The Nature of Conflict

[Taylor]

This post was originally published as an article in a dedicated KarateForums.com Articles section, which is no longer online. After the section was closed, this article was most to the most appropriate forum in our community.

As martial artists, it is beneficial to learn to study not only our martial art, but the nature of conflict itself. In studying conflict, we study victory, defeat, and the means by which a defeat and victory occurs. The means by which victory and defeat occur are rarely separate from the way a conflict unfolds. When we study conflict, we will note that any actual confrontation has a process by which that conflict unfolds. Two nations don't go to war at a whim, but there are motivations, agendas and a process by which a nation decides if war is an appropriate decision. Calculations are made about benefits and costs, calculations about enemy forces and the chances of victory. Preparations for war take time, as well as justifying the war to the populace and plans must be implemented. Errors in these steps create complications in victory and can even lead to defeat.

The process by which an individual enters a physical conflict, are not so different. Some individuals are unaware of this process within themselves, but this doesn't mean the process doesn't occur. In fact, a lack of a conscious use of this process is often what may lead a person to a defeat. In studying martial arts, we also are learning how to guarantee victory or defeat in conflict.

The nation that trains their military but doesn't calculate the cost of a war to the nation is akin to a martial artist who enters a fight without considering the consequences of either victory or defeat, including legal. The nation that trains their military but doesn't calculate their enemy's strength is akin to the martial artist who doesn't size up his opponent. The nation that trains their military but doesn't consider the means and strategy by which they will achieve victory is akin to the martial artist to trains for a vague idea of a fight without studying the cause of a fight and the means by which a fight is entered.

Therefore, in order to study conflict and learn to think strategically about conflict, we must look into the process by which conflict unfolds as much as the techniques that we can use in order to more effectively attain victory.

We hear many interesting stories about martial artists and their fights. They are entertaining, but we rarely ask a very important question, "Why did that person attack you?" The martial artist who claims, "no reason," is clinging to ignorance. The martial artist may not be aware of the reason, but this does not mean that a reason does not exist, merely that the reason is unknown.

As martial artists, I do not believe it is appropriate to be satisfied to remain ignorant in this regard. Studying technique but never examining how conflict arises and unfolds is training for one-half of the means to victory. Technique is only one element in martial art training, strategy is a huge dimension to training. This is why we must be willing and able to examine the causes of conflict and the way conflict unfolds to truly contemplate strategy.

Some time ago, I got jumped by two homeless guys outside of my apartment. I lived in a bad area, and one of them was carrying a long metal bar he clearly intended to use to beat me to death. I stood next to one of the wooden pillars in the hallway next to my door and waited for them to come. This effectively reduced his ability to swing the bar sideways, because I could simply step next to the pillar. All he could do is thrust it at me, and since it didn't have a point, it was a good place to stand to negate his attack. This also reduced the other guy's ability to come after me, he had to run around the side of the building to get me, effectively giving me time to get the metal bar out of his hands before the other guy got to me. It worked, and with the application of some simple techniques, I got the bar and they ran away.

Now, reading this, you may thing, "Good tactical decision," and in that situation, yes, and thank God! But, I'd made a tactical error earlier that week. You see, if we ask the question I proposed earlier, "Why did they attack you?," my tactical error is as clear as day. I'd woken up one morning, hearing them through my window talk about how they stole money from the ashtray of my pickup. They broke the back window latch to do so, and I was more angry about that than at the change they stole. The tactical error I made was when I confronted them about it later, yelling at them for taking my money, since they saw me around all the time, and I usually gave them money. I figured they owed me more consideration than that.

A better tactical decision would have been to assess what I wanted and conceive a plan to achieve that aim. What I wanted was for them to stop stealing from my car, but since they were homeless and alcoholic, they had nothing to lose and wouldn't stop unless forced to do so. Confronting them was a huge tactical error, since it allowed them to arm themselves and prepare a strategy on their terms. I should have looked at the situation more soberly and developed a strategy to achieve my aim. Perhaps I could have set a trap for them that would end with them getting arrested, since this was the only thing that would stop them from stealing from me. Then I also wouldn't have been directly implicated by them as the cause for them being arrested. I also could have parked my car far away from the apartment building. Perhaps I could have thought of several things, but instead I completely unconsciously created the cause of a conflict without even realizing it, thus leaving to chance the conditions of the conflict and it's unfoldment. Thank God they weren't real martial artists, or they would have used the advantage I gave them to put me at a disadvantage, and thus more concretely assure their victory!

In contemplating strategy, then, we can see how critical it is to examine our interactions in a fundamental way. Many times, I have heard martial artists claim that certain conflicts were "unavoidable" and yet they tend to get into a lot of fights. When hanging out with them in public places for a while, it becomes apparent that these particular individuals were very rude to people they didn't know, almost without knowing it. Posture, tone of voice, attitude, interpretations of events in these people all created a persona that simply drew conflict like a magnet.

All of this must be mastered by the true martial artist if he is willing to fully devote himself to the capacity to have victory in a conflict. Personality can be a weapon, when properly wielded. Not only can a charming demeanor disarm most situations, but can disarm a person who persists in trying to fight, creating a powerful opportunity for initiative. Therefore, it is a strategic flaw to believe that our personality is "set in stone" or that we are "this" or "that," for who and what we are is actually quite malleable, and we will find that it changes constantly when in different environments and moods, anyway. Therefore, mastery of this creates an entirely new level of training.

In order to examine the depths of the nature of conflict and the means to more consistently attain victory, a martial artist must eventually learn to devote the entirety of his being to this effort. All of his self, not merely his hands and arms, must be a well-honed weapon for achieving victory. In this pursuit, one begins to find that the cause of conflict exists primarily in oneself. Certainly, many in this world pursue conflict, and those who pursue conflict may seek it out and it may seem "random" when it comes to us without notice, but perhaps we can examine the situation and discover if it was our own lack of self-mastery that led to our "surprise." Perhaps much conflict is avoidable, or at least capable of being seen ahead of time to some degree.

A person chooses to start a fight, even if the reasons, the where and the when are unknown to the person, this may yet be discernable to the martial artist. Eye contact at the wrong time, body language that conveys a certain message, all of these can communicate subtle cues that either draw a person seeking a conflict to one self, or deflect a person away. Conflict may not be as "random" as we tell ourselves.

A principle of randomness still exists in this world that may not be avoidable, yet I would submit that much of what we call "random" regarding the causes of conflict in our lives, when we really look into it, is actually the product of our own unconsciousness, and we could have taken measures that involved our own self-mastery to at least be aware of and prepare for a conflict in a more conscious way. If we are martial artists and claim to be "surprised" by an enemy, then I would submit that in most cases we have failed in our strategic preparations and, if we survive the ensuing conflict, should examine our strategic error in order to find the means to avoid that mistake in the future. Strategy is the examination of the causes and unfolding of conflict in order to determine and direct the unfolding in the most advantageous way. Controlling and identifying these causes, and being able to move and direct the unfolding of the conflict is primarily the work of self-mastery. Studying this, we can move our martial arts training to an entirely new level.

[Patrick]

Thank you for the submission.

[bushido_man96]

A very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.

[joesteph]

We hear many interesting stories about martial artists and their fights. They are entertaining, but we rarely ask a very important question, "Why did that person attack you?" The martial artist who claims, "no reason," is clinging to ignorance. The martial artist may not be aware of the reason, but this does not mean that a reason does not exist, merely that the reason is unknown. . . .

A person chooses to start a fight, even if the reasons, the where and the when are unknown to the person, this may yet be discernable to the martial artist. Eye contact at the wrong time, body language that conveys a certain message, all of these can communicate subtle cues that either draw a person seeking a conflict to one self, or deflect a person away. Conflict may not be as "random" as we tell ourselves.

I had read Taylor's article before, and when I came across it again, I thought I'd re-read it. These particular paragraphs, though separated in the text of the article, caused me to think of the non-martial artist.

There are those who do not study a martial art, who do not consider self-defense, because they believe that attacks (such as the two homeless men who attacked Taylor) happen to other people. They can think of no reason(s) why they would be in need of self-defense (even though, to other people, they are other people), assume that this means no reasons exist, and so they have no need to be prepared--such as to study a martial art. This kind of thinking may come from a false sense of security about the town in which they live (even though they lock their doors and put the alarm on each night), or even a belief that the martial artist is the kind of person who is the cause of altercations, who goes to places where there's bound to be trouble--in a sense, blaming the victim for the crime.

[joesteph]

There are those who do not study a martial art, who do not consider self-defense, because they believe that attacks . . . happen to other people. . . . This kind of thinking may come from a false sense of security about the town in which they live . . . or even a belief that the martial artist is the kind of person who is the cause of altercations . . .

I looked for this response that I'd made at an earlier time to Taylor's article, because it just came up tonight while having dinner with a friend.

I've had greater concern regarding non-contact sparring in my school, and so I've made an appointment with a different school, to observe a class and speak directly with the chief instructor.

One of my friends just could not understand how I could be concerned about sparring, about self-defense. He thought that my sons would be a concern, because bullying does go on in schools, but he went on about how safe the towns we live in are, how we've never been mugged, and that he's certain that I can take care of myself--just as he can--without the need for self-defense exercises, such as sparring.

We're both in our fifties, and I told him how I could tell even in a non-contact situation how vulnerable I am in fighting a teenager--or two. He was certain the situation would never arise, and that if he were ever accosted, he'd just end the conflict by punching his adversary in the mouth. He even added that the kind of persons who go to such schools are the ones who like, and start, fights anyway.

There was really no amicable way to cause him to understand that he could be attacked just going to his car in a mall parking lot, and that being in middle age didn't make us better fighters than teenagers, although I was able to make some headway that the individuals in martial arts schools are the ones who tend not to start altercations. His mind was closed, though.

Essentially, we agreed to disagree, something which enables people to get along.

[tallgeese]

Good way to go, sometimes you can't push thru the shield of denial that some people throw up as a defense mechanism. The only way to really prepare is to start accepting that it can happen to you, or in this case, you're friend.

[bushido_man96]

What is sad is the moment his eyes become open, his inability to accept what you have said may cause them to close just as fast.

[joesteph]

What is sad is the moment his eyes become open, his inability to accept what you have said may cause them to close just as fast.

Wow! Brian, you really tell it like it is.

[bushido_man96]

Why beat around the bush, eh? That is pretty much the meat and potatoes of it, really.