An in-law once asked me, in response to my projected interest in conflict, if I thought it was enjoyable. This conversation was the result of several threads – my academic interest in conflict (and the excitement of new frontiers of interaction), my personal interest in facing conflict head-on rather than avoiding it, and my knowledge of conflicts in this family member’s relationships that may or may not have been addressed.
To clarify, I’ll first note that some scholars would argue that a clash must be expressed if we are to call it a conflict. I think it is probably useful to approach it this way. After all, in a relationship, you can’t really address something that is outside of the realm of communication. Would you agree that we cannot read minds, cannot interact telepathically, cannot sense the thoughts of another? Even if we imagine that we are accurately divining the thoughts of someone else, acting on that “knowledge” is fraught with difficulty. So, any useful understanding of a disagreement must be accessed through communication.
So, if we are referring to disagreements that are expressed – conflicts – then some of those are actively dealt with and some are not. In the example of my relative, her distaste of conflict, or rather conflicts that are not well defined, not properly addressed, and are “extended” was in direct contrast to my enthusiasm for the subject. I told her that I ‘enjoyed’ addressing conflict. Now I have come to realize that her incredulous reception of that posture is not that uncommon. How many of us “enjoy” being in conflict?
Conflict will come, disputes will arise, and no amount of positive emotional energy will guarantee that conflict will never darken a relationship with its shadow. Yet, if we express it and confront that conflict, not as a defect of the relationship, but as a natural and opportune moment of interaction, then perhaps we can “enjoy” the honesty and openness of sorting out that problem to our benefit.