Arab Group Blasts Syria for Continued Killings: Direct power and social pressure in tension

Happy 2012! Here is a reference link to the story of the conflict addressed below: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/01/arab-group-blasts-syria-for-continued-killings-despite-presence-outside/?test=latestnews

It appears that President Assad of Syria is using coercive power to win his conflict with people who challenge his leadership. His goal is to stay in power and enjoy whatever satisfaction that power provides him. The goal of the opposition is to remove Assad from power. Assad’s use of military and gun power, rather than using powers that engage the mind is what has happened in Syria all the time under Assad’s rule. If Assad opened the relationship with the general citizens, the transition could be beneficial for the nation but he would almost certainly suffer loss of rule.

Assad uses what are obviously legitimate means of control according the national sovereignty. To be a nation, the leader only needs to occupy and control a land. That’s it. Unfortunately for the world, occupy and control has no inherent qualities of legitimacy but it is respected by a social force larger than any internal social force. The world’s nations, including the United Nations recognize this occupy and control definition. Still the world at large has challenged Assad with “sanctions” as a gesture of displeasure. There is little support I’ve seen for those who are being killed, oppressed, and enslaved. That might be more helpful in balancing power if even only food were provided.

Syria is a complex web where no one really knows who is on whose sides many times. The oppressed citizens have found helpers on their side that have their own agenda to remove Assad. That agenda is their own control of Syria. That is the Muslim Brotherhood among others. Read my blog about the perfect conflict and you will better understand that in “non perfect conflict” the goals are unclear and so are the sides that the people who want them are on. It is stratagem. Often would be leaders care only about “winning for themselves alone” and have no genuine interest in any other people in the nation. At other times, people who “help” are actually working for those who want to hurt.

One trick Assad used after first becoming elected was to run open meetings where every voice was welcome. Everyone thought this was wonderful. After a few months of this, those who believed in social change and freedom were identified, rounded up, and jailed or worse by the newly elected Assad. That is stratagem.

In conflict, the powers between the parties in conflict must become more balanced for improvement to occur.However, the power growth in the weaker party must be gained through effort and work. It cannot be simply “given”.  The conflict formula in short is: The benefit of a conflict is a function of power differential between the parties. Therefore, if the general public of Syria is going to jump up in power from “human targets” and without “human rights” to a level of “participating citizens” in a more free society, they must fight, struggle and grow intellectually (the level of power differential above the physical coercive level is mental) so they can state positively the kind of fair rules they want to guide their society. (See the about page of this blog).

Imagine a young person in a home filled with violence and abuse. They are beaten. The parents fight physically, mentally, emotionally until one is just totally subdued. The child swears that they will stop it all and get a new set of parents, or more usually, become a parent. Most of these situations are not quite successful unless there are those who will teach that child how to make a beautiful family and this will require lots of hands on work. In the same way, general populations, oppressed by people like Assad, need help to successfully transition regardless if it is done through violent or more non violent means. The story of Syria and all the “Arab Spring” uprisings follows this pattern. Who will really help?

In cases like these, often one despot overthrows another and it becomes just like trans generational dysfunctional families. The key to success is finding and cultivating the respectful voice, seeking and understanding fairness and a beautiful exchange of ideas, and having basic support for basic needs and security. Otherwise, the efforts to break free from such conflicts becomes difficult and the conflict itself becomes known as “intractable”.

The role of

Typical Conflict Education and how it is “all over the place”

To understand the confusion of conflict and how it can be addressed easily first watch this video from Pace University in Europe, class 2008.  Then read the rest of the blog. This video is typical of how conflict resolution is thought about in the much too fragmented field of conflict resolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5pU5DNjoXY

First, conflict resolution is not a desirable end in itself. Peace is often stagnation. Humanity has always and must continue to move forward in understanding through a managed process of conflict…may the most beneficial ideas emerge! Any new idea is in conflict with the existing ideas on some level. Paradigm shifts and learning leading to better understandings require conflict by definition. What is the definition of conflict? Two ideas that are incompatible with each other are in conflict. One idea might be better because it answers more questions more accurately. For example, the presence of  ”germs” were a better predictor of disease outcomes than “evil spirits”. However, if evil spirits mean stressful and demeaning thoughts, then “evil spirits” certainly have something to do with disease. Thus changing meanings can have significant impact upon understanding and both could be important. It is now common scientific knowledge that stressful thoughts can lead to breakdowns in the body’s ability to fight off germs. But let’s go now to a definition and formula for conflict. Semantics and dialogue can clarify some misunderstandings posing as conflict.

My definition of conflict, as well as others’ definition of conflict is: two or more people or groups with differing goals regarding any subject, activity, or thing. Conflict always leads to some behavior, even if it is just in the way one or more party “feels” privately. This is latent conflict. Active conflict is when the conflict leads to overt behavior of one or both parties to achieve their goal.

Conflict formula:

The benefit of the subject or object of the conflict is inversely related to: The applied power of the individual sides in favor of their own perspective or position / (divided by) the power difference given to any one or more of the sides by the society at large through norms, laws,  or decrees.

Power is of six types on 3 levels and is hierarchical. Here is how they break out:

High social power differential uses 2 powers nearly exclusively: Coercive and reward power. This is Pain and Pleasure. These are used exclusively in non free societies for the most part. No matter what the “other side” thinks, those who control the police, military and “means of production” have overt control.

Medium social power uses 3 powers: legitimate, information, and expertise. This level is the “open market” of competition and may be “fair” and “open” or not so fair and open. The main difference is that peoples minds are now engaged to decide what is legitimate and which information and expertise is favorable. There is less “social domination” or autocratic authority. Less is better for a self organizing society to resolve conflicts more openly and transparently. The market decides what to do. Results are not negative, but rather mixed or variable. Sometimes they are neutral or positive. Rarely are they negative.

Low social power uses 1 power: referent. In this situation individuals engage each other more “respectfully” as equals with the focus on problem solving and coming up with mutually beneficial solutions.Emotions are also engaged deeply. Individuals decide what to do. The only acceptable results to both parties are positive or win-win.

The highest differential of society power, high level, is coercive physical power such as the military and those who “autocratically” control resources. Physical force and manipulated rewards are two types of power. As the denominator in the formula will result is a lower value of “benefit” to the subject or object of the conflict.  It can even be “negative” result to the “whole pie” which means the value of the subject to human utility shrinks.

Medium social power gives each party the opportunity to strengthen its hand until they are even and can negotiate directly as needed for mergers and alliances.

Low power is the truly free relationship. Medium power is nominally free because sometimes, as with mercantilism societies, has a double standard. The more fair and open the better. High power differential is not free at all and can lead to hopelessness and helplessness.

Notice that there are negative outcomes, variable outcomes, and positive outcomes. It mostly depends on the type of relationships that the society embraces. Between parties there is a win/lose until both become relatively equal. Thus, zero sum games, positive sum games, variable sum games, and negative sum games all exist across a spectrum of socially  constructed power differentials. This has political and organizational implications.

Conflict moves us forward in the freer societies, and backwards in the less free. Resolving conflict often is an attempt to just deal with the presenting problems of the underlying society. Conflict is better managed than resolved even though resolution of one conflict simply makes way for the next conflict in the evolution of society. Resolution is only part of conflict management. To truly manage conflict, the idea is to manage to way conflict is supported because conflict, like gravity, keeps us in a healthy relationship to the rest of the world and universe.

Verizon caves to public pressure and dumps $2 fee

Read the story as reported at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57350348-266/verizon-caves-to-public-pressure-and-dumps-$2-fee/

Here is the conflict pattern set up:

The two sides are Verizon and customers. The power of Verizon is its legitimate right to charge whatever they want as owners while the power of the customer is ultimately to leave and encourage others to stay away. The socially constructed power is business law in the US that generally favors Verizon while the FTC’s interest or threat to investigate in the background generally gives support to the customer.

Given other options for services in telecom, the customers were saying, “this is not fair”. That voice swayed the day.

since this conflict happened in a very free society and is a relatively private choice the two sides “spoke” respectfully to each other, howbeit, loudly.

The winner was the customer for now. Verizon lost especially because they entered into battle with their customers at all. Those on the edge may change. Those deeply committed will be relieved in general.

Verizon demonstrated a unilateral approach to just impose this new cost on their customers apparently with little thought to how it would be accepted. They took a risk by playing a heavy hand. Now they have backed off for the moment but the desire on both sides to keep more cash at the end of the day (or month!) will continue to drive better products and services at lower and lower costs.

Which powers swayed Verizon to back down? Was is losing customers today or the threats of the FTC including reputation risk, costs of hearings, and possible fines? Was it both of these, customers and FTC? Were there other things as well that were not mentioned which determined Verizon’s actions?

It is also not the end of this ever ongoing battle of society to be cheaper, better, and faster.