Conflicting Visions and Frames

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

In Brief

Framing is basically a cognitive shortcut, the way we categorize information and look at it as good or bad, right or wrong, helpful or not helpful, pretty or ugly, etc. As we explained in the introduction to complexity, most people don't like complexity, so they look for ways to simplify complex narratives or explanations to simple ones. The easiest (and often most pleasing) simple narrative is that my view is right and their view is wrong. A similarly simple view is that any dispute is a win-lose situation; the more they win, the more I lose. So I'd better to work hard to make sure I win as much as possible, at their expense. Visions are frames we have for the future — what we think will happen and what we want to happen. If we don't know what we want to happen, it will be very hard to work toward that end. But if our vision is a future in which the "other" or the "enemy" simply disappears, it will be very hard to attain that end too. Rather we likely will be facing a very long, destructive, intractable conflict.

Framing is basically a cognitive shortcut, the way we categorize information and look at it as good or bad, right or wrong, helpful or not helpful, pretty or ugly, etc. Americans live in such different geographic, socio-economic, philosophical and moral "places" now, that any information we take in gets filtered by our biases, our worldviews. The controversy over Florida's banning of the draft AP course on African American Studies is a good case in point. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis claimed that the course had "no educational value," particularly objecting to its coverage of such progressive topics as black queer studies, intersectionality, reparations, and Black Lives Matter. He (and his many followers) charged that the progressive view on topics were presented as "truth," rather than being one of multiple strands of thought on these issues. Progressives, on the other hand, see DeSantis as a hate-monger who was only interested in furthering his own political ambitions by further stoking the "culture wars." Politics has no place in education, they charge, and DeSantis should not be meddling in the education process. Which view is "true?" As is almost always the case, there is likely some truth in both views. But almost all the news coverage shows the issues as completely black and white — one side is all right, the other is all wrong, even evil. Such frames do nothing to defuse conflict, or find the best way forward for all the constituencies involved.

As we explained in the introduction to complexity, most people don't like complexity, so they look for ways to simplify complex narratives or explanations to simple ones. The easiest (and often most pleasing) simple narrative is that my view is right and their view is wrong. A similarly simple view is that any dispute is a win-lose situation; the more they win, the more I lose. So I'd better to work hard to make sure I win as much as possible, at their expense. The extreme version of win-lose framing is what we have long called "into-the-sea" framing — named years ago after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who promised to drive Israel "into the sea." The assumption is that the "enemy" simply has to be gotten rid of, by decisively defeating them and then oppressing or disenfranchising them, so they cannot "bother you" again, or making them leave (as in deporting immigrants), or by forcing them to go along with whatever you want, thereby eliminating the competition. This kind of framing almost always leads to long-lasting intractable conflict.

Visions are, essentially, frames we have for the future — what we think is going to happen, along with what we wish to see happen. I have long argued that if you do not have a vision for the future, it is going to be very hard to figure out how to get there. But if one's vision for the future does not include the other side(s) living in it, that is, essentially into-the-sea framing, and it is going to lead to a long, drawn out struggle. On the other hand, if disputants work together to figure out future they all can live with, the chances for successful conflict transformation go way up.