Section 3: Common Sources of Conflict in Groups

“The true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations that we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is implanted within each of us.” - audre lorde

We Replicate Harmful Structures and Norms

Leadership, decision-making and group culture are based on or influenced by professional middle class, heterosexual, middle aged, white male standards, even in progressive groups which work to create alternatives. This disempowers and alienates people who are closest to the problems we seek to address. As a result the strategies and tactics of the group can be, at best, irrelevant to the problem and, at worst, can actually feed into systems of oppression they seek to dismantle. Inside the group, abusive behaviors can be viewed as normal ways of doing business or too difficult to address directly.

We Claim There Are No Structures and Norms

In reaction to the above, people in movement space often associate “structure” with oppressive hierarchy and leave structure and cultural norms undefined. This type of structurelessness can often lead to disputes over who should lead, who owns ideas, who decides, how to decide, and who is in/who is out of the group. When there is no structure, people who are used to having power often assert an unnamed power in the group. Whatever happens, there are always relationships and dynamics of power; that’s our social condition. When power and responsibility are unnamed, it is difficult to hold people accountable for their actions. If no one is responsible for the work, or the work is not distributed well, it increases the likelihood that the work will suffer and that people will be harmed.

We Avoid Conflict and Ignore Harm

In many spaces, avoidance of conflict, in the name of harmony, is the norm. Real solidarity requires acknowledging important differences in group culture, understanding of the issue, power, access to resources, and/or capacity. To achieve solidarity, we will inevitably find ourselves wading into the murky waters of misinformation, miseducation, and false assumptions. We will all undoubtedly make mistakes, say things that are grounded in unconscious bias or ignorance, and at times, cause harm. However, to avoid conflict or our own emotional discomfort, we allow mistakes and misunderstandings to occur without pausing to learn from these incidents. When conflict happens, we encourage compromise over wrestling with the tension. Instead of calling attention to harmful behaviors, we give people the benefit of the doubt. Weak accountability mechanisms allow toxic dynamics to gain traction. We transform conflict when healthy steps are taken towards accountability.

We Protect Ourselves By Punishing Other People

Living in an unjust society leaves people feeling wounded, separated from one another, burnt out and angry. As a result, people can lash out in ways that are disproportionate or misdirected. Some conflicts emerge around people or groups using their power in abusive ways. We need to stop abuse in its tracks. For years, grassroots activists and cultural workers have started creative models of transformational justice to deal with this type of oppressive conduct. Or they have organized; organizing is our highly developed, principled tool for holding an unwilling person or group accountable. As in public space, we want to move away from buying into the inhumanity of punishment while using strategic and principled tools to hold perpetrators of abuse accountable for what they've done and what they will do.

Not all hurt and harm are the result of abuses of power. Hurt and harm are also present in conflict--that is, in disputes among people or groups who share an interest in moving toward right power relations. When faced with conflict, we often overreact, believing the other is abusing power, or that they are motivated by an intent to harm, when our unmet need or desire is in the way of our ability to resolve the dispute cooperatively. In this circumstance, transformation is not possible.

In movement spaces, we often talk about punishment as a tool of the system or of people in power. However, in truth, punishment is pervasive. We have all been hard wired to see punishment as the most effective way to manage other people’s behavior. Punishment makes us feel good. We see this play out in our day to day lives. We do not address the person we are in conflict with directly. We call people out in ways that blame, shame, and punish. We are unwilling to see nuance or allow space for people to learn and grow. We stagnate.

The imperative to punish those who wronged us is rarely questioned. Calling out some (or “cancelling”, as some refer to it), is potentially a helpful tactic when building power against a larger institution or a target with more power. However, the punitive use of “cancelling” people in coalition-building or team work can be damaging  and may lead to the dissolution of the group.

We Advocate for Our Position

As people who battle systems of oppression, we are predisposed to approaching situations in fight mode. Everyone comes with an agenda they want to push forward in the group. We behave as if the people around us are holding power over us and the things we care about.  There is limited time devoted to building trust and solidarity inside organizations and movement formations. Different strategies for making change or political frameworks are seen as undermining one another when they may be complementary. We view ordinary tensions and polarities—such as the tension between the needs of the coalition with the needs of individual organizations—as intractable problems. We become stuck in our positions, unable to make meaning and transform conflict.

We Are Driven by a Scarcity Mindset

Money and resource distribution are sources of conflict in many groups. Living under racialized capitalism, people are being betrayed by the system every day. People are taken advantage of, abandoned, and left to die. We have a deep sense of worry about whether and how we will survive. It is difficult to trust anyone who is responsible for distributing money and resources to do it ethically and responsibly because we do not see it happen very often.

Capitalism encourages us to center individual needs. Across the wealth spectrum, we all have limited skills for talking about and making decisions about money and resources in a way that promotes collective well-being. When resources are plentiful, we may be confronted with suspicion and accusations of mismanagement from our people. We are seen as proxies for the state and are treated accordingly. Inside our organizations, we may feel confused and defensive. We have all been trained to hoard money in times of plenty and we have few models for how to spend in ways that invest in people now while acknowledging the need to plan for the future. All of these factors make it difficult to transform conflicts around money.

Sources of Conflict Reflection Questions

1. How do you relate to structure and hierarchy? How does power play out in your group?
2. How do you view conflict? What are your norms for managing conflict?
3. What is your personal experience with punishment? Where do you see it manifest in the group, online, interactions, etc? What accountability mechanisms do you have in place?  When they don’t work, what happens?
4. Are you aware when you are advocating for a position? Do you know what your interests are (what matters to you) underneath that position? Do you know what others' interests are?
5. Do you talk about money in your group? How do you talk about money? What happens when you do?