Researchers do not have a unanimous opinion regarding the concept of “incident” and its place and role in the structure and dynamics of social conflict. Many believe that the incident is the beginning of an open confrontation, which, in our opinion, is not entirely true. In order to understand the essence of the problem, we present several options for defining the concept of “incident”.
“An incident is an incident or incident, usually unpleasant, affecting the interests of one or both warring parties and used by them to unleash conflict actions.”
“An incident is a collision that serves as a “detonator” of a conflict, a reason for the transition of its subjects to open conflict actions.”
“An incident is the initial stage in the dynamics of an open conflict, characterized by direct confrontation between the parties.”
“The incident is the first open stage in the dynamics of the conflict, expressed in external opposition, a clash of the parties.”
“An incident is a collision of opposing parties, meaning the transfer of a conflict situation into a conflict interaction between the parties.”
The given definitions demonstrate differences in the understanding of this concept. In the first two definitions, an incident is interpreted as an “incident”, “incident”, “reason”, “detonator” of a conflict. In the next three - as “the initial stage in the dynamics of the conflict.”
Justifying his point of view, V.P. Ratnikov points out: “The incident of a conflict should be distinguished from its cause. Reason - this is the specific event that serves as an impetus, a subject for the beginning of conflict actions. Moreover, it may arise by chance, or it may be specially invented, but, in any case, the reason is not yet a conflict. In contrast, an incident is already a conflict, its beginning.”
You can understand the essence of the phenomenon under consideration by referring to the etymology of the word “incident”, meaning (from Lat. tShet (tSheMi) happening) case, incident (usually of an unpleasant nature), misunderstanding, collision. Thus, the incident, by virtue of its “accident,” cannot be the beginning of the open stage of the conflict, since the latter presupposes conscious and purposeful actions.
An incident can happen by accident, or it can be provoked by the subject(s) of the conflict. It may also result from the natural course of events. It happens that an incident is prepared and provoked by some “third force”, pursuing its own interests in a supposed “foreign” conflict. But even when the incident is provoked by someone (the opposing party(ies), a “third force”, etc.), the main purpose of the “provocation” is to create a reason for the occasion. For example, the murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand, and his wife by Bosnian terrorists in Sarajevo in August 1914 was a well-planned action. However, for the world community and for those in a state of confrontation between the Austro-German bloc and the Entente, this event was an accidental incident, which became the formal reason for the outbreak of the First World War, and although objective contradictions and tensions in relations between the Entente and the German military bloc had existed for many years , it was these contradictions that became the true cause of the war, and not the incident itself.
The occasion and the incident are different phenomena. An occasion, in our opinion, should be considered not as a specific event, but as a subjectively created situation, the basis for which can be real or fictitious events. As for the incident, we should agree with E.M. Babosov and A.V. Dmitriev that the incident is being used as a pretext to start a conflict. Therefore, an incident is not yet a conflict, but only an incident that can be used as a pretext to start a confrontation between the parties.
According to A. R. Aklaev, the incident inevitably causes a response. This statement, in our opinion, also requires certain clarifications. If the conflict situation is fully “ripe” and both parties in a state of confrontation are just waiting (looking) for a reason, then this will certainly lead to mutual confrontation. But options are possible when one or both parties are not ready for conflict or one of the parties does not want to engage in open battle due to various circumstances. In such cases, the incident will not lead to conflict. For example, the political regime of Saakashvili in Georgia during 2003-2008. repeatedly provoked various incidents on the border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But until August 8, 2008, a military conflict was avoided until the full-scale aggression of Georgian troops began.
The incident may also become a reason for the escalation of an existing conflict and its transition to a new, more acute form of confrontation. For example, the accidental death or deliberate killing of one of the leaders of the conflicting side may become a reason for the outbreak of open hostilities.
So, an incident is a case (incident), which, in the context of an established conflict situation, can become a formal reason for the start of a direct clash between the parties.
One of the main conditions for the successful resolution of any conflict is the separation (delimitation) of the incident and the real cause of the confrontation - the object (subject) of the conflict. There are conflicts in which such a distinction between incident (reason) and cause (object) is quite obvious. But there are conflicts that require the assistance of specialists to analyze. It must be taken into account that there are conflicts in which the incident as such (as a reason) is absent. This occurs in cases where one of the parties attacks “without declaring war” (for example, the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941). The peculiarity of such “incidentless” conflicts, in our opinion, is the following:
- 1) there is no conflict situation as such, and, as a rule, there is no tension in relations between the potential parties to the alleged conflict (or rather, only the future aggressor feels like a potential party);
- 2) the aggressor relies primarily on the factor of surprise, therefore, before the attack, he carefully hides his intentions;
- 3) the aggressor is usually confident of his victory and therefore views his opponent not as a “capable” subject (party) of the conflict, but as a “victim”, an object of attack;
- 4) unilateral aggression can be transformed into a real conflict (confrontation) only if the alleged “victim” is able to give the aggressor a worthy rebuff and begins to defend his interests, i.e. if the object of attack chosen by the aggressor “transforms” from a “victim” into subject (party) of the conflict.
In an “unrealistic” conflict (in which there is no real object), the incident can serve as a non-existent object. In such a conflict, the incident (reason) is passed off as an object (cause), and resolving such a conflict is very difficult.
Technology for resolving non-random conflicts
In addition to random conflicts, there are so-called non-random ones. They make up about 20% of the total number of conflicts, but in their destructive impact on the human psyche they are much more dangerous than others.
Where to start resolving the conflict? From establishing the reasons. The true reasons are often hidden, since they may not characterize the initiator of the conflict from the best side. In addition, more and more new participants are being drawn into the protracted conflict. This expands the list of conflicting interests, which objectively makes it difficult to find the main causes of disagreement. Experience in conflict resolution has shown that it is much easier to get out of a difficult situation if you know the conflict formulas.
First conflict formula
Conflict situation + Incident = Conflict
Conflict situation is a situation that has developed as a result of accumulated contradictions that contain the root cause of the conflict.
Incident- this is a case, an incident that is a reason for conflict.
Conflict– this is open confrontation as a consequence of mutually exclusive interests and positions.
It follows from the formula that the conflict situation and the incident are independent of each other, i.e. neither of them is a consequence or manifestation of the other. Resolving a conflict means:
1. eliminate the conflict situation;
2.end the incident.
It happens that a conflict situation cannot be resolved for objective reasons. The Conflict Formula shows that to avoid conflict, you should exercise utmost caution and not create an incident. Of course, the first one is more difficult to do. Therefore, unfortunately, in most cases the matter is limited only to the exhaustion of the incident.
The relationship between the two employees did not work out. Alone in conversation used offensive words towards another. The second one was offended and slammed door and wrote a complaint against the first one. The senior manager called offender and forced him to apologize. “The incident is over,” he said. the manager is satisfied, meaning that the conflict has been resolved. Is not it This?
Let's turn to the conflict formula. The conflict here is a complaint; conflict situation – not established relationships between employees; incident - words spoken. By forcing an apology, the manager truly ended the incident.
What about a conflict situation? It not only remained, but also got worse. The offender did not consider himself guilty, but had to apologize, which is why his antipathy towards the victim only increased. He, in turn, realizing the falsity of the apology, did not change his attitude towards the offender for the better.
Thus, by his formal actions, the manager did not resolve the conflict, but only aggravated the conflict situation (unsettled relationships) and thereby increased the likelihood of new conflicts between these employees.
Conflict between people can be compared to a weed: a conflict situation is the root, and an incident is the part that is on the surface. It is clear that by tearing off the stem but leaving the root intact, we will only enhance the work of the weed in absorbing from the soil the substances that are so necessary for cultivated plants. And it’s more difficult to find the root after that. It’s the same with conflict: by not eliminating the conflict situation, we create conditions for deepening the conflict.
Second conflict formula
Conflict situation + Conflict situation = Conflict
Conflict situations are independent and do not follow from one another. Each of them plays the role of an incident for the next one. Resolving a conflict using this formula means eliminating each of the conflict situations.
In vector form, the first and second conflict formulas can be represented as follows:
First conflict formula
K – conflict
And - incident
KS, KS1, KS2 – conflict situations
Types of conflicts
The given schemes for the occurrence of conflicts allow us to assess the degree of inevitability of each of them.
Classification of conflicts
according to the degree of their inevitability
Type A. Conflicts of this type are random. Firstly, because the first conflictogen is often accidental. Secondly, not every conflictogen leads to conflict. And thirdly, there may not be a conflict response.
Type B. If you do not strive to prevent a conflict situation, then the conflict will happen sooner or later. After all, with accumulated contradictions, an incident is enough for a conflict to arise. It can be any conflictogen.
Type B. When there are multiple conflict situations, conflict is inevitable. After all, each new conflict situation adds contradictions and thereby increases the likelihood of conflict.
Knowing the patterns of occurrence and types of conflicts, we obtain the basis for creating algorithms for their prevention and resolution. Since the correct formulation of the conflict situation plays a key role in this, we will name the rules that allow us to reliably establish the root cause of the conflict.
Rules for formulating a conflict situation
Rule 1. Remember: a conflict situation is something that needs to be eliminated.
Therefore, formulations like: a conflict situation in this person, in the socio-economic situation, in the lack of buses on the line, etc., are not suitable, since we have no right to eliminate the person, none of us will change the socio-economic situation and will not increase the number of buses on the line.
Rule 2. A conflict situation always arises before a conflict. The conflict arises simultaneously with the incident. Thus, a conflict situation precedes both the conflict and the incident. It is no coincidence that in the first conflict formula, the conflict situation comes first, then the incident, and only then the conflict.
Rule 3. The wording should tell you what to do. Let us turn to the conflict situation discussed earlier. Since its root cause is an unfulfilled relationship, in order to resolve the conflict, employees should behave with more restraint, try to accept their colleague for who he is, and communicate with each other as little as possible.
Rule 4. Ask yourself the question: “Why?” until you get to the root cause. If we recall the analogy with a weed, this means: do not tear off the stem, do not pull out only part of the root - the remaining part will still reproduce the weed.
Rule 5. State the conflict situation in your own words, avoiding, if possible, repeating the words you use to describe the conflict. The point is that when considering a conflict, a lot is usually said about its visible sides, i.e. about the conflict itself and the incident. We come to an understanding of the conflict situation after some conclusions and generalizations. This is how words appear in the formulation that were not there initially.
Rule 6. Use a minimum of words in your wording. When there are too many words, the thought is not specific, additional meanings appear. This aphorism is as appropriate as anywhere else: “Brevity is the sister of talent.”
Conflict personalities
Many conflicts arise due to the complexity of people's character. There are 6 types of conflicting personalities.
Demonstrative. They are characterized by the desire to always be in the center of attention and to enjoy success. Even in the absence of any grounds, they can go into conflict in order to at least be visible in this way.
Rigid. They are distinguished by ambition, high self-esteem, unwillingness and inability to take into account the opinions of others. Once and for all, the established opinion of a rigid personality inevitably comes into conflict with changing conditions and leads to conflict with others. These are the people who are convinced: if the facts do not suit us, so much the worse for the facts. Their behavior is characterized by unceremoniousness, turning into rudeness.
Uncontrollable. They are characterized by impulsiveness, thoughtlessness, unpredictability of behavior, and lack of self-control. Aggressive, defiant behavior.
Ultra-precise. Scrupulous, placing inflated demands on everyone (starting with themselves). Anyone who does not meet these requirements is subject to harsh criticism. They are characterized by increased anxiety, manifested, in particular, in suspicion. They are distinguished by excessive sensitivity to assessments from others, especially managers. All this often leads to unsettled personal life.
Rationalists. Calculating people who are ready for conflict at any moment when there is a real opportunity to achieve personal (careerist or mercantile) goals through conflict. For a long time they can play the role of an unquestioning subordinate, for example, until the chair begins to sway under the boss. This is where the rationalist will prove himself, being the first to betray the leader.
The transition of a conflict from a latent state to open confrontation occurs as a result of one or another incident(from lat. incidentens - an incident that happens). An incident is one that initiates open confrontation between the parties. The incident of a conflict must be distinguished from its cause.
Reason - this is the specific event that serves as an impetus, a subject for the beginning of conflict actions. Moreover, it may arise by chance, or it may be specially invented, but in any case, the reason is not yet a conflict. In contrast, an incident is an echo, already a conflict, its beginning. For example, the Sarajevo murder - the murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne Franz Ferdinand and his wife, carried out on June 28, 1914 (new style) in the city of Sarajevo, was used by Austria-Hungary as occasion to start the First World War. Already on July 15, 1914, Austria-Hungary, under direct pressure from Germany, declared war on Serbia. And the direct invasion of Poland by Germany on September 1, 1939 is no longer a reason, but incident, indicating the beginning of World War II.
The incident reveals the positions of the parties and makes explicit division into “friends” and “strangers”, friends and enemies, allies and opponents. After the incident, “who is who” becomes clear, because the masks have already been dropped. However, the real strengths of the opponents are not yet fully known and it is unclear how far one or another participant in the conflict can go in the confrontation. And this uncertainty of the true forces and resources (material, physical, financial, mental, information, etc.) of the enemy is a very important factor in restraining the development of the conflict at its initial stage. At the same time, this uncertainty contributes to the further development of the conflict. Because it is clear that if both sides had a clear understanding of the enemy’s potential and resources, then many conflicts would be stopped from the very beginning. The weaker side would not, in many cases, aggravate the useless confrontation, and the stronger side, without hesitation, would suppress the enemy with its power. In both cases, the incident would have been resolved fairly quickly.
Thus, an incident often creates an ambivalent situation in the attitudes and actions of opponents of the conflict. On the one hand, you want to quickly “get into a fight” and win, but on the other hand, it is difficult to enter the water “not knowing the ford.”
Therefore, important elements of the development of the conflict at this stage are: “reconnaissance”, collecting information about the true capabilities and intentions of opponents, searching for allies and attracting additional forces to one’s side. Since the confrontation in the incident is local in nature, the full potential of the parties to the conflict has not yet been demonstrated. Although all forces are already beginning to be brought into combat mode. However, even after the incident, it remains possible to resolve the conflict peacefully, through negotiations to reach compromise between the subjects of the conflict. And this opportunity should be used to the fullest.
If the contradictions of interests that were reflected in the pre-conflict stage cannot be resolved, sooner or later the pre-conflict situation turns into an open conflict. The presence of confrontation becomes obvious to everyone. The conflict of interests reaches such a degree that they can no longer be ignored or hidden. They interfere with the normal interaction of the parties and turn into open opponents opposing each other. Each side begins to openly defend its own interests.
At this stage of development of the conflict, the opposing parties begin to appeal to a third party, turn to legal authorities to protect or confirm their interests. Each of the subjects of the confrontation strives not to win over to its side as many allies as possible, material, financial, political, information, administrative and other resources. Not only generally accepted, but also “dirty” means and technologies of pressure on the opponent are used. Since then, it has been considered nothing more than an “enemy.”
Suffice it to recall the election campaign for early elections in... Supreme. The Rada of Ukraine in 2007 and the confrontation between various. The media poured a lot of dirt on candidates for deputies, depending on which bloc or party they belonged to and whose interests this or that media outlet expressed.
At the stage of open conflict, it also becomes obvious that neither side wants to make concessions or compromise, and, on the contrary, the attitude towards confrontation dominates, in confirmation of their own interests. At. To this end, objective contradictions in groups are often superimposed by interpersonal relationships and differences, which deepen the situation.
This is the general characteristic of this stage of development of the conflict. However, even within this open stage, one can distinguish its own internal stages, characterized by varying degrees of tension, which in conflictology are designated as: incident, escalation and end to the conflict.
. A). Incident
The transition of a conflict from a latent state to open confrontation occurs as a result of one or another incident (from the Latin incidens - incident, what happens) . Incident- this is the event that initiates open confrontation between the parties. An incident of conflict must be distinguished from its cause . Drive unit- this is a specific event that serves as a direct impetus for the start of the conflict. At the same time, it may arise by accident, or it may be specially created, but in any case, the reason is not yet the cause of the conflict. In contrast, an incident is already a conflict, its beginning.
For example, the murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Franz. Ferdinand and his wife, carried out on June 28, 1914 in the city. Sarajevo, was used. Austria-Hungary as a reason for the decision. P. First World War.
. Incident- a conflict episode, the beginning of a conflict, a situation of interaction in which there is a clash of interests or goals of the participants. It is from this episode that the conflict becomes a reality for opponents; at this moment, the awareness of one’s own involvement in the conflict begins.
. Informational incident- an event that helped at least one of the warring subjects to realize the difference (full or partial) of its interests and positions from the interests and positions of other participants in the interaction
. Activity incident- a reason for declaring confrontational actions related to differences in interests and positions; this is a combination of circumstances that is a reason for conflict
The incident can be provoked, but more often it is spontaneous, that is, this is the last straw that overflows the cup of patience, here a person learns the limits of his tolerance. It can also be hidden by it (passing at the level of emotional experiences and not manifested externally) or open (manifested externally as a series of certain actions).
The incident demonstrates to the participants the presence of a problem, the essence of which may not be clear to them, but the existence of which is recognized. A conflict that begins with an incident may end with one. In some cases, it means that the parties to the conflict separate so as not to meet again, and in other cases the conflict ends with an incident, since the opponents manage to solve all problems during the incident.
Important elements of the development of the conflict at this stage are: collecting information about the actual capabilities and intentions of opponents, searching for allies and attracting additional forces to one’s side. Since the anti-fighting incident is of a relatively local nature, the full potential of the parties to the conflict has not yet been demonstrated, although all forces are already beginning to be brought into the fighting camp.
However, even after the incident, it remains possible to resolve the conflict peacefully, through negotiations, and reach a compromise between the parties to the conflict. And this opportunity should be used by the ethical world.
If after the incident it was not possible to find a compromise and prevent further development of the conflict, then the first incident is followed by the second, third, etc. The conflict enters the next stage - it escalates (increases).
. B). Conflict escalation
. Conflict escalation- this is its key, intense stage, when all the contradictions between its participants intensify and all opportunities are used to win the confrontation. This is no longer a local battle, but a full-scale battle. There is a mobilization of all resources: material, political, financial, informational, physical, mental, etc.
At this stage, any negotiations or other peaceful ways to resolve the conflict become useless. Emotions often begin to overshadow reason, and logic gives way to feeling. The main task is to inflict as much harm as possible on the enemy at any cost. Therefore, at this stage, the original cause and main goal of the conflict may be lost, and new reasons and new goals come to the fore. During this stage of the conflict, a change in value orientations is also possible. The development of the conflict acquires a spontaneous, uncontrollable character.
Among the main points characterizing the stage of conflict escalation are the following:
Creating an image of the enemy;
Demonstration of force and threat of its use;
Use of violence;
The tendency to expand and deepen the conflict. Creating an image of the enemy is one of the most important moments in the development stage of the conflict. It begins to form at its early stage and finally begins to take shape during the period of escalation. The existence of certain enemies is an indispensable element necessary for maintaining the unity of the group members and for them to recognize this unity as one of their vital interests; it can even be considered a manifestation of political wisdom.
As is known, the internal unity of a group is strengthened if, at the ideological level, the image of an enemy is created and constantly maintained, with whom it is necessary to fight and against which one should unite. The image of the enemy is additional socio-psychological and ideological factors for the cohesion of a group, organization or society. In this case, their members realize that they are fighting not for their own interests, but for a common cause, for the country, the people. The enemy of reality can be either real or imaginary, that is, it can be fictitious or artificially formed to strengthen the unity of a group or society.
The demonstration of force and the threat of its use is the next important element and characteristic of conflict escalation. One of the parties or both, in order to intimidate the enemy, are constantly trying to show that the power and resources of one side exceed the power of the other side. Moreover, each side hopes that such a position will lead to the enemy’s capitulation. However, this usually results in the enemy mobilizing all its resources, which leads to further escalation of the conflict. Psychologically, a demonstration of force or the threat of use is associated with escalating emotional tension, hostility and hatred towards the enemy.
Often this technique is implemented through the announcement of various kinds of ultimatums to the other side. It is clear that only the side that is in some respect stronger than the other can resort to an ultimatum. Therefore, announcing an ultimatum is the lot of the strong, although it does not always involve physical or material strength. Declaring a hunger strike in protest against the actions of the authorities or the administration of an enterprise is also a scam. Atum. In this case, both the authorities and the administration often make concessions in the face of the threat of a person’s death and in the face of the threat of showing their own cruelty and inhumanity.
The natural reaction to a demonstration of force and the threat of its use is an attempt to defend itself. However, as you know, the best way to defend is to attack. If the enemy's power and resources are not much greater than or not at all greater than the strength of the one being threatened, then the threat of force most often provokes violence and further escalation of the conflict.
The use of violence is another essential characteristic of the escalation stage of a conflict. Violence is a harsher means of influence. This is the last argument in the conflict, its application indicates that the limit has arrived in the escalation of the conflict, the highest phase of its development.
This is not just about physical violence. This can be of its most varied types: economic, political, moral, psychological, etc. If the boss, in response to fair criticism, forces the vile person to free himself “of his own free will,” this is violent.
Violence can manifest itself not only in an open form - murder, tasks of physical or material damage, theft of property, etc., but also in a disguised form when certain conditions are created that limit the rights of people or obstacles to defending their legitimate interests. Not providing the opportunity to go on vacation at a convenient time, not being able to publish a critical article against a government official in a central newspaper - all these are examples of disguised violence.
Violence as the highest stage of conflict escalation can cover various spheres of human activity (economic, political, domestic, etc.) and various levels of organization of the social system (individual, group, society, society). One of the most common types of violence today is domestic violence. This is the most cynical and hidden form of violence. Domestic violence has many different manifestations and forms. It is not limited only to beatings, but can also be economic, sexual or psychological. Domestic violence is characterized by the fact that it is not only hidden, but also often continues for many years. Rokirokov.
The tendency to expand and deepen the conflict is another stage in the escalation of the conflict. Conflict does not exist within a constant framework and in one state. Having started in one place, it begins to cover new areas, territories, social levels and even countries. Having arisen as a purely business conflict between members of an organization, it can subsequently cover the socio-psychological and ideological sphere, moving from the interpersonal level to the intergroup level, etc.
A dispute between a seller at a bazaar and a buyer may begin due to the fact that they do not agree on the price. But then they can already accuse each other of all mortal sins and, moreover, those around them can intervene in it. Consequently, over time, this is no longer a dispute between the seller and the buyer, but a confrontation between two camps.
. C) 3 ends of the conflict
. Ending the conflict- This is the last stage of the open period of conflict. It means any completion of it and can be expressed in a radical change in values by the subjects of the confrontation, the emergence of real conditions for its termination or forces capable of doing this. Often the end of a conflict is characterized by the fact that both sides realized the futility of its continuation.
At this stage of development of the confrontation, different situations are possible that encourage both sides or one of them to end the conflict. Such situations include:
A clear weakening of one or both sides or their exhaustion of resources, which does not allow further confrontation;
The obvious futility of continuing the conflict and the awareness of this by its participants;
Identification of a significant advantage of one of the parties and its ability to impose
your will to your opponent;
The appearance of a third party in the conflict, its desire and ability to end the confrontation
Ways to end the conflict:
Elimination (destruction) of one or both parties to the conflict;
Elimination (destruction) of the object of the conflict;
Changing the positions of both or one of the parties to the conflict;
Participation in the conflict of a new force capable of ending it through coercion (forceful pressure);
Appeal of the subjects of the conflict to the arbitrator and its completion with the help of the arbitrator;
Negotiation as one of the effective ways to resolve conflict
Depending on the nature of their completion, conflicts are:
a) for the implementation of the goals of confrontation:
Victorious;
Compromise;
Vulnerable;
b) according to the forms of conflict resolution:
Peaceful;
Violent;
c) by conflict functions:
Constructive;
Destructive;
d) from the point of view of efficiency and completeness of the solution:
Fully completed;
Deferred for a definite or indefinite period
It should be noted that the concept of ending a conflict and resolving a conflict are not identical. Conflict resolution is one of the forms of ending the conflict, which is expressed in a positive, constructive solution to problems we are the main participants in the conflict or a third party. The forms of ending the conflict can be:
Attenuation (fading) of the conflict;
Resolving conflict;
The escalation of one conflict into another conflict
post-conflict period
The last stage in the dynamics of the conflict is the post-conflict period, when the main types of tension are eliminated, and relations between the parties are finally normalized and cooperation and trust begin to prevail.
However, it should be borne in mind that ending a conflict does not always lead to peace and harmony. It happens that the end of one (primary) conflict can give impetus to other, derivative conflicts, and in absolutely other areas of life. Thus, the end of a conflict in the economic sphere may give impetus to its emergence in the political sphere, and after the resolution of political problems, a period of ideological confrontation may begin, etc.
Thus, the post-conflict period includes two phases:
1 partial normalization of relations, which is characterized by the presence of negative emotions that do not make it possible to calmly react to the actions of the opposing party. This phase is characterized by experiences, comprehension of one’s position, correction of self-esteem, levels of aspirations, attitude towards the partner, aggravation of feelings towards him. With such a conclusion of the conflict, post-conflict syndrome may occur, which manifests itself in tense relationships between the former participants in the conflict, and if the contradictions between them aggravate, post-conflict syndrome may become the source of the next conflict, with another object of the conflict, at a new level and with a new composition of participants.
2. Complete normalization of relations occurs when the parties realize the importance of further constructive interaction. At this stage, it is time to sum up, evaluate the results and the values, relationships, and resources achieved or lost. But in any case, the conflict ends affects both the participants in the conflict and the social environment in which the conflict took place. The consequences of the conflict are true for everyone.
In conclusion, it should be said that all conflicts cannot be brought under a single universal scheme. There are conflicts such as clashes, when opponents are divided by irreconcilable contradictions and they count only on victory; there are conflicts such as debates, where an argument and certain maneuvers are possible, but in principle both sides can count on a compromise; There are conflicts like games, where the parties act within the limits of the same rules, so they never end.
Thus, the proposed scheme considers an ideal model for the development of a conflict situation, while reality gives us many examples of conflicts.