1.1 History of the term
Conflict as a social phenomenon was first formulated in Adam Smith's Inquiries into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). It expressed the idea that the conflict is based on the division of society into classes and economic rivalry. This division is the driving force behind the development of society, performing useful functions.
The problem of social conflict was also substantiated in the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin. This fact served as a basis for Western scholars to rank the Marxist concept among the “conflict theories”. It should be noted that in Marxism the problem of conflict received a simplified interpretation. In essence, it boiled down to a clash between antagonistic classes.
The problem of conflict received its theoretical justification in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), considering social conflict from the positions of social Darwinism, considered it an inevitable phenomenon in the history of society and an incentive for social development. The same position was held by the German sociologist (the founder of understanding sociology and the theory of social action) Max Weber (1864-1920). His compatriot Georg Simmel (1858-1918) coined the term "sociology of conflict" for the first time. On the basis of his theory of “social conflicts”, the so-called “formal school” later arose, whose representatives attach importance to contradictions and conflicts as stimulants of progress.
There was also a resurgence of interest in the conflict in Europe in the 1960s. In 1965, the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf published Class Structure and Class Conflict, and two years later an essay called Beyond Utopia. His concept of a "conflict model of society" is built on an anti-utopian, real vision of the world - a world of power, conflict and dynamics.
“All social life is a conflict because it is changeable. There is no permanence in human societies, because there is nothing stable in them. Therefore, it is precisely in conflict that the creative core of all communities and the possibility of freedom, as well as the challenge to rational mastery and control over social problems, are located.
In our country, the study of conflicts was carried out in Soviet times, mainly in line with the Marxist theory of class struggle. The official ideology of vulgarized Marxism that dominated the Soviet Union asserted that under socialism only non-antagonistic contradictions can exist, and there are no conditions for the emergence of social conflicts. Therefore, the problem of conflicts was considered mainly in terms of criticism of the vices of capitalism. From the mid 1920s to the end of the 1940s. no work was done to study the conflict. Since the 1950s Gradually, publications began to appear more and more often in the press concerning certain particular types of conflicts - in works of art, in international relations, in the pedagogical process, in sports, in office and family relations. But the general theory of the conflict remained a forbidden area and was mentioned only in order to "expose the false fabrications" of bourgeois scientists and philosophers.
The collapse of Marxist ideology and the liberation of social thought from party control led to a rapid rise in conflict research in the 1990s. For 70 years (from 1924 to 1994) more than 2,200 works devoted to the study of conflicts have been published in Russian, most of them have been published in the last four years. This rise continues to this day.
There is an analysis and development of foreign experience, there are original theoretical and methodological developments of social, psychological, legal aspects of the conflict.
In the mid 1990s. A. Zdravomyslov's monograph "The Sociology of Conflict" is published, summarizing the results of foreign and domestic research and giving an analysis of conflicts in modern Russian society on this theoretical basis. The first domestic textbooks on conflictology are published. 1990s The practice of mediation has also entered our country.
A major role in this was played by the Russian-American program on conflictology, within the framework of which the training of conflictologists-mediators was organized. On this basis, in St. Petersburg in 1993, the first in Russia Center for Conflict Resolution was opened, and in 1997 the Club of Conflictologists was created, bringing together professional conflictologists-mediators (on the practical experience of Russian conflictologists-mediators).
1.2 Definition of conflict, its essence
The concept of "conflict" is characterized by an exceptional breadth of content and is used in a variety of meanings. The most general definition of a conflict (from Latin conflictus - clash) is a clash of conflicting or incompatible forces. A more complete definition is a contradiction that arises between people, teams in the process of their joint labor activity due to misunderstanding or opposition of interests, lack of agreement between two or more parties. Psychologists consider conflict as a natural condition for human interaction, which is based on contradictions or significant differences between the interests and values of subjects. Under the conflict, they understand the lack of agreement, divergence of opinions, clash of different views and desires, tendencies, needs, interests, motives and behavior styles that are opposite under the given circumstances 1 .
Sociologists are more inclined to characterize the conflict as the ultimate aggravation of contradictions, clash and confrontation caused by opposition, incompatibility of interests and positions of individuals, social groups, strata, classes, nations, states. Conflict is usually interpreted by lawyers as a confrontation between subjects (carriers) of contradictions, opposition of parties pursuing mismatched or mutually exclusive goals.
Management professionals most often define conflict as a universal way for complex systems to interact, to overcome contradictions and limitations in any area where contacts are made between individuals and their communities. At the same time, foreign scientists and management specialists use a positive-functional interpretation of the essence of the conflict as a struggle for values and certain claims to social status, power, material and spiritual benefits. The participants in this struggle seek to weaken, neutralize, or even destroy the opponent. In accordance with this understanding, some experts present conflict as a lack of agreement between two or more parties, which may be specific individuals or groups. At the same time, each side does everything so that its point of view or goal is accepted, and prevents the other side from doing the same.
In domestic textbooks on management, conflict is presented as a clash of opposing views, positions, interests, goals of two or more people. This understanding of the conflict can also be found in publications on personnel management. For example, in the manual on personnel work V.R. Vesnina "Practical Personnel Management" conflict is defined as "a collision of opposite tendencies in the psyche of an individual, in the relationship of people and their formal and informal associations, due to differences in views, positions and interests" 2 .
Summarizing all of the above about the concept of "conflict", we can give the following definition: conflict is a normal manifestation of social ties and relationships between people, a way of interacting when incompatible views, positions and interests collide, a confrontation between two or more parties that are interconnected, but pursuing their own goals 3.
Conflict is one of the most common forms of organizational interaction and other relationships between people. It is estimated that conflicts and worries of staff occupy about 15% of his working time. Leaders spend even more time resolving and managing conflicts—up to half their time in some organizations. Organizational conflict can take many forms. Whatever the nature of organizational conflict, managers must analyze it, understand it, and be able to manage it. Some firms even introduce the position of an employee relations manager (conflictologist) into the staff list. When the conflict in the organization is unmanageable, it can lead to confrontation (when structural units of the organization or members of the micro or macro team stop cooperating and communicating with each other). Ultimately, such a situation of disunity will lead to the degradation of the team and the organization as a whole.
Most associate conflict with aggression, arguments, hostility, war, and so on. As a result, there is an opinion that conflict should be avoided as far as possible or immediately resolved as soon as it arises. However, it should be borne in mind that conflict, along with problems, can benefit the organization. Because of this, managers often deliberately encourage conflict to revive an organization that is rotting. It is believed that if there are no conflicts in the organization, the labor collective, then something is wrong there. There are no conflict-free organizations in life.
It is important that the conflict is not destructive. If people avoid confrontation, then the organization is not healthy. Therefore, the manager's task is to design a constructive, solvable conflict, hence conflicts are a normal phenomenon. It is healthy for an organization to have conflict. And to benefit from conflict, you need an open, non-hostile, supportive environment. If these “ingredients” exist, then the organization becomes better from conflicts, since a variety of points of view provides additional information, helps to identify more alternatives or problems.
However, one should not discount the fact that individual conflicts are destructive. For organizations in crisis, it is the devastating consequences of conflict that are especially undesirable. The manager must take into account that people who are different in their professional training, life experience, individual character traits, temperament, etc. participate in joint activities. These differences inevitably leave their mark on assessments and opinions on issues that are significant for the individual and the organization, give rise to confrontation, which, as a rule, is accompanied by emotional excitement and often develops into conflict. In some cases, clashes of assessments and opinions go so far that the interests of the cause fade into the background, all the thoughts of the conflicting parties are directed to the struggle, which becomes an end in itself, which ultimately negatively affects the development of the organization.
1.3 Classification of conflicts
Depending on who is involved in the conflict, it is divided into four types.
1. Intrapersonal conflict. A typical form of such a conflict is a role conflict, when conflicting demands and goals are presented to one person for the performance of his work. Such requirements for a subordinate may come from the boss, and also arise as a result of a violation of the principle of unity of command.
The cause of intrapersonal conflict can also be the lack of consistency between production requirements and personal needs, values. Such a conflict may be the result of work overload or, conversely, its small volume. It is also associated with low job satisfaction, low confidence in the organization and self, and stress. Stress is characterized by excessive psychological and physiological stress of a person. Excessive stress can be extremely damaging to the individual, and therefore to the organization.
2. Interpersonal conflict. This is perhaps the most common type of conflict. Most often, this type of conflict is the struggle of managers for limited human or financial resources, for the time of using equipment or for the approval of a project. The purpose of this struggle is to motivate the higher authorities to make a decision that is beneficial for a particular subject. In addition, the causes of interpersonal conflicts may be the opposition of the leader to the team, his inability and unwillingness to get close to informal leaders; lack of clarity and specificity in the distribution of areas of activity, rights, duties, responsibilities between subordinates and the level of remuneration. This conflict can also grow out of a discrepancy between the views, goals, values of the clashing personalities.
3. Conflict between the individual and the group. It occurs when the expectations of a group of people do not coincide with the expectations of an individual who refuses to comply with the norms of behavior generally accepted and established by the group, losing the opportunity to be included in it and, accordingly, satisfy their social needs. A conflict between an individual and a group can also arise as a result of the fact that the position occupied by an individual does not coincide with the position of the group. A person who goes against the opinion of the group - no matter how close to his heart he may take the interests of his organization - becomes a source of conflict. It can also be a manager who is forced to provide the necessary performance and follow the goals of the organization. If the disciplinary actions taken by him are considered unreasonable or undesirable by his subordinates, the group may respond to his actions by changing their attitude towards him and possibly reducing productivity.
4. Intergroup conflict. An example of such a conflict is the conflict between formal and informal groups, when informal organizations, believing that the leader treats them unfairly, can rally against him more strongly and reduce labor productivity. Another example of intergroup conflict is the conflict between the administration and the trade union. The difference in goals can also give rise to conflict between functional groups within the organization, whose autonomous actions bring mutual harm. Examples include the conflict between a customer-focused sales department and a cost-effective manufacturing department. Another example is when one department tries to increase profits by selling products to external customers that could be sold to other departments of the organization at a lower price and satisfy their needs 6 .
The following types of organizational conflicts can be distinguished (usually, several of them are present at the same time):
Vertical - conflict between management levels (conflicts between lower and higher subjects). Problems related to goals (fuzzy or constantly changing), power, communication disorders, company culture, etc.
Horizontal - conflict between equal status parts of the organization. Usually associated with the presence of different goals.
Linear-functional - conflict between line managers and specialists
Role - conflicts associated with the performance by the individual of the role assigned to him.
Depending on the number of reasons, there are: single-factor conflicts based on one reason; multifactorial, arising due to two or more reasons; cumulative conflicts, when several causes are superimposed on one another, which leads to a sharp increase in the intensity of the conflict.
According to the spheres of manifestation, there are: canalized conflicts, which imply a limited sphere of rivalry and activity of participants; escalating conflicts characterized by an unlimited and expanding range of conflict interaction.
Within the framework of classifications based on temporal parameters, conflicts are divided into single, periodic and frequent, fleeting and long-term, protracted.
Depending on the forms of manifestation, there are open conflicts with clearly expressed aggressive actions, and hidden conflicts, characterized by the absence of such actions and indirect, camouflaged confrontation.
In classifications built on the basis of such a criterion as attitude to the goals of the organization, conflicts are divided as follows: conflicts with a predominantly positive orientation (occur when the goals of the participants in conflicts coincide or are close to the goals of the organization); conflicts with a positive-negative orientation (characterized by the incompatibility of the goals of one of the parties with the goals of the organization that the other side defends); conflicts with a negative focus (characterized by the incompatibility of the goals of both parties with the goals of the organization).
As noted earlier, depending on the consequences, conflicts can be divided into constructive (functional) and destructive (dysfunctional).
1.4 Business conflicts
At the heart of many conflicts lies information that is acceptable to one side and unacceptable to the other. These may be incomplete and inaccurate facts, rumors that misinform communication partners; suspicions of deliberate concealment of information or its disclosure; doubts about the reliability and value of sources of information; controversial issues of legislation, doctrine, rules of procedure, etc.
In addition, each of the participants in the conflict forms its own information model of the conflict situation. The features of these models are determined by the specifics of values, motives, and goals. They, in turn, depend on the worldview of a person, his education, professionalism, culture, and life experience.
In the process of communication, information transmitted by people to each other can be significantly distorted and lost. All this extremely complicates the problem of mutual understanding between people, especially in problem situations.
Structural factors - relatively stable circumstances that exist objectively, regardless of our desire, which are difficult or impossible to change. issues of property, social status, authority and accountability, various social norms and standards, traditions, security systems, rewards and punishments, geographical location (voluntary or forced isolation or openness, intensity of contacts), distribution of resources, goods, services, income. For example, a conflict between people due to low wages is caused by a lack of financial resources.
Value Factors- these are those social, group or personal systems of beliefs, beliefs and behavior (preferences, aspirations, prejudices, fears), ideological, cultural, religious, ethical, political, professional values and needs.
Relationship Factors associated with a sense of satisfaction from the interaction between the parties or its absence. At the same time, it is important to take into account the basis of the relationship (voluntary or forced), its essence (independent, dependent, interdependent), the balance of power, significance for oneself and others, mutual expectations, duration of the relationship, compatibility of the parties in relation to values, behavior, personal and professional goals and personal compatibility, the contribution of the parties to the relationship (hopes, money, time, emotions, energy, reputation), differences in educational level, life and professional experience.
Behavioral factors - inappropriateness, rudeness, selfishness, unpredictability and other characteristics of behavior rejected by one of the parties. They inevitably lead to conflicts if interests are infringed, self-esteem is undermined, there is a threat to security (physical, financial, emotional or social), if conditions are created that cause negative emotional states. In interpersonal relationships, the most typical behavioral factors that cause conflict situations are the desire for superiority, the manifestation of aggressiveness, the manifestation of selfishness.
An analysis of conflict situations arising through the fault of a leader or a specialist in a team shows that the vast majority of them are aggravated, develop into destructive forms due to miscalculations in business (professional) and interpersonal communication.
In the process of business communication between the leader and subordinates, there are different, including conflict situations. This is due to the fact that not all employees treat the manager in the same way, they fulfill assignments and corresponding tasks on time and with high quality. It is important for a leader, especially a beginner, to understand people, to know the methods, techniques and ways of influencing people. Moreover, the leader must be ready not only to confront non-executive, undisciplined and dishonorable people, if they are in the team, but in each specific conflict situation to quickly find the right way to overcome it.
Conflicts in the relationship of subordinate employees often disturb the head of the company, department. In this situation, a showdown is inevitable, long impartial conversations, accompanied by considerable emotional tension. What about time costs? And what about the disruption of the usual official rhythm of life of a number of employees? And it is still unknown whether this conflict will improve the moral situation in the team or, on the contrary, leave an unhealed wound of mutual dissatisfaction.
And the straitjacket must fit the size of the madness.
STANISLAV EZHY LEC
Questions for studying the topic:
1. Why does the question arise about the structure of the conflict?
2. What elements are included in the structure and what is the meaning of their level-th structure?
3. In addition to phenomenal characteristics, what is the difference between internal and external conflicts?
A feature of the current situation in approaches to the conflict and its descriptions is the crisis of single-subject attempts. It is becoming more and more obvious that no subject area, neither sociology, nor psychology, nor mathematics is able to "capture" and describe this phenomenon operationally enough in their own language.
This crisis, apparently, using the expression of L.S. Vygotsky, entered an open phase, as there were attempts to critically revise the general theory of conflict (see, for example, Khasan B.I., 1986; Druzhinin V.V. and Kol ., 1989 ; Lefevre V.A., 1991 ). An analysis of these attempts leads to the idea that the way out of the crisis of modern conflictology is associated with the need to develop and build an integral complete structure of the conflict, which includes three levels:
1. the basis of the collision, i.e. that contradiction, the actualization of which shows us the conflict as a phenomenon;
2. the reality of the collision, which is mutually determined actions striving for autonomy through dominance, adaptation, elimination, etc.;
3. meta-conflict phenomena: experiencing attitudes towards the subject of contradiction and / or conflict action, interpersonal relations of participants, self-relationships of the subject of conflict action, expectations, etc.
Only reconstructions at all three levels of description can present the full structure and dynamics of the conflict. This approach makes sense as a practice-oriented one, since
The purpose of the conflict is to resolve the contradiction that has become actualized in it through its resolution.
The problem, however, is that each of these levels has its own description languages, which are not yet integrated into a coherent model.
One more obstacle can be added to this circumstance - a rather stable negative attitude towards the conflict, the desire to distance oneself from it. No matter how surprising it may seem, but we still, as MJ Smith rightly notes, “... just like animals, we resort to ways of resolving conflicts that are universal for the living world: fight and flight. Like animals, we attack or flee from each other. Sometimes it doesn't happen by our will; sometimes we do it consciously, sometimes openly; but more often - in a disguised form. But we are, however, deprived of fangs, sharp claws and that muscle strength that would allow us to solve problems with the same efficiency from a position of physical strength.
Apparently, the task of conflictology, which is taking shape now, is to overcome the prevailing stereotypes, traditional fear and negativism in relation to the phenomenon of conflict, to build such descriptive languages, using which, it would be possible to develop and apply effective psychotechnics.
First of all, we must once again stipulate the fact that the conflict is not considered here in its ordinary sense, that is, as a uniquely destructive type of interaction or experience of internal disagreement.
To move away from the stereotypes of everyday ideas means, first of all, to abandon the substantial attitude to the conflict. This attitude creates the illusion that the conflict exists by itself, that you can fall into it almost like a hole. For ordinary consciousness, such an image is characteristic and very common. In this regard, the experience of "getting into a conflict" is also common.
Conflict does not exist as a thing independently of us. He cannot be bumped into like another person, he cannot be bumped into like a wall. You can’t get into it, like into the dark
room, etc. etc. Conflict is one of the necessary attributive aspects-characteristics of any interaction, both external - with another person, other people (interaction), and internal - with oneself (introaction). However, not every interaction can be qualified as a conflict. It all depends on whether there is any difficulty in its implementation.
If the interaction is implemented according to known schemes and with the automated involvement of the available resource, we do not fix its conflict aspect. He simply does not need attention, since the conflict is resolved as if by itself. Likewise, we do not capture the operational aspect of any action. It acts as a condition for this action. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
One of the authors had to observe a curious picture. Probably, in the experience of many people there are similar cases. ... In the store, the seller tries to explain to the foreign buyer the characteristics and the difference in the cost of the goods. Interesting are the changes that take place in the interaction, when it turns out that the buyer does not understand Russian well, and does not understand some turns, familiar to the seller, at all. At first, the seller acts by inertia for a while, then slows down the pace of speech, supplements the explanations with increased gestures and begins to speak louder and louder ...
Comment. It is clear that any meeting is internally contradictory, since its participants have different positional and individual interests. And in order to harmonize these interests, the meeting must be specially organized. The use of a certain resource during the meeting - general trading rules (for this case) and a single language of interaction - makes the meeting relaxed due to the automated use of available adequate resources by all participants. In the given example, one of the participants did not have a coordinated resource, which immediately led to tension and, accordingly, the discovery of the interaction as a conflict.
But was it not so in essence, and not in intensity characteristics?
If any new forms are needed to implement the interaction and/or the existing resource does not meet the requirements of this interaction, we fix it as a conflict. It is simply presented to us by its difficult side, requiring attention and special energy costs. In other words, the question of the emergence of the phenomenon of conflict is related to
is concerned not only with the specifics of mutual actions, but also with their intensity. There is such a boundary in the collision when the interaction becomes "visible" and requires special concentration on itself. This visible part of intense interaction is usually called conflict.
The illegitimacy of identifying conflict solely with characteristics that aggravate interaction was emphasized by L. Koser, who wrote back in 1956: “While the older generation was generally in agreement with Cooley that “conflict in any of its forms is the life of society and progress takes its origin in the struggle in which an individual, class or institution seeks to realize its own idea of the good", the modern generation of sociologists has replaced the analysis of conflict with the study of "tensions", "frictions" and psychological maladaptation.
This means that regardless of the qualitative characteristics, the structure of the conflict is made up of internal and / or external actions that form the unity of interaction.
From here conflict is such a characteristic of interaction in which actions that cannot coexist in an unchanged form mutually determine and mutually change each other, requiring a special organization for this.
As an example of internal clashing actions, the situation of choice with equivalent alternatives is most suitable. Such situations are wonderfully described in their essays on the topic of completing the school by our students.
“... The biggest difficulty for me at the present time is the choice between two possibilities:
1. To enter the institute of arts in accordance with an old dream and learn to sing. For this, I seem to have everything: both voice and external data, and I already tried to participate in competitions, not without success, but ...
2. To act in accordance with my grandmother's old dream to law school. There also seems to be a lot for this: relatively good knowledge in the field of social sciences, incl. rights.
If you act according to paragraph 1, this is a break with relatives, deprivation of material and moral support, and vague prospects. Acting fate is unpredictable, and being just a provincial singer in a local philharmonic society is not very attractive.
If you act according to paragraph 2, this is the peace of mind of loved ones, material well-being, support, but at the same time dependence and the payment of a dream for satiety.
The richest "bank" of examples of internal conflicts is psychoanalytic literature and related practice.
External and internal conflicts are not fundamentally different in their structure, but in an external conflict, the actions that form the unity of interaction literally belong to different persons or groups that implement the cumulative action. Here it is important to pay attention to the fact that external interactions always have an internal plan at the same time and, therefore, the structures of such conflicts are much more complicated and form at least two levels.
An interesting example of such a "double" structure is given by Anatoly Bershtein.
“... (I could painlessly cut off “bombs” from Austrian moccasins on the street of a boy meekly obeying my taste despotism; I could give a perfume set, providing a gift with idiotic hygienic comments; remove cheap home-made rings from my fingers, check the presence of handkerchiefs in my pockets, meticulously look at the shaved back of his head and publicly ridicule white socks.) I convinced myself that all this was in his name, that they were not offended by the “father”, that in the end, if it spoiled our relationship, he would still benefit. It seemed to me that resentment would pass, and bad taste would be put to shame.
So, the structural description of the conflict involves the definition of those actions, individual or cumulative, external or internal (conceivable), that form the conflict as a reality. In turn, any action is a complex act, which also has its own structural structure. In order for the transformative activity to be embodied in external behavior or in thought, a need-motivational basis is necessary. So in the structural description of the conflict, one should consider not only the actions that have collided and are changing in the collision, but also the contradictory grounds for these actions that lie behind them. For example, a father and a twelve-year-old daughter discuss the degree of her independence and, of course, proceed from significantly different pictures of adolescence. Without the reconstruction of these pictures, the structure of this particular conflict will certainly be flawed.
In modern textbooks on conflictology, the structure of the conflict is proposed to be understood “as a set of stable
of the conflict, ensuring its integrity, identity to itself, difference from other phenomena of social life, without which it cannot exist as a dynamically interconnected integral system and process”.
We believe that the structure, of course, determines the connection of the elements of the structure of the phenomenon into a whole. At the same time, we would not like to confuse, mix structural, procedural and morphological descriptions, since each of them sets a specific display of the conflict, which is required for a qualitative analysis. And only the subsequent "assembly" forms a complete systemic picture.
Sources:
1. Hasan B.I. On the development of applied psychology of conflict// Methodological problems of the foundations of science. - Kyiv: Nau-kova Dumka, 1986.
2. Druzhinin V.V., Kontorov D.S., Kontorov M.D. Introduction to the theory of conflict. - M.: Radio and communication, 1989-
4. Smith M. J. Self-confidence training. - St. Petersburg: Speech, 2000.
5. Kozer L. Functions of social conflict. - M.: Idea-press, 2000.
6. Berstein A. Stay after class. - M.: Akron JSC, 1997.
7. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov AI. - M.: "UNITI", 1999.
Thing: CONFLICTOLOGY
Performed:4th year student
Gazizullina Svetlana
Conflict resolution plan:
1. Situation
2. Description of the conflict
3. Brief description of the subjects of the conflict
4. A) Scheme of the conflict
B) Block diagram
5. Map of interests
6. Formulation of the cause of the conflict
7. Incident
8. Typology of this conflict
9. Strategy of behavior in the conflict of the parties (comrade Thomas)
10. Conflict resolution (removal of contradictions)
Consider a conflict situation on the example of a film "Inadequate people" directed by Roman Karimov.
1. Situation:
At first glance, quiet and well-mannered Vitalik( Ilya Lyubimov ), prone to spontaneous aggressive reactions, his schoolgirl neighbor Christina (Ingrid Olerinskaya ), pissing off her relatives with cynical wit, at the same time becoming "good" with the help of a psychologist ( Evgeny Tsyganov ) (friend of Vitaly) seemingly knowledgeable and balanced, but in fact a sado-masochist; Christina's mom, worrying about her daughter; boss ( Julia Takshina ) looking for the “ideal man” in Vitalik, creating a BDSM couple with the aforementioned psychologist - all of them, it would seem, are adequate people, the characters of such an eccentric and original comedy that tells about the banal love story of a schoolgirl Christina, who grew up without a father, for her neighbor Vitaly. A conflict arises between Christina and her mother.
2. Description of the conflict:
A conflict is brewing between Christina and her mother. There is a conflict of interest.
Mum:
Christina:
Vitaly:
3. Scheme of the conflict:
ChristinaMom
- -
+ Vitalik +
++
4.Structural diagram:
ChristinaMom
Psychologist (visiting a psychologist)
5. Map of interests:
Christina:
Teenage years
A girl who wants to feel that she is treated as a full member of the family, as an adult
The feeling of being independent and making decisions on my own
go against the grain
Mum:
She cannot fully realize that her daughter has already grown up, that she is not a child, and she must be treated as an adult
Mass media stuffed with information about drug addiction, alcoholization of modern youth
Exaggeration of the situation, exaggeration of the situation
5. Causes of conflict:
1. Conflict of Interest
- "Adolescence", Christina's puberty
Raising in a family with one parent (mother raised her daughter alone)
Christina's youthful maximalism
The bad influence of peers (Christina's friend, her friends, environment)
The problem of "fathers and sons" (observed throughout the film, the author focused on this)
Mother's distrust towards daughter Kristina
Not frankness, Christina's insincerity
6. The incident happened during a family dinner, where Cristina was caustic and defiant with her mother and with her relatives.
7. Type of conflict in question interpersonal, family, long-term.
8.Strategy of behavior in the conflict of the parties according to K. Thomas "Avoidance".
Christina and her mother try to avoid discussing conflict issues and postponing difficult decisions “until later”. They do not defend their own interests, but they do not take into account the interests of each other.
9. The advantages of this strategy:
The strategy can be useful either when the subject of the conflict is not very important (“If you can’t agree on which program to watch on TV, you can do something else,” writes American psychologist S. Covey)
10 cons of this strategy:
When it is not necessary to maintain a long-term relationship with the other side of the conflict ( if you think that the thing you need to buy in this store is too expensive, then you can go to another store).
But in a long-term relationship like that of Christina and her mom, it's important to openly discuss all contentious issues, rather than avoid existing difficulties that only lead to a build-up of dissatisfaction and tension.
"Leave me a little and don't touch me".
Unresolved conflict is dangerous because it affects subconscious and manifests itself in the growth of resistance in various areas, up to diseases.
11. Tactical actions:
-Christina refuses to enter into a dialogue, using the tactics of demonstrative withdrawal;
- Mom avoids the use of force;
- Mom does not trust the facts and does not collect them, ignores all the information from Christina;
- Christina's denial of the seriousness and severity of the conflict;
This is a situation of missed opportunities.
Personality traits of heroes:;
- impatience for criticism - accepting it as an attack on oneself personally (Christina);
- indecision in critical situations, acts according to the principle: "Maybe it will cost" (Christina and mother);
- inability to prevent chaos and pointlessness in a conversation. (Mom)
12. Conflict is resolved with the help of a third party, with the help of Vitalik, on whose advice the mother turns to a psychologist for help. The psychologist resolves the conflict through the use of psychological techniques. The psychologist helps the girl to cope with self-control, as a result, the girl learns to control her feelings and emotions, to cope with aggression. The conflict between mother and Christina is resolved. There is a very good expression in the film: That relatives are not chosen, but we choose friends ourselves, therefore conflicts between friends are less common than family conflicts.
Resolving conflict with a mediator. The mediator organizes a dialogue between the parties, that is, between Christina and her mother, relieves the emotional stress of the participants in the conflict.
A systematic approach to the study of conflict involves the creation of an appropriate conceptual scheme for its description.
The development of general and particular theories of conflict is expressed mainly in the expansion and deepening of the conceptual schemes for describing this phenomenon, in the transitions from one concept to another, fixing the deeper essence of the conflict, its previously unexplored sides.
In essence, the task is to form a system of basic categories of description. At the same time, the question of the grounds for singling out concepts as necessary and sufficient becomes fundamental.
It should be emphasized that in each of the branches of conflictology, their own conceptual schemes for describing the conflict have been developed and are developing. Their quality is determined by the time and intensity of the study of the conflict in a particular science. In addition, significant differences in concepts are caused by the specifics of the subject that representatives of various sciences choose in the common object of study - conflict. At the same time, it should be emphasized that attempts are repeatedly made to develop a relatively universal conceptual scheme for describing the conflict as a psychological phenomenon.
First attempt at creating conceptual scheme for describing the conflict as a socio-psychological phenomenon was undertaken by the social psychologist L.A. Petrovskaya. It included four categorical groups characterizing the socio-psychological level of conflict analysis.
In addition to these basic concepts, she pointed to the practical importance of developing the concept of conflict management, which, along with the prevention, prevention, mitigation and resolution of the conflict, involves its symptoms, diagnosis, prediction and control.
Subsequently, a scheme of seven groups of concepts was proposed. Then it was developed by A.Ya. Antsupov and began to include eleven conceptual and categorical groups for describing the conflict.
The essence of conflict
The most difficult and crucial stage is the development of a research program. Experience shows that the greatest effect in the study of conflicts and the development of specific recommendations for their prevention and resolution is the involvement of specialists - social psychologists.
To get to the source, you have to swim against the current.
Stanislav Jerzy Lec
In order to describe conflict as a process, it is necessary to find out what changes in people's activity when it becomes conflict-like, and how these changes proceed.
From the moment when an action encounters an obstacle and its implementation becomes impossible without overcoming this obstacle, i.e. from that moment, which is customarily called a collision, the action loses its autonomy, becomes dependent on another action that actually constitutes a hindrance. This circumstance sets new procedural characteristics of activity. It becomes more complex in structure, because simultaneously with the inertia of the directionality preceding the collision, the transformation associated with interference and the appearance of dependence begins to operate. Signs of changes are quite clearly identified in the self-report of one of the participants in the conflict competence training program.
I am leading a meeting, setting a new task for the team for the upcoming event. Now I am in a monologue and I try to present the text in detail and at the same time in such a way that it contains "challenges" to employees, because I understand that without personal assignment of the task, the work of the team in this event will be ineffective. So far, all the participants seem to be listening to me attentively and even making recordings in those places that I consider the most significant.
But now I see something happened between E. and N., sitting at the opposite end of the general conference table. They are starting to talk about something quietly, but animatedly, and these negotiations are clearly not related to the content of my message. The conversation between them becomes more and more tense. I understand that now this small incident will destroy the process that is still developing as it should.
I find myself pronouncing the text almost automatically and have almost no control over what I say. We'll have to leave the main message and deal with the settlement of their relationship and return to working together.
I feel annoyed and annoyed at the employees, and at the same time I feverishly think about how to manage to "include" what is happening in the context of my message in order to preserve the general logic of work for the rest.
So, there is a transition from the pre-conflict organization of action to the conflict one, i.e. caused by the interference. Such a reorganization presupposes another process - the objectification of new conditions and, in fact, obstacles to overcome it.
It is important for me to understand what happened on the opposite side of the conference table. This is important because otherwise it will hardly be possible to effectively restore that wonderful atmosphere of mutual attention, which is now broken.
This means that along with the suspension of pre-conflict activities, a new activity begins to unfold to design a new subject of transformation.
This circumstance is extremely important in the analysis of conflicts, since the separation of the pre-conflict direction of activity and the new one that has appeared implies the involvement of other resources, also new to the situation. And this, in turn, means that it is possible to fix one more procedural characteristic of the conflict - the attraction of new resources. This process can be an inventory of existing resources and a choice among them (this can also include stereotypical reactive behavior), or a transition to development, the creation of a truly new resource, one that was not previously experienced. In this case, we can, under certain conditions, speak of development.