I owe the fact that I decided to write this book.
Introduction. WHAT IS CONFLICT
The introduction describes the content of the scientific and everyday concept of conflict and defines the boundaries of its problematic field.
Signs of Conflict
Interpretation of the conflict by everyday consciousness and science
The concept of conflict belongs to both ordinary consciousness and science, which endows it with its own specific meaning. Each of us intuitively understands what conflict is, but this does not make determining its content any easier.
In everyday speech, the word "conflict" is used in relation to a wide range of phenomena - from armed clashes and confrontation between various social groups to work or marital disagreements. We call a conflict a family quarrel, hostilities, discussions in parliament, a clash of internal motives, a struggle of one's own desires and a sense of duty, and much more.
The word "conflict" comes from the Latin conflictus- collision and almost unchanged enters other languages (conflict– English, conflict- German, conflict – French). An analysis of the definitions of conflict adopted in various modern non-specialized encyclopedias reveals their similarity. As a rule, the content of the concept of conflict is revealed through the following meanings:
A state of open, often protracted struggle; battle or war.
A state of disharmony in relationships between people, ideas, or interests; clash of opposites.
Mental struggle arising as a result of the simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires or tendencies.
Opposition of characters or forces in a literary or stage work, in particular the main opposition on which the plot is built ("Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia", 1998).
According to the compilers of the "Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia" (1988), the general synonymous series of the concept of "conflict" includes conflict(conflict) dispute, rivalry(contest), single combat(combat) fight(fight) scandal(affray). Contest applies as to friendly competition, so to hostile struggle to achieve the goal;combat, usually used when talking about armed conflict;fight most often means clash of individual rivals;affray suggests public clash or noisy quarrel. In turn, Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996) gives the following interpretation of this synonymous series: conflict (conflict) refers to a Kostroma disagreement, clash of interests or ideas and emphasizes the process rather than the result; struggle (fight) is the most common word for any dispute (contest), fight (struggle) or quarrels (quarrel), emphasizing physical or melee single combat; struggle (struggle) involves significant efforts or severe manifestations of a physical or any other nature(for example, "struggle for existence"); dispute, quarrelcontention) most often used in relation to a heated verbal argument or dispute; rivalry (contest) refers to fight both friendly and hostile for excellence in any business. Concepts are offered as antonyms consent (accord) And harmony (harmony). A number of other publications also mention the concept consensus.
The analysis of the considered synonymous rows shows that an almost invariable component of the meaning of the concept of "conflict" is the clash of oppositional principles, most often two. It is obvious that this extremely general feature is not enough to describe the boundaries of the problematic field of conflict phenomena.
Familiarity with the scientific literature also does not bring clarity. The concept of conflict acquired the status of a term relatively late: for example, in the well-known three-volume Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, edited by J. Baldwin, published at the beginning of the century, only the concept of “conflict of laws” is given (Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, 1901). In the future, the problematic field of the concept is intensively expanded. For example, in the Sociological Dictionary, published in Germany during the period of rapid development of conflictology, the term “conflict” denoted “parliamentary discussions and civil war, peaceful tariff negotiations and strikes, slight internal tension due to a certain disagreement between a given person and his profession, mental illness » (Worterbuch der Soziologie, 1969). As various forms of conflict, clashes of individuals, intra-family friction, competitive struggle of monopolies, civil wars, military coups, all types of international conflicts, regardless of their nature (Doronina, 1981). 
"Discussion" in the Chilean Parliament (source: International Exhibition "Interpress Photo 66". L., 1966)
In psychology, the concept of conflict is also used quite widely, in fact, addressing very heterogeneous phenomena. For example, "conflict is used to describe the behavior of groups that go against each other, rivalry between individuals and subjective uncertainty within the individual" (Costello, Zalkind, 1963, p. 127). An analysis of the materials of the first domestic psychological conference on conflicts shows that interpersonal difficulties and intrapersonal experiences and crisis phenomena, the subject of psychotherapeutic work and the collision of algorithms for solving educational problems in a child, etc. are called conflicts (Conflict in constructive psychology, 1990.) Thus, one and the same concept of conflict refers to a wide range of phenomena.
The concept of conflict today does not belong to any particular area of science or practice. In an interdisciplinary review of works on the study of conflicts, A. Ya. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov single out 11 areas of scientific knowledge that study conflicts in one way or another (in descending order of the number of publications): psychology, sociology, political science, history, philosophy, art history, pedagogy , jurisprudence, sociobiology, mathematics and military sciences. An analysis of conflict studies based on a study of publications showed that the following concepts are used in various fields: military conflict, artistic conflict, international conflict, regional conflict, ethnic conflict, interethnic conflict, "complex conflicts in various systems", conflicts in school groups , pedagogical teams, conflicts in sports, pedagogical conflict, social, labor, criminal conflict, conflict of generations, conflict "personality-group", moral conflict, moral conflict, etc. (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1996.)
However, the problems that arise with the definition of conflict have not been resolved today. Conflictologists often refer to the failure of the American sociologists R. Mack and R. Snyder, who more than two decades ago, during a period of particularly intensive development of research in the field of conflicts, tried to put things in order in the use of terms and analyzed a number of concepts, such as antagonism of interests, aggressiveness, hostility, competition, social division, etc. Recognizing that none of them is synonymous with conflict, the authors were forced to state: “Obviously, “conflict” is mostly a rubber-like concept that can be stretched and used for one’s own purposes” ( Nechiporenko, 1982, pp. 38-39). At the same time, different disciplines endow the concept of conflict with their own content: economists often identify conflict with competition, psychologists with “difficulties”, “tensions”, sociologists replace the concepts of “debate”, “opposition”, etc. (Doronina, 1981.)
Today, many - especially Western - conflictologists express a very skeptical attitude towards the possibility (and necessity) of creating a unified universal theory of conflict applicable to heterogeneous conflict phenomena. It seems that they are no longer so concerned about the lack of precise definitions and are calm about the fact that the word "conflict" refers to a fairly wide range of phenomena.
At the same time, an analysis of the use of the concept of conflict and various contexts of its application shows that, along with phrases denoting specific phenomena (“armed conflict”, “labor conflict”, “psychological”, “internal”, “political”, etc.) , dictionaries, encyclopedias and other reference publications often contain such figurative expressions as “the conflict of the sublime, ascetic and sensual understanding of love”, “the conflict of the individual and the repressive society”, “the conflict between modern society and human nature”, “the conflict of the free human soul and the hostile world”, “the conflict of the traditional ethics of the older generation with the pragmatism of the young”, etc. (Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius, 1998). Let us add to this such widely used metaphors as “the conflict of nature and civilization”, “the conflict of man with technology”, “poetry and prose of life”, “hero and the crowd”, etc. These examples speak of the need for definition - at least in in the first approximation - such signs or criteria that would allow separating conflict phenomena that are subject to scientific understanding and analysis from non-strict, figurative or metaphorical cases of using the concept of conflict.
Classifications of types of conflict phenomena
Perhaps, familiarity with the classifications of conflicts used in science will bring some clarity, which can help in determining the problematic field of conflict phenomena.
The traditional allocation of types of conflict is based on the distinction between the conflicting parties. It can be, as in K. Boulding, conflicts between individuals, between an individual and a group, between an individual and an organization, between a group and an organization, between different types of groups and organizations (Boulding, 1962). S. Chase proposed an 18-level structural classification covering conflict phenomena from the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels to conflicts between states, nations, etc., up to the confrontation between East and West (Chase, 1951). Domestic researcher A. G. Zdravomyslov, based on the works of N. Smelzer, gives the following series of levels of conflicting parties: 1. Interindividual conflicts. 2. Intergroup conflicts (in this case, separate types of groups are distinguished: a) interest groups, b) groups of an ethno-national character, c) groups united by a common position). 3. Conflicts between associations (parties). 4. Intra- and inter-institutional conflicts. 5. Conflicts between sectors of the social division of labor. 6. Conflicts between state entities. 7. Conflict between cultures or types of cultures (Zdravomyslov, 1995, p. 105).
The authors of the only domestic interdisciplinary review on conflict problems propose to distinguish three main types of conflicts: intrapersonal conflicts, social conflicts and animal conflicts. The main types of social conflicts are: interpersonal conflicts, conflicts between small, medium and large social groups, international conflicts between individual states and their coalitions (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1996). As examples, other classifications can be cited, which, differing in the degree of claims for a comprehensive character, in essence turn out to be quite close to each other in content and the types of conflicts distinguished.
Without dwelling on the controversial points of the described classifications, their insufficient rigor and ambiguity of wording, we note the following: the concept of "conflict" refers to a wide range of multi-level phenomena that necessarily arise "between someone and someone" or less often– "between something and something." Examples of the latter are the confrontation between East and West (Chase) and the conflict between cultures or types of cultures (Zdravomyslov). In these cases, the parties to the conflict are not actually certain subjects of interaction, but social formations or phenomena that have no boundaries and a specific carrier. Quite rarely, animal conflicts are included in the classification of conflicts. A. Ya. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov argue for the expediency of including animal conflicts in the field of conflict studies by the fact that “it is impossible to comprehensively assess a person’s behavior in a conflict without taking into account his biological nature”: “That part of the motives that a person in a conflict is either not aware of , or disguises, in the zoo-conflict appears in a form free from social stratifications ”(Antsupov, Shipilov, 1999, p. 97). Modern psychology, at least in its humanistic version, rejects the legitimacy of the parallels between the mental manifestations of humans and animals, as well as the possibility of transferring data obtained from the study of animals to the human psyche. Based on this, the above arguments would hardly find support among most psychologists.
Thus, the analysis of accepted in science and proposed classifications of conflicts reveals that conflicts include multi-level phenomena of a wide range. However, the problematic field of their study remains not completely defined: along with conflicts that have specific subjects of interaction, classifications can include phenomena that do not belong to a specific social structure (cultural conflict), as well as those whose social nature needs to be justified (animal conflicts), etc. d.
Scientific definitions of conflict
We have already mentioned the unsuccessful attempts of Western scholars to streamline the variety of definitions of the conflict. And this is really not easy, because, as F. E. Vasilyuk writes, “if you set out to find a definition that would not contradict any of the existing views on the conflict, it would sound absolutely meaningless: a conflict is a collision of something with something then” (Vasilyuk, 1984, p. 42).
How do conflictologists solve this problem for themselves? One of the possible definitions of the conflict is based on its philosophical understanding, according to which it is described as "the limiting case of aggravation of the contradiction" (Philosophical Encyclopedia, 1964, p. 55). Then, for example, a social conflict can be defined as "an extreme case of exacerbation of social contradictions, expressed in the clash of various social communities - classes, nations, states, social groups, social institutions etc., due to the opposition or significant difference between their interests, goals, development trends” (Sociological Dictionary, 1991, p. 80). A. G. Zdravomyslov, the author of the most fundamental domestic monograph on the problems of the sociology of conflict, writes that “conflict is the most important aspect of the interaction of people in society, a kind of cell of social life. This is a form of relationship between potential or actual subjects of social action, the motivation of which is due to opposing values and norms, interests and needs” (Zdravomyslov, 1995, p. 94). This wording raises the question: is this opposition objective, which can be established from outside, or subjective, arising from the assessments of the parties involved? R. Dahrendorf, the most famous Western researcher social conflict, defines it as "any relationship between elements that can be characterized through objective ("latent") or subjective ("obvious") opposites" (Stepanenkova, 1994, p. 141). It turns out that the question of objectivity-subjectivity, awareness-unconsciousness of opposites is not significant from the point of view of the conflict, but it is not clear what "any relationship" is.
The "Psychological Dictionary" defines conflict as "a contradiction that is difficult to resolve, associated with acute emotional experiences" (Psychological Dictionary, 1983, p. 161). At the same time, intrapersonal, interpersonal and intergroup conflicts are distinguished as its forms. Definitions of psychological conflicts will be further the subject of our special attention, however, it is obvious that formulations such as the one given do not answer the question about the content of the conflict, but rather provoke new questions: what does “hard to resolve” or, for example, “acute experiences” mean? A. Ya. Antsupov and A. I. Shipilov offer the following definition: “Conflict is understood as the most acute way to resolve significant contradictions that arise in the process of interaction, which consists in counteracting the subjects of the conflict and is usually accompanied by negative emotions” (Antsupov, Shipilov, 1999, p. . 8). If there is opposition, but there are no negative feelings, or vice versa, negative emotions are experienced, but there is no opposition, then such situations are considered pre-conflict. Thus, the proposed understanding of the conflict assumes negative feelings and opposition of the subjects as its mandatory components. At the same time, according to the authors, zooconflicts, in which social (in the broad sense) interaction between animals takes place, fall under the given definition. It is not clear, however, whether intrapersonal conflicts are consistent with this definition, whether they are characterized by signs of social interaction and opposition of subjects. It is also not clear whether one should consider that conflict as a way of resolving contradictions necessarily implies their resolution or, at least, a focus on resolution.
B. I. Khasan, one of the well-known domestic researchers of the conflict, offers the following understanding of the conflict: “Conflict is such a characteristic of interaction in which actions that cannot coexist in an unchanged form mutually determine and interchange each other, requiring a special organization for this.
It is important to bear in mind that action can be considered both externally and internally.
At the same time, any conflict is an actualized contradiction, i.e., opposing values, attitudes, and motives embodied in interaction. It can be considered quite obvious that, in order to be resolved, a contradiction must necessarily be embodied in actions in their collision. Only through the clash of actions, literal or conceivable, does the contradiction reveal itself” (Khasan, 1996, p. 33). In this definition, such components as the presence of contradiction and collision can be distinguished as components of the conflict, while the conflict itself is considered primarily as a characteristic of interaction.
An analysis of these and other definitions shows that, despite the closeness of the characteristics described as components or signs of conflict, none of the definitions can be accepted as universal, either due to the limited nature of the phenomena it covers only part of the conflict phenomenology, or because of the ambiguity of the used definitions. formulations.
Signs of Conflict
Comparison and analysis of various definitions of the conflict will make it possible to single out its invariant features and, at least in the first approximation, limit its problematic field.
Majority authors existing definitions conflict converge on the underlying "clash" (which can also be synonymous with "incompatibility", "struggle", "differences", etc.). Any conflict, regardless of its nature, specific content and type, necessarily contains a moment of confrontation, "confrontation". An armed clash between neighboring states, a family quarrel, an office conflict, a strike at an enterprise, a personal drama - in all these conflicts there is a clash of conflicting or incompatible interests, positions, tendencies, etc.
What does this "collision of something with something" mean? First of all, it presupposes the existence of contradictory principles. The topic of "binarity" or "polarism" is well known to philosophy, in various forms addressed to it at different stages of its development. It is important for us that these "poles", as philosophers emphasize, mutually presuppose each other - as left and right, good and evil, high and low, etc. This means that their opposition becomes possible only in interaction, in other words , a contradiction cannot exist on its own, outside of its concrete carriers. In the context of the conflict detection problem, this property can be denoted as bipolarity, which means both interconnectedness and mutual opposition at the same time. A true point of view can only exist if a false one coexists with it. Confrontation of interests implies the existence of two conflicting or incompatible interests. The struggle of motives is also possible only when they are plural. Bipolarity as a feature of the conflict is apparently also characteristic of cases of broader social confrontation. For example, R. Dahrendorf, one of the prominent modern theorists in the field of the sociology of conflict, believes that any conflict comes down to "relationships between two elements." Even if several groups are involved in the conflict, coalitions are formed between them, and the conflict again acquires a bipolar nature (Dahrendorf, 1994, p. 142).
However, bipolarity by itself does not yet mean a clash of two different principles. Their true opposite reveals itself not just in their juxtaposition, but in their opposition, which implies a “struggle”, an active interaction aimed at overcoming the contradiction that separates them. The South and North Poles, for all their polarity, "polarity" in the literal sense of the word, are not in conflict with each other.
The conflict reveals itself in the "struggle" of its different sides, which ends with the resolution, or removal of this contradiction. G. Simmel argued that “the conflict ... is designed to resolve any dualism, it is a way to achieve a kind of unity, even if it is achieved at the cost of destroying one of the parties involved in the conflict” (Simmel, cited in: Turner, 1985, p. 131). Thus, along with bipolarity, which is the bearer of contradiction, the obligatory attribute of the conflict is activity aimed at overcoming contradictions.
Another criterion on the basis of which we can characterize the phenomenon of conflict is the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of the conflict. Indeed, the "collision" as the core of the conflict presupposes the conscious activity of the parties. This is in line with tradition philosophical understanding contradictions and their development, according to which, for example, in natural contradictions there is no phase of conflict: “Conflict as a phase of contradiction is possible only when its parties are represented by subjects. Where there is no subject, there can be no conflict” (Straks, 1977, p. 26). This means that you can only be in conflict with someone - with another group, with another person, with yourself. The fact that the conflict requires the presence of a subject or subjects representing its parties implies the possibility (at least potential) of active and conscious actions on the part of these subjects. This is what distinguishes a conflict from a contradiction, the sides of which do not necessarily have to be represented by subjects.
The adoption of this view limits the problematic field of conflict to "human" phenomena. Thus, we separate its metaphorical meanings from the scientific understanding of the conflict: one cannot be in conflict with nature or technology, since they cannot enter into active and conscious interaction with us. When it comes to, for example, the "conflict of good and evil", then, in essence, it is always realized in some personified forms and opposition of specific people or groups. In addition, the sign of "subjectivity" excludes conflicts between animals, limiting their "rivalry" or "competition" to the phenomena of struggle, since, in our opinion, the specificity of biological forms does not make it possible to use the term "conflict" in relation to them. Meanwhile, in the works of biologists, the concept of conflict is often encountered. For example, D. McFarland mentions the conflicts of animals, although in this case we are actually talking about instinctive behavior (McFarland, 1988). The early psychological tradition allowed, for research purposes, the use of the results of animal experimentation in explanatory models of human behavior. J. Nutten, analyzing the psychological studies of the conflict, cites experiments of the classical type on animals as examples ( experimental psychology, issue. 5, 1976, p. 71-75). However, modern humanitarian sciences, including psychology, proceed from the irreducibility of complex forms of human behavior to biological schemes. The fact that the conflict belongs to one of the most complex phenomena of the mental life of a person, we will have to be more and more convinced as we describe its phenomenology.
Let us compare the primary understanding of the conflict that we proposed with the dialectical tradition, within which Hegel gave the classical description of the “unfolding” of the contradiction: “... The action begins, in fact, only when the opposite contained in the situation comes out. But since the colliding action violates some opposing side, by this discord it causes against itself the opposite force, which it attacks, and as a result, the reaction is directly connected with the action. ... Now two interests torn out of their harmony are confronting each other in the struggle, and in their mutual contradiction they necessarily demand some kind of resolution. Despite the fact that conflict is a special case of contradiction and therefore more specific, the signs of conflict that we have identified are quite consistent with the Hegelian understanding of contradiction.
Thus, upon initial consideration the conflict acts as a bipolar phenomenon - the confrontation of two principles, manifesting itself in the activity of the parties aimed at overcoming the contradiction, and the parties to the conflict are represented by an active subject (subjects).
The further development and application of this term is determined by the spheres of being and cognition in which the contradiction unfolds, what is the nature of the sides opposing each other, how their interaction occurs, etc.
The already mentioned review of conflict studies (Antsupov, Shipilov) makes it possible to identify as the most significant (in terms of the duration of existence and the number of works) the philosophical, sociological and psychological traditions of the study of conflict. Perhaps their analysis will allow us to clarify the definition of the conflict and the boundaries of its problematic field, as well as to expand our understanding of the nature of conflicts by moving on to a description of their phenomenology.
Summary
The concept of conflict belongs to science and ordinary consciousness.
An analysis of the content of the concept of conflict reveals that both in everyday speech and in science it is used to refer to a wide range of phenomena from the intrapersonal to the social level, is used in a variety of contexts, as well as in a metaphorical sense.
The concept of conflict is used by various scientific disciplines, identifying it with different phenomena.
Classifications of conflicts usually emphasize their multi-level nature. At the same time, the breadth of the subject field makes it difficult to correctly define the conflict, which is relevant to all its types.
Analysis and comparison of different definitions of conflict allows us to single out as invariant such characteristics as bipolarity, activity aimed at overcoming contradictions, subjectivity (the presence of a subject or subjects as carriers of the conflict).
The selection of invariant characteristics of the conflict allows you to impose a restriction on the scope of its subject field. A conflict is a bipolar phenomenon (confrontation of two principles), manifesting itself in the activity of the parties aimed at overcoming contradictions, and the parties are represented by an active subject (subjects).
The longest and most developed in science are the philosophical, sociological and psychological research traditions, the consideration of which can help clarify the concept of conflict, as well as its subject area.
Part 1. Fundamentals of the study of conflicts
The first part is devoted to the basics that are necessary for understanding the phenomenology of conflicts.
Even if the psychologist is primarily interested in the practical issues of conflict resolution, it is important for him to imagine different approaches to interpreting conflicts, certain types of conflicts and the possibilities of their study. Chapter 1 describes the "Philosophical and sociological tradition of the study of conflicts", which is the longest in science. Changing attitudes towards conflicts in social sciences had an impact on humanitarian thought in general, including psychology. Chapter 2 - "The Psychological Tradition of the Study of Conflicts" - discusses various approaches to understanding conflicts in psychology, which together describe the variety of conflict phenomena, which are the subject of Chapter 3 " Separate types conflicts." Chapter 4 describes "Techniques for the Study of Conflict" without which the professional psychologist's knowledge of conflict would be incomplete.
In the second edition of the book (the previous one was published in 2000), the psychological problems of conflicts are fully and systematically presented. Types of conflicts, psychological approaches to their understanding, analysis of the interaction of people in conflict situations, features of human experience of conflicts, patterns of people's reactions to difficult situations in communication, negotiation models for resolving conflicts, psychological assistance to people in the event of conflicts - this and much more are presented on the pages of this unparalleled book. It can provide the necessary assistance in practical work to psychologists, teachers, social workers, managers, and sociologists.
N. V. Grishina
Psychology of conflict
Foreword
Today, no one needs to prove that the problems associated with the study of conflicts have the right to exist. Not only professional psychologists and sociologists, but also politicians, leaders, teachers, social workers, in short, all those who in their practical activities are connected with the problems of human interaction, are of great interest to the problems of the emergence and effective resolution of conflicts, negotiations and the search for agreement.
Unfortunately, this ever-increasing interest is to a large extent connected with the growing tension in various spheres of social interaction, with the urgent need of various social structures and individuals for practical assistance in resolving conflicts.
We were unprepared for this difficult situation. Orientation towards "conflict-free" development of society made the problems of conflicts unpromising. This led not only to its actual exclusion from the field of scientific research, but also to the fact that mechanisms for dealing with conflicts have not been formed in society. There is a lack of trained specialists, and incompetent efforts to overcome conflict only exacerbate the situation. Attempts to copy the experience of foreign conflictologists, especially in the field of social problems, which, of course, are not designed for universal application in any socio-cultural conditions, turn out to be little successful.
To some extent, this contradiction - awareness of the need for scientific understanding and practical work with conflicts and unpreparedness for it - also applies to psychologists. At the same time, the problem of conflicts is fundamental to psychological science. In many theoretical approaches, psychological conflicts, their nature and content become the basis of explanatory models of personality. Contradictions, conflicts, crises experienced by a person are the source of personality development, determine its constructive or destructive life scenario.
They play no lesser role in the social life of a person, both in his interpersonal relations and in intergroup interaction. Thus, the problem of conflict passes through different areas of psychological knowledge.
There is no need to talk about the practical interest that is associated with working with conflicts. All practical psychology, with its various modern forms of work, is in one way or another connected with the problems of a person's psychological difficulties, including those experienced in the form of conflicts.
Despite the obvious significance of the problem of conflicts for psychology, we do not have today any complete publications devoted to it. To some extent, this was a consequence of the already noted insufficient attention of science to "negative" problems. However, perhaps it is the fundamental nature of the problem of conflict that most of all complicates attempts to elucidate it. In psychology, there are many works directly or indirectly devoted to the problem of conflict; in recent years, they appear in domestic science. However, the phenomena of the conflict turned out to be "divided" between different areas of psychology - first of all, general psychology, personality psychology, and social psychology. The need for a holistic description of the conflict required a different, problem-oriented approach.
The solution of this problem seems not only difficult, but also doomed to criticism of the inevitable gaps and omissions. Having dealt with this problem for more than twenty years, I am aware of this, perhaps better than others, just as I am aware of the responsibility that comes with such a publication. I was driven primarily by the belief in the expediency of a preliminary systematization of the ideas available in this area, which is necessary for their further refinement, development of ideas and practical work with conflicts. It was this task - the introduction into scientific use of systematized material on the psychology of conflict - that I set myself. This, to some extent, determined the genre of the book, in which I wanted to reflect the most significant theoretical ideas of many remarkable psychologists of the 20th century, their work experience and the results achieved, although due to the volume of material in most cases this had to be done very briefly.
This work is written primarily for psychologists, as well as anyone who is aware of the huge role that psychological factors play in conflicts of any kind.
A huge role in my work was played by the opportunity given to me by the Faculty of Psychology of St. Petersburg State University to read a series of lectures on the psychology of conflicts, where for the first time in the country this problem was introduced into the curricula for training psychologists. Over the years, time itself has changed, our ideas about conflicts have changed, but the huge interest of students and the friendly attitude of colleagues have remained unchanged. In fact, it is to them, as well as to many of those who shared with me their personal stories, their life dramas and victories, helping to better understand the complex and elusive world of human conflicts, I owe the fact that I decided to write this book.
Preface to the second edition
The preparation of this book for the new edition caused me mixed feelings. Carefully reading page after page, I had the opportunity to make sure that, with a few exceptions, all the material presented in the text has not lost its significance and even relevance, and today I am also ready to subscribe to each thesis of a theoretical or practical nature. Moreover, the past years have largely confirmed and further strengthened me in my ideas. As the author of the book, the first edition of which was associated with great responsibility, since there were no works of this kind in the domestic psychological science, and therefore no small excitement, I feel great satisfaction.
However, we have to state that this actually means the absence of significant changes in the development of conflict issues, both in theoretical and practical aspects. Over the past years in domestic psychology did not appear fundamental research which would make it possible to speak at least of the prospect of a "breakthrough" in the field of conflict studies. Beginning in the 1980s, for 20 years, our leading psychological journals featured an average of one article per year related to this issue. If we focus on the same publications, then in fact nothing has changed even now: in the period from 2001 to 2006, five articles were published. And although, of course, the number of specialists who develop the problem of conflicts has increased, primarily in practical terms, we have to admit that the initial enthusiasm associated with the study of conflicts and work with them, perhaps, has somewhat decreased.
N. V. Grishina
Psychology of conflict
Foreword
Today, no one needs to prove that the problems associated with the study of conflicts have the right to exist. Not only professional psychologists and sociologists, but also politicians, leaders, teachers, social workers, in short, all those who in their practical activities are connected with the problems of human interaction, are of great interest to the problems of the emergence and effective resolution of conflicts, negotiations and the search for agreement.
Unfortunately, this ever-increasing interest is to a large extent connected with the growing tension in various spheres of social interaction, with the urgent need of various social structures and individuals for practical assistance in resolving conflicts.
We were unprepared for this difficult situation. Orientation towards the “conflict-free” development of society made the problem of conflicts unpromising. This led not only to its actual exclusion from the field of scientific research, but also to the fact that mechanisms for dealing with conflicts have not been formed in society. There is a lack of trained specialists, and incompetent efforts to overcome conflict only exacerbate the situation. Attempts to copy the experience of foreign conflictologists, especially in the field of social problems, which, of course, are not designed for universal application in any socio-cultural conditions, turn out to be little successful.
To some extent, this contradiction - awareness of the need for scientific understanding and practical work with conflicts and unpreparedness for it - also applies to psychologists. At the same time, the problem of conflicts is fundamental to psychological science. In many theoretical approaches, psychological conflicts, their nature and content become the basis of explanatory models of personality. Contradictions, conflicts, crises experienced by a person are the source of personality development, determine its constructive or destructive life scenario.
They play no lesser role in the social life of a person, both in his interpersonal relations and in intergroup interaction. Thus, the problem of conflict passes through different areas of psychological knowledge.
There is no need to talk about the practical interest that is associated with working with conflicts. All practical psychology, with its various modern forms of work, is in one way or another connected with the problems of a person's psychological difficulties, including those experienced in the form of conflicts.
Despite the obvious significance of the problem of conflicts for psychology, we do not have today any complete publications devoted to it. To some extent, this was a consequence of the already noted insufficient attention of science to the “negative” problems. However, perhaps it is the fundamental nature of the problem of conflict that most of all complicates attempts to elucidate it. In psychology, there are many works directly or indirectly devoted to the problem of conflict; in recent years, they appear in domestic science. However, the phenomena of the conflict turned out to be "divided" between different areas of psychology - first of all, general psychology, personality psychology, and social psychology. The need for a holistic description of the conflict required a different, problem-oriented approach.
The solution of this problem seems not only difficult, but also doomed to criticism of the inevitable gaps and omissions. Having dealt with this problem for more than twenty years, I am aware of this, perhaps better than others, just as I am aware of the responsibility that comes with such a publication. I was driven primarily by the belief in the expediency of a preliminary systematization of the ideas available in this area, which is necessary for their further refinement, development of ideas and practical work with conflicts. It was this task - the introduction into scientific use of systematized material on the psychology of conflict - that I set myself. This, to some extent, determined the genre of the book, in which I wanted to reflect the most significant theoretical ideas of many remarkable psychologists of the 20th century, their work experience and the results achieved, although due to the volume of material in most cases this had to be done very briefly.
This work is written primarily for psychologists, as well as anyone who is aware of the huge role that psychological factors play in conflicts of any kind.
A huge role in my work was played by the opportunity given to me by the Faculty of Psychology of St. Petersburg State University to read a series of lectures on the psychology of conflicts, where for the first time in the country this problem was introduced into the curricula for training psychologists. Over the years, time itself has changed, our ideas about conflicts have changed, but the huge interest of students and the friendly attitude of colleagues have remained unchanged. In fact, it is to them, as well as to many of those who shared with me their personal stories, their life dramas and victories, helping to better understand the complex and elusive world of human conflicts, I owe the fact that I decided to write this book.
Preface to the second edition
The preparation of this book for the new edition caused me mixed feelings. Carefully reading page after page, I had the opportunity to make sure that, with a few exceptions, all the material presented in the text has not lost its significance and even relevance, and today I am also ready to subscribe to each thesis of a theoretical or practical nature. Moreover, the past years have largely confirmed and further strengthened me in my ideas. As the author of the book, the first edition of which was associated with great responsibility, since there were no works of this kind in the domestic psychological science, and therefore no small excitement, I feel great satisfaction.
However, we have to state that this actually means the absence of significant changes in the development of conflict issues, both in theoretical and practical aspects. Over the past years, fundamental research has not appeared in domestic psychology that would allow us to speak at least about the prospect of a “breakthrough” in the field of conflict studies. Beginning in the 1980s, for 20 years, our leading psychological journals featured an average of one article per year related to this issue. If we focus on the same publications, then in fact nothing has changed even now: in the period from 2001 to 2006, five articles were published. And although, of course, the number of specialists who develop the problem of conflicts has increased, primarily in practical terms, we have to admit that the initial enthusiasm associated with the study of conflicts and work with them, perhaps, has somewhat decreased.
