What is confrontation in society and the significance of the phenomenon in psychology

The word “confrontation” is used quite often in modern society, however, not everyone knows the exact definition of this term. It is worth noting that the term “confrontation” has many shades of understanding. That is why it is worth turning to the traditional definition. Latin – confrontation, translated means “confrontation”. Based on this, we can say that confrontation is the opposition of certain life positions or personal opinions to an opponent. What types of confrontation are there? And what significance does it have for the development of society?

Confrontation is an integral part of the life process and development of society

All human history is built on confrontation. Confrontation takes place in all spheres of human activity, moral formation and spiritual development.

Confrontation: with whom and why?

Confrontation can be divided into several types:

1. Global confrontation. Confrontation between man and natural factors .
2. Contradictions at the state level .
3. Ethnic conflicts within separate communities united by state.
4. Ideological disagreements: between followers of different religions and philosophical schools; observed within followers of one teaching, determined by the degree of understanding.
5. Interclass and interclass conflicts arising due to different standards of living and infringement of privileges.
6. Intrafamily problems.
7. Personality conflicts.

It is enough to look at a few examples to understand the essence of such a phenomenon as confrontation, the meaning, leverage and effective vector of any confrontation.

Constructive and destructive confrontation

Any confrontation is a double-edged sword. Victory in confrontation does not at all mean achieving material and moral well-being. Especially in cases where the opposing side yields to force or psychological pressure.

Nature is an uncompromising enemy with iron and unchanging rules. She can be cruel and stingy, but she also gives a person everything that he has. In confrontation with nature, a person is obliged to show special flexibility and find constructive solutions. Attempts to radically change the immutable course of things will lead to disastrous consequences, primarily for humanity.

It is possible to carry out carefully planned reclamation of desert lands, taking into account all possible consequences, and get a “garden city”. And, it is possible not only not to achieve the desired, but also to significantly worsen the situation, not only in the region where the work is being carried out.

State formations, even in their infancy, always put their interests above all others. Even if we exclude the personal ambitions of the leaders (chiefs, princes, kings), the logic of the claims boiled down to one thing - it’s better for us. Most often these were territorial disputes that ended in wars. The destructive cruelty of such confrontations has a precise definition in the biblical story - “to the point of urinating against the wall,” which can only mean one thing - total destruction.

The modern institution of diplomacy does not exclude confrontation between countries, alliances and blocs, but is capable of transforming it into a civilized channel.

The above-mentioned confrontations are usually based on material interests.

Confrontation based on religion and nationality

Ethnic and religious confrontations are some of the most irreconcilable and cruel. History knows many attempts at genocide in direct and veiled forms. Main reasons:

• race;
• ethnic language;
• religion

As a rule, a conflict is provoked by a party that feels it has a numerical and power advantage. If the object of pressure refuses ultimatum conditions (racial restrictions on rights, renunciation of their native language, conversion to another religion), mass persecution and persecution begin. Violent measures, even if they bring results, do so in great blood and only temporarily.

The only civilized solution capable of resolving the brewing conflict between the parties is to find a consensus that gives equal rights and opportunities to both.

1. In the USA, not immediately, but it was possible to solve the problem of “whites and people of color”; this required a legislative initiative and the inculcation of new thinking.
2. Christianity managed to get rid of the bloody ghost of St. Bartholomew's Night. Many faiths coexist calmly and peacefully in small regions, without showing visible hostility towards each other.
3. Many countries have adopted one or two official languages, but the culture and language of small ethnic groups are supported by special government programs.

Management Tools: 4 Principles of Constructive Communication

• Facebook
• 1
• Evernote

  1

• 1

Have you ever heard reproaches against you for being unconstructive? Maybe they themselves reproached someone? How do you understand that this particular discussion is not constructive, but this one is constructive? If you start thinking about this topic, then there is something to spend a couple of hours on. We will now try to make this task easier. And as part of our series of articles on management tools (which went on vacation during the New Year holidays), we will analyze the design principles once proposed by Andy Grove, one of the founders of Intel. The principles are simple, but they explain quite a lot of work and not only work conflicts. And having dealt with them you:

• Understand the reasons for the behavior of your colleagues, management and customers in certain situations
• Add a few simple techniques to your arsenal that will help you negotiate easier at work
• You can absolutely explain to any colleague that he is being unconstructive (and in what way) if he is truly unconstructive

There will not be our favorite 2 by 2 matrices here, but we will look at a couple of schemes. So, let's go. The first principle is: 1. Timeliness . It would seem like a no brainer that problems need to be solved when they need to be solved. It’s not without reason when someone tells us: “Well. I saw a month ago that everything here would most likely fall apart, and really...” - I want to hammer a nail into the head of this observant person. But in real life everything is a little more complicated. Therefore, here we should talk about two, probably the most common cases of violation of this principle. Mistake #1. Attack into the past. For example, a manager comes running to his employee with a sacramental question: “WHY didn’t you pass the tests yesterday?!!” What should the employee do at this moment? Get into a time machine, rush into the past, run tests there and return with the tests already run? There is exactly one problem with the past - it cannot be changed. Therefore, people often perceive questions about the past as an attack on them personally. Moreover, to the question “Why didn’t you do this yesterday,” a person begins to conscientiously answer why he didn’t do this yesterday. Smart people always have many reasons: a neighboring department sent the requirements late, then another department could not complete the assembly for a long time, then the director distracted him with an important task, etc. In fact, the fact that the tests were not run is in itself neither good nor bad. This is a fact. For example, I didn’t run the tests yesterday either. Moreover, I haven’t run tests on them for five years now. And so far everyone is happy. But judging by the intensity of emotions, this fact creates some kind of problem IN THE PRESENT. For example, a manager cannot send an assembly to a customer. Or he cannot report to the top about the successful completion of work, etc. And this problem must be solved in the present. And when it is resolved, then you can just look into the FUTURE: how can we make sure that such situations do not happen again. And here an analysis of the past would be appropriate: why weren’t the tests run then? But at this point the person no longer perceives this attack on him personally. When the current problem is resolved, they no longer look for those to blame. We are now discussing the future.

That is, the correct sequence of discussion is:

• We solve the problem in the present. We don’t remember the past here.
• We think about how to prevent (or respond to) the problem in the future. And at this stage:
• Analyzing the past

An example from life. Our good friend, let's call her Tanya, told me about such an incident. Something broke off with the customer, and the customer scheduled a meeting for the next morning. Where Tanya (project manager) and Sergey (a technical specialist who knows all the technical details about the system, including why it broke, what happened, how it was fixed, and what conclusions were drawn for the future) were supposed to arrive. Next is a free retelling of Tanya’s story: - I come to the customer. It’s not clear what to say, because yesterday we didn’t have time to discuss it with Sergei. Well, okay, I think now Sergei will arrive anyway and everything will be under control. Just in case, I dial it - the phone is out of network coverage. 10 minutes before the meeting, Sergei is not there. I dial it again - the phone does not work. I'm starting to get nervous. 3 minutes before the meeting - the same thing. I'm really panicking. 1 minute - Sergey picks up the phone. I yell: “Why don’t you pick up the phone?!!!” - Yesterday I didn’t find a charger at home... - Should I give you a charger?!!! I yell and understand that I am wasting precious time when I could urgently find out from him when he will be there and what to say to the customer...

Mistake #2. One problem was solved, the second was forgotten. Let's start with an example.

An example from life. At our recent Moscow training, one manager shared his problem with a remote employee: - You see. He is responsible for setting up the working environment. And so we hired a new employee. He calls our remote worker asking him to set up something, and he spends 4 hours explaining to him why this cannot be done. After this, the new employee comes up to me in upset feelings, and I set everything up for him in 5 minutes. - So what is next? — And then the situation repeats itself with some frequency.

What's really happening? The manager perfectly solves the problem that has arisen - setting up the environment for a new employee. But after that he forgets to look into the future and think about how to make sure that such situations do not happen again.

Note that the remote operator himself has no problems in this situation. A newcomer came to him, he sent him with reason. And all is well. And this is a guarantee that the model will not change on his part until the manager raises this issue.

An example from life. At one of the trainings, at the stage of collecting expectations, we usually ask all participants what they expect from these two days and what issues they want to address. It’s the turn of a 30-year-old engineer with a very tired look: “I would like to learn how to refuse projects.” -?.. Tell us more... - You see, now I’m working on five projects at the same time. And it’s very difficult for me. I would like, when they bring me the sixth project, to somehow refuse it so cleverly, so as not to take it for myself, and so that the management would not be offended either. — What happened when you were given the fifth project? - [after a pause] I worked on four... It was very difficult for me... I told them that I couldn’t pull it... But they said that it was really necessary... - Well, how did you pull it? - Pulled... - Then the management knows how to give you the sixth project...

Quite often, management and customers come to us with urgent requests to accomplish a feat. And to the words “this is impossible” there is always the argument “guys, it’s really necessary.” After which, we usually take on this cart, don’t sleep at night and perform a small miracle (sometimes together with the team). We exhale and hope to continue working calmly. And it doesn't work. Because what does this situation look like from the management/customer side? You come to the guys and ask them to do something. At first they resist, they say it’s impossible, but after the argument “it’s really necessary,” they take it and do it, great fellows! Or, on the contrary, management begins to suspect that when you say “impossible,” it’s putting it mildly. You are disingenuous. This means that we need to continue loading. No real achievement should remain unsold. Any feat is a reason to discuss the feat with the customer (after completion, when the customer is in a pleasant mood, treats you well and is ready to listen to you): “How is everything okay? So, that's why I came. What happened is a miracle, because... How can we do it so that we can foresee all this and not let you down next time?” Often, solving one problem creates another that we overlook. And this is also a common violation of the principle of timeliness. 2. Targeting. When two employees in the smoking room complain to each other about their bosses: “Damn, we’re moving to a new office again. How can? For the third time in a year!.. They’ve already hesitated…” - this is not entirely constructive. Because if there is a problem with moving. it’s unlikely that they will solve it among themselves in the smoking room. Now, if someone, after this conversation, goes to the boss’s office to find out what and how with the relocations, a switch to constructive behavior has occurred. The principle of targeting says that a problem needs to be solved with someone with whom it can be solved. Violation of the principle of targeting very often includes public criticism of anyone. Any public criticism is perceived by most people as an attack on them personally. What should be done? That's right - to smear the source of criticism. Then all the spectators with popcorn will immediately see who is right and who is wrong. And then the heroes of the discussion uncover the captured poop launchers and the dr-r-r-cancer begins! One has only to start corresponding with a person personally, or even better, call him or come talk to him in person, as the degree of emotions drops to zero, and the problem is solved by itself. People listen to personal criticism much, much better. And personal criticism allows you to maintain good constructive relationships in the long run. 3. Facts and data. Sometimes people, in absolute good faith, do not see the problem that you came to discuss. Everyone has their own experience. For example, you are a strong supporter of agile development methodologies. Accordingly, your team has morning planning meetings (aka Scrum meetings or standup meetings). And now your new colleague is constantly late for them. Why? He may sincerely think that this is complete nonsense. Because before that he worked for 10 years in other companies and other projects. And they quite successfully completed projects without any ritual planning meetings. “It hurts team spirit” is a great argument, but what does it mean? What is team spirit? Is it when you walk into a room and there’s such a “strong team spirit” in the air?! “What does this mean?” - a strong question that allows you to understand whether there are facts in the argument or not. The good thing about facts is that you can’t argue with them. That is why they are convincing, that is why they allow a person to see and understand what the problem is. The arguments “these are the best Agile policies”, “these are the rules of our company”, “this is what Ken Schwaber bequeathed”, by the way, although they are facts, they are not much better. because they don’t show what exactly is wrong with a person’s behavior. And arguments like:

• “We cannot take into account your opinion, then we had to redo it more than once”
• “All interesting problems are sorted out before you arrive”
• “You only have the routine”
• “On routine tasks, I cannot assess your growth”

4. The intention is to solve the problem, not the person. As part of a constructive discussion, we do not look for those to blame. Our task is to solve the situation. If during the discussion there is a feeling that a person is trying to prove that he is not guilty, then the DISSOCIATION technique works very well: “Wait, I’m not attacking you, but the situation itself...”

An example from life. I have two children - boys 8 and 10 years old. The first phrase when you come to them with constructive criticism is very often: “It’s not my fault.” Over time, it became a habit to taxi: “So it’s not my fault, it’s not my fault. Just like now...” and further options are possible: “let’s go play football if our shoes are wet,” “let’s watch a movie if we have to clean up now,” etc.

From principles to practice...

That's all four principles. Simple in theory, but constantly violated in practice. As a small exercise, you can remember some difficult conversation from your recent past, when you argued with a person, and think about what constructive principles were violated there.

• Facebook
• 1
• Evernote

  1

• 1

Confrontation meaning in psychology

A person living in society daily faces conflict or near-conflict situations that arise at work, with neighbors and in the family. Each of them can become a reason for a tough confrontation:

• management acts from the position of those in power;
• neighbors methodically litter and create mischief in the common area;
• spouses have different priorities;
• the eternal conflict between “fathers and sons.”

The reaction on all points could be as follows:

• sending management to hell, and subsequent dismissal;
• quarreling with neighbors, and “enemies forever”;
• divorce, “live as you want!”;
• completion of the educational process, “do what you want!”

It would seem that the problem has been solved in the present, but the future is unpredictable.

Help from a psychotherapist

Since not very long ago (the end of the 70s of the last century), psychology has used the method of confrontation, which allows the client to look at his position taken in relation to close and distant people and the entire society from an unexpected point of view. The specialist asks the client questions that force the latter to get out of the cozy trench that has been in place for years . The psychologist keeps the interlocutor’s attention strictly on the topic of the question and does not allow him to deviate into unrelated topics. Insists on assessing the situation in a new light.

The specialist’s task is to bring the client to a full-fledged internal dialogue and inevitable confrontation between the false and true “Ego”. The first, the acquired product, is a complex mixture of life experience and the complete association of the subject with a specific physical body and the perceptions available to it. About the second, without going into transcendental details, we can say: it is all the good that is inherent in the human soul.

A good psychologist is able to help the client gain a new understanding of the current situation and a new perspective on solving problems. The method of personal confrontation is comparable to shock therapy. It is quite complex and requires highly qualified and responsible specialists. But this method is effective, and isn’t that what people stuck in life’s confrontations are looking for?

Legal conflict

Legal conflict

- a situation in which two or more parties oppose each other, argue over legal rights and obligations. A legal conflict may arise over recognition, restoration, violation of legal rights, or failure to fulfill legal obligations.

Legal conflict is a type of social conflict. This means that in the emergence, development and even resolution of legal conflicts one can find traces of the action of the general laws of the origin, ripening and resolution of social conflict. Although, due to the fact that a legal conflict arises only between people and is inflated by them, legal conflicts are based on the eternal aspirations of people for equally well-known values ​​- wealth, power, status. At the same time, a legal conflict, being an independent type of social conflict, cannot but have its own characteristics.

Further, a legal conflict is evident if there is a dispute over the scope or nature of legal rights, over claims to certain rights, over the redistribution of legal rights and obligations. An important characteristic of legal conflicts is the onset of legally significant consequences (the appearance or disappearance of legal rights, legal obligations of the parties, changes in their scope, etc.), as well as special forms and procedures for recording and resolving legal conflicts.

How to separate work and personal?

Confrontation on one issue does not mean that you and the person have become enemies for life:

1. It is necessary to be able to separate problems;
2. Personal and work moments should not go hand in hand;
3. You can calmly communicate with someone who has a different view of one situation;
4. You should not associate a specific person with a problem and transfer a negative perception of the situation to him.

In Western culture this can be seen better, especially when it comes to work issues. Two employees of the same company can express diametrically opposed opinions and incline management towards different directions of development. And on Friday night they will gather at the bar, walk, tell each other stories and laugh. As if nothing had happened.

In our country, if even a minor conflict occurs at work, employees become enemies for many months or even years, and this enmity can be seen in everything. This is especially noticeable in women's groups.

Frequent conflicts can indicate several things at once:

• There are some real problems in the team;
• A person tries to impose his own opinion on everyone;
• Others react too harshly to any manifestation of individuality.

Decide whether the problem is with you or with the rest of the world? And then think about whether you are ready to resist him. After receiving the answer to both questions, life will become easier.

Literature

• Sysenko V. A.
  Stability of marriage. Problems, factors, conditions. M.: 1981.
• Kratochvil S.
  Psychotherapy of family and sexual disharmonies. M.: Medicine, 1991.

Wikimedia Foundation.
2010. Synonyms
:

See what “Confrontation” is in other dictionaries:

Confrontation... Spelling dictionary-reference book

- (French confrontation) confrontation, opposition, clash of social systems, class interests, beliefs (for example, the policy of confrontation, military confrontation, confrontation of views) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Collision, confrontation, confrontation, opposition Dictionary of Russian synonyms. confrontation see confrontation Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language... Dictionary of synonyms

Confrontation, military confrontation, confrontation of views).

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary.
2000. Synonyms
:

See what “CONFRONTATION” is in other dictionaries:

Confrontation... Spelling dictionary-reference book

Collision, confrontation, confrontation, opposition Dictionary of Russian synonyms. confrontation see confrontation Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language... Dictionary of synonyms

- (French confrontation) confrontation, opposition, clash of social systems, class interests, beliefs (for example, the policy of confrontation, military confrontation, confrontation of views). Political science: Dictionary reference book. comp.... ...Political science. Dictionary.

- [English, French confrontation Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

confrontation

- and, well. confrontation f., German Konfrontation <lat. con + frons (frontis forehead, front. Opposition, clash. We understood that at the table of the London conference opposing points of view would inevitably collide, and we did not have... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (from Latin con against and frons (frontis) forehead, front) opposition, confrontation, collision. Raizberg B.A., Lozovsky L.Sh., Starodubtseva E.B.. Modern economic dictionary. 2nd ed., rev. M.: INFRA M. 479 p.. 1999 ... Economic Dictionary

CONFRONTATION, and, female. (book). Confrontation, confrontation. Political k. | adj. confrontational, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Contradiction, confrontation (of social systems, ideological and political principles, beliefs), clash Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 ... Dictionary of business terms

CONFRONTATION

Read also:  How to Get Rid of Computer Gaming Addiction

- (lat. con against and frons (frontis) forehead, front) opposition, confrontation, collision ... Legal encyclopedia

AND; and. [French confrontation] Book. Confrontation, opposition (of social systems, class interests, beliefs, etc.); collision. K. on a national basis. Political K.K. views. * * * confrontation (French confrontation), ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary

Books

• Chechen Republic. Confrontation, stability, peace, N. F. Bugai. The book is based on a large amount of factual material, with the use of current archives and documents prepared with the direct participation of the author, who previously worked in the Ministry of Affairs...
• On the political anthropology of the Soviet system. Foreign Policy Aspects, Francis Comte. The articles that compose the collection by F. Comte were written in different years. They analyze problems related to two key moments of Soviet history - the post-revolutionary period and time...

CONFRONTATION, -i, g. (book). Confrontation, confrontation. Political k. || adj. confrontational, -aya, -oe.

Your own point of view

You must always defend your position:

• Those around you will try to impose their opinion, it is beneficial for them;
• Only having your own point of view will help you somehow change the world around you;
• Your view is part of your individual personality, without it you will become a gray mass;
• Conflicts are natural, they happen and despite your desire, you should not be afraid of them.

Theoretically, each person can have his own opinion, which he will try to impose on everyone around him. This is only his vision of the world around him and no matter how actively they pressure you, you should not change your own position on certain things just because someone thinks differently.

You can listen to arguments, you can enter into an argument. But you shouldn’t take everything that is said on faith; not everyone uses only honest methods and does not manipulate the facts.

Giving up “without a fight” is even stupider - there are always some objections, the interlocutor could not voice a point of view that 100% coincides with the real state of affairs or your perception.

What is constructive confrontation?

Any conflict situation must be constructive and reasoned. To do this you should:

1. Keep what is happening under control, “not give free rein” to emotions;
2. Prepare in advance, if at all possible, by learning the basics of the problem;
3. Don't get personal;
4. Use only facts during a dispute;
5. Argue your position;
6. Convey to the interlocutor and force him to listen to what was said.

You shouldn’t break down into shouting, insults and banal lies. This will not help in resolving the problem situation and will not help you emerge victorious from the current conflict.

Any problem has its own prerequisites and first you need to understand them:

• What caused the problem;
• How could it be avoided?
• Who provoked the incident;
• Are there ways out of the current impasse?

But for this you need to think, spend time and “use your brain.” You may even have to admit your mistakes or guilt on certain points.

It’s always easier to shout and insult, so not everyone chooses a calm solution. Not the right temperament.

Disputes and conflict situations

Confrontation is a confrontation, a clash of two different worldviews and their confrontation:

1. The most accessible and understandable synonym is conflict
   ;
2. Involves defending rights, one’s own or others’;
3. Requires willpower and a willingness to “stand your ground”;
4. Ideally, it is kept within certain “civil” frameworks.

Entering into confrontation is not so difficult; all you have to do is disagree with an opinion or demand that seems wrong to you. Then your interlocutor will do everything for you; you just need to sit and listen to the arguments, watching your opponent’s reddened face.

From time to time it is worth notifying that you still have not changed your position and “throwing in” some of your arguments in order to throw some “firewood”.

If you have an impulsive and emotional person in front of you, logical arguments will most likely not work on him. So you need to either “let him cool down” or behave emotionally yourself. If you are not sure that you can out-shout your opponent or simply don’t want to, it’s better not to start.

If you have already had a confrontation with someone, you may not know the meaning of the word, the main thing is to defend your position and not go “out of bounds.” In any case, if the opponent does not do this.