masterwordsmith-unplugged

Dear reader, my apologies for this late post. I spent three hours writing my post called THE FAIRY TALE THAT WILL NOT END HAPPILY EVER AFTER and just finished writing it. Since I put in so much time and effort on that post, I decided to schedule it for 5.30 am tomorrow so that it can get more airing. Do check it out tomorrow morning. Thanks. In the mean time, here is one of my older posts on social conflict.

---------------------------
Citizens of many countries live together with the hope of achieving success and progress both for themselves and for their nation. Yet, so much conflict can arise if and when certain people move to advance their own interests instead working towards the collective good of citizens. When we look at the latest happenings, it is evident that conflict is no longer an ephemeral problem but one that has indelible effects both far and wide and affect many, if not all, across the board.

In simple terms, conflict can be treated broadly as the clash of power against power in the striving of all things to become manifest or simply as a distinct category of social behavior when two parties try to get something they both cannot have. The current dialectics of conflict in Malaysia remind us that conflict is correlative to power. The ones who have power have the ability to produce effects while conflict is the process of different powers meeting and balancing and thereafter untangling the powers involved.

I find it ironical that a certain party uses a balance as its symbol but does not seem to display the same ethos in its actions. At the rate things are moving, one begins to wonder if leaders genuinely desire to eradicate conflict and move towards harmony. The speech and actions of some seem to widen the drift rather than to bridge barriers. Currently, we have to witness the ups and downs of the political drama unfolding before our very eyes like silent observers seated on wooden horses on a merry-go-round.

The tussle between the balancing of powers and the actual balance of powers is evident. Sociologically speaking, we can regard the opposing powers as the ones that create a conflict-situation at the level of dispositions and powers. When trying to attain the actual balancing, the process of their clashing, may be partially indeterminate, like the unconscious cognitive balancing in a mental picture which partially determines our perception. However, aspects of this process may become obvious when people start to voice their dissent not in cacophony but in a crescendo of voices, the climax of which has not been reached; I doubt it will, at the rate at which voices are quelled.

The balancing process may involve latent and manifest conflict and the opposing powers may exist to flex their muscles in dominance to attain subordination - which is what we see happening before us daily!

A balance of powers is no longer a conflict. It is neither a conflict nor manifest conflict. It is merely a system of solve social conflict which is exclusively an aspect of social power that those in control can enjoy.

And why so you may ask? Simple. All social conflicts involve interests. A person's interest is a symbol of power that involves one's attitude and strength towards producing effects. A social power is a social interest oriented towards other people. Thus, social conflict is the opposition and balancing of such interests via antagonism, tests of power, competition, differences in opinion, incompatible ideology etc. Somehow, somewhere, there must be some mutually exclusive benefit for which two parties are fighting against each other ( we don't need much imagination here to think of examples!)

Ideally, when there is conflict, there should be genuine and concerted effort to attain balance but this seems too far in the horizon if we were to assess the prevailing mood and sentiments. Yet, dreamers like me can still hope for miracles to occur. How then can conflicts be resolved? Here are some possibilities:

* Seek for middle ground to resolve points of conflict and in doing so, help prevent the crystallization of these points of conflict into wide cleavages in the system.

* Rogue arm-twisting approach such as through threats or withdrawal of privileges and if one gives in docilely, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness which may encourage other such threats in the future which serve to strengthen the will to combat or endure the threat. Thus, coercion carries within its use the tendency to divide, to polarize society. It is the agent of class struggle.

* Election - Let the people choose their leaders and establish the legitimacy of leaders via the ballot box.

* Persuasion - Lobbying etc.

* Manipulation (by controlling potential situations or opportunities)

* Altruistic moves

* Abdication (King Edward VIII who abdicated because of Wally Simpson)

At the end of the day, it is up to us to deal with social conflict. Those with evil intentions will play it to the max while the rest of us would be at our wits' ends in trying to reduce such conflict. The choice is truly ours.

As always, do leave a comment if you wish to share your thoughts. Take care and God bless you.