Silence can be deadly, and so too can be sitting on the fence; two of the primary characteristics of folks who claim they are adopting a position of neutrality in conflicts between people and/or states. Achieving genuine objectivity and neutrality is an impossibility for a subjective being's brain, and that point seems lost on far too many human intellects today.
Neutrality more often than not does nothing more than convince its observers of the untrustworthiness and unreliability of its adherents. It can be even more insidious if the neutrality brings allegiances into doubt. A facade of neutrality employed as a tactic aimed at achieving avoidance of conflict is far more offensive than disagreement. It is also of poor utility in the process of achieving any actual resolution of disputes. It often serves only to perpetuate resentments that further alienate otherwise allied souls through a continuation of strained relations. The parties in conflict see within it the lack of logic it demonstrates and the void in resolutions for anyone it results in accomplishing. It's akin to putting duct tape on a frozen pipe and then walking away ignoring the fact that the glue doesn't adhere to a sub-zero surface. It's a waste of tape and there can be little surprise that as soon as the climate changes the tape falls off and the fluid starts gushing out again.
If the genuine aim is a resolution of disputes in any given family, group, community or society, parties within it who choose the path of avoidance and neutrality are pursuing a lose/lose course that benefits no individual member of the group in the long run, and much less the group as a whole. Conflicts, particularly protracted ones spanning many seasons, aren't going to get resolved through silence. It may serve to defuse tension within the inter-personal and/or inter-state dynamics in the present but does nothing to solve the causes of disharmony that everyone is impacted negatively by. Doing nothing is worth exactly that and will produce exactly that. In fact, it is more often than not likely that it will generate more negative consequences in the long term by masking over and ignoring the tumour that continues to grow within.
"The forming–storming–norming–performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965,[1] who identified that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for a team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results." Tuckman also points out that there is no guarantee any given group will emerge from the storming stage unless all members of the group are committed to the success of the group. Further, these stages are not milestones that once achieved never recur again. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Whenever there is a change in the composition of the group or in the priorities and objectives of the group these stages recur.
The worth of an anchor is tested in a storm. If the decision is to do nothing when the storm clouds kick up not only has the opportunity to put down an anchor been lost, but possibly also the ship along with it. That is the absurdity of neutrality in a nut shell; its like playing Russian Roulette with the group's success. Eventually a bullet fires and all are shocked and dismayed even though they all willingly acquiesced in the game and were aware of it's predictable outcome.
Neutrality is a misnomer in genuine conflict resolution. If that is indeed the aim doing nothing, just like Russian Roulette, is a fool's game. When neutrality is employed as anything more than a tension reducing tactic for brief interim periods in the conflict resolution process, it only ensures that the decay and the disintegration of the family, group, community or society will be the eventual outcome. All group development requires action from all of its members that serve the common purpose and success of the group. Doing anything less is not in the whole group's best interests. It is disingenuous to the success of the group and is a disservice to all of its members.
Conflict resolution allows for multiple approaches. Neutrality is one of them, but if any group thinks that tactic utilized alone will successfully resolve any conflict, from my experience in life I say, good luck with that. I'm not liking your odds and I won't be taking a chair for that game, but go ahead and keep pulling that trigger.
All groups have the potential to wax or wane at any given time, just as people, nations and cultures have since the beginning of humanity's history. It's entirely up to the will and actions of its members collectively that determines whether any given family, group, community or society achieves its potential for success or ensures its eventual disintegration.
No comments:
Post a Comment