A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

Party A desires an act will occur.
Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

On this blog, when we think about describing a conflict we use the word “DIG” to remind us to look into the situation for a desire, something that interferes with the desire, and the perception of guilt. If there is no guilt, there is no conflict, but there still remains a desire-interference problem. All conflicts contain a desire-interference problem, but when guilt is present we have a conflict.

In the above Blondie comic, it is pretty clear that Dagwood has a desire to take a nap and interfering with this is his promise to fix a doorknob. He seems to me to be struggling with whether or not to feel guilty if he doesn’t keep his promise.

Also in the comic, we see that Blondie appears to have a conflict with Dagwood. That is, she desires that the doorknob gets fixed and interfering with her desire is Dagwood’s nap. She seems to think he is guilty for not keeping his promise. Is she seeking to punish him for his guilt by not preparing his sandwich?

Today’s post focuses on the guilt condition of conflicts.

Guilt and Conflicts

On the right we see Mary and Ron. Ron desires Mary and she desires him. They currently are not experiencing a conflict.

Consider a different scenario, one that we all have faced from time to time. You are going to the dentist and you have a desire to experience no pain, but you perceive that the dentist will probably act in a manner that will interfere with this. Do you perceive that under this set of circumstances you are likely to be having a conflict with the dentist? Why?

The DIG Conflict Model, which uses our above definition of “conflict,” indicates that if you do not perceive that your dentist is guilty of doing something wrong, there is no conflict. If you don’t blame the dentist for the pain but accept it as a necessary part of the dental procedure, the interfering condition is experienced in a very different way than when we experience a conflict.

In the dentist situation that I just described, you would still have a desire-interference problem–how can you get through this situation as best that you can given that you desire not to experience pain, and yet you are likely to experience some pain? All conflicts have a desire-interference problem in it, but not all desire-interference problems are conflicts.

Consider, if you will, a slightly different set of circumstances then our original dentist scenario. This time you have had a dental procedure done almost painlessly by Dr. Beam. Now a new dentist, Dr. Vopee, is performing the same procedure and as he does so, you are experiencing a great deal of pain.

According to the DIG Conflict Model, how you perceive this situation is crucial in determining whether or not you are experiencing a conflict. If you are blaming Dr. Vopee for this pain, believing he is doing something wrong, you are very likely to be experiencing a conflict with him. On the other hand, if you perceive the pain as due to the fact that no two procedures are exactly alike and that the pain must be due to the difference in the procedure rather than any incompetence of Dr. Vopee, then you will NOT experience a conflict with him.

What people who are in any given situation perceive is far more important than any act by itself. It is very possible for Sally to perceive that she has a conflict with Bob when Bob has done nothing to interfere with her and has no intention of doing so in the future. This can happen, for example, if Sally’s neighbor lies to her about Bob’s actions.

Let’s explore a little more what it means when we say someone perceives that someone is guilty of doing something wrong.

Some Definitions of Guilt

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilt there are a few definitions for “guilt.”

1: the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct

2a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously
b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach

3: a feeling of culpability for offenses

My Definition of Guilty

As far as I’m concerned, you are free to define “guilt” or “guilty” in any way you choose. I have a very specific reason to use the word guilty in the sense that I choose–because I want to distinguish it from a very different experience and this can get muddled if I use the word too loosely. And so, I define “guilty” as follows:

If I perceive that someone has done something wrong and I become frustrated and angry at the person and I begin to seek to punish the person, I view that person as guilty.

For example, if I make a wrong turn to go to my friend’s house and when I discover my error if I have a strong emotion of frustration that springs up in me and I cry out, “What an idiot I am for making that mistake,” I am feeling guilty that I made the mistake and the reason I am calling myself an idiot is because it is my angry effort to punish myself.

I use that specific type of definition for “guilty” to distinguish it from how I define responsibility, which, as I view as a more mature response. When people act responsibly, they recognize that they did something wrong, experience a strong feeling of frustration, recognize at the same time that as long they are a human being they are going to make mistakes. They recognize that the strong feeling of frustration is a good thing because it leads them to focus on what they did wrong, and the emotionality helps spur a process that increases the possibility of fixing the error in the long term, decreasing the chance that they will make the same mistake. Part of this frustration reaction leads me to focus on what I can do next time to prevent the mistake. This is a wonderful process and I welcome the experience as I would a helpful friend. When I see guilt springing up in me, I have been getting more and more skillful at transforming it into my helpful friend.

Some people think guilt occurs whenever they see that someone has done something wrong. It is not wrong to define it this way except when we are using the DIG Conflict Model. But even when we are not using the DIG Conflict Model, it will still be beneficial to keep the idea of angrily desiring punishment when someone does something wrong separate from the idea of learning from the experience of making a mistake by experiencing frustration in a friendly, non-punishing manner.

If you see that your five-year old son has made a mistake when trying to add 7 plus 3 and he came up with 9, you may see that he has done something wrong, but you might experience this as somewhat different than when you feel someone is “guilty” of doing something wrong. You may think that your son almost got the right answer, and he’s trying, and this is part of the learning process. You might not feel angry at him, nor think he deserves to be punished for his efforts. Perhaps you might gently correct him and give him a warm smile.

Another Example

A husband comes home from work. He doesn’t look like he is responding in a friendly, gentle manner as he perceives that his wife is doing something wrong. His face looks angry about it. We can easily imagine that he is likely to make some punishing statements toward the two people who are kissing, and perhaps he might even go further by making some other punishing acts such as hitting or seeking to divorce his wife.

When thinking about conflicts, it is useful to distinguish between guilt that arouses anger and seeks to punish versus viewing someone doing something wrong without it being accompanied by anger.

Now, some of my students ask me, isn’t there a place in this world for righteous anger? Doesn’t the guy who finds his wife cheating on him have a perfect right to be angry and to seek to punish the cheats?

The DIG Conflict Model does not attempt to decide this philosophical issue for all people for all situations and for now through to the end of time. Instead, it seeks to free people who have learned when they were young a rigid pattern of responding to their perceptions that someone did something wrong. If you have learned to react to a perceived wrong in only one way–with frustration, anger and punishment, perhaps you may welcome the freedom to choose between guilt or a friendlier response.

Well, that’s my post for today. I hope you find that it offers some food for thought. Have a great week!

——————————-

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

We find a charming illustration of Dagwood utilizing a simple source of personal power below:

These three frames are just the beginning of a very early Blondie comic from 1932 that I found in The Smithsonian Collection of Newspaper Comics. At that time Blondie was depicted as coming from the lower classes who had recently married the wealthy Dagwood Bumstead. Many from his social circle believed Blondie married for money.

I have discussed sources of power quite a bit on this blog. The simple source of power that Dagwood used to get Blondie invited to the party is often referred to as offering a fair exchange. That is, Dagwood offered to give his mother something that she wanted, but only if she gave him what he wanted. She wanted Dagwood to come to her party, he made it clear that he would come, but only if Blondie would also come.

As we will soon see, there are six more panels to this Blondie-Dagwood comic strip. But before we get to them, let’s use the DIG Conflict Model to quickly conceptualize the events that are taking place in the first panels of the comic.

Using “DIG” to Briefly Describe a Conflict

Those who have been following this blog know that when we seek to briefly describe a conflict, the letters in the word DIG help to remind us to look for the three conditions of a conflict–DESIRE, INTERFERENCE and GUILT.

During the first frame, Dagwood clearly desires that Blondie join him at his mother’s party, but interfering with this, his mother indicates she is refusing to invite her. To be a conflict according to the DIG Conflict Model, in addition to a desire and an interfering condition, there has to also be a guilt condition as well.

In the second frame of the comic, Dagwood says to his mother, “Remember, after all she is your daughter-in law.” This suggests that Dagwood believes that his mother is guilty of being wrong for not inviting Blondie.

There are several ways in which this apparent conflict can be resolved. To illustrate some essential points, let’s first look at a couple of examples that do not actually occur in the comic. As we look at these examples, please keep in mind that when we describe resolutions using the DIG Conflict Model, we are instructed to consider not only the short term quality of the resolution, but the long term quality as well.

First Example

Here is a different outcome to Dagwood’s conflict with his mother than what we will be seeing in the actual Blondie comic strip. Take special note that this different outcome leads to a couple of post-resolution regrets.

Dagwood talks to his mother and she convinces him that because of the way she was brought up, and because of the way the other party guests might react, she is not wrong in wanting to keep Blondie from attending her party. Dagwood ends up agreeing with his mother and he does not bring Blondie to the party.

From Dagwood’s perspective his conflict with his mother was resolved at the point when he came to believe his mother is not guilty of doing anything wrong when she insists Blondie is not to come to the party. The plan that was used to resolve the conflict was his mother persuading Dagwood that she is right.

Now, let’s look at the quality of this resolution. By resolving the conflict in this way, Dagwood ends up not having his desire to have Blondie join him at the party fulfilled. Because Dagwood wants to do things more with Blondie than his parents, he begins to see them less and less. When he looks for job opportunities he feels little desire to remain close to his parents. One day he sees an opening with the Dithers Company several thousand miles from his parents. He applies and lands the job. When Dagwood and Blondie start having children, his mother begins to wish she had been more accepting of Blondie early in their relationship for Blondie has turned out to be a wonderful wife to her son.

Oh, how Dagwood’s mother regrets antagonizing Blondie during their early marriage. And that’s not all. Dagwood’s mother is often heard wandering around her luxurious home moaning. From time to time she can be heard crying out, “If only I could be closer to my grandchildren! How this would give so much meaning to my life!”

Dagwood also feels that raising children with their grandparents close by would have been a good thing, but he reluctantly feels that, with his mother so rejecting of Blondie, it wouldn’t be a good thing for the children to be exposed to such rejection of their mother on a regular basis. And Dagwood really cares about his mother who has become increasingly depressed over the years. Both he and his mother have some post-resolution regrets about how things have turned out.

Second Example

Here’s another scenario that according to the DIG Conflict Model would lead to this conflict being resolved, and this one also leads to some post- resolution regret.

Dagwood decides that there is nothing he can do about bringing Blondie to the party, and so he just doesn’t show up. The party comes and goes without his desire being fulfilled. But in time, he forgets about it. When he forgets about it, the conflict has been resolved. As for the quality of this resolution, Dagwood finds that, since the party, he frequently has waves of anger overtaking him. When he is with his mother, he treats her with little respect. This leads to angry outbursts between them. Their quality of life has thus been diminished.

Now let’s look at what actually happens in the 1932 comic.

Dagwood resolves the conflict as follows. In an effort to achieve his desire, he tells his mother that he refuses to come unless Blondie is invited, too. His mother offers a compromise; he can bring Blondie if he promises to keep her in the background. Dagwood doesn’t explicitly say that he agrees with the compromise, but by thanking his mother it appears he has tacitly agreed to her stated terms. The conflict Dagwood was having with his mother is resolved at the point Dagwood realizes his mother will no longer interfere with his desire to bring Blondie to the party.

How about the quality of this resolution? In the short run things look pretty good. Although Blondie expresses some concerns about going to the party because Dagwood’s mother is so against her, Dagwood expresses optimism when he says to Blondie, “Now, don’t worry Darling — in time she’ll learn to love you just as I do!” The comic strip goes on from here to provide us some additional information. When they arrive at the party…

In this scenario Dagwood has used some skill that leads to his specific desire being fulfilled—Blondie gets to go to his mother’s party. He has a related desire as well—that his mother will learn to love Blondie. As things worked out, this desire takes a beating.

**Contrasting the Blondie Example with the Pygmalion Example**

People who are powerful at achieving their desires tend not only to develop a plan to achieve some obvious desire of a conflict, but they pause to consider how each plan that they consider would impact the achieving of other desires that are associated with the obvious desire. Consider the story of George Bernard Shaw’s great play, Pygmalion, which was later turned into the magnificent musical, My Fair Lady.

There are some similarities to My Fair Lady and the Blondie story we just discussed. One of the chief characters is Liza Doolittle, who is about Blondie’s age. She too is from the lower classes.

Professor Higgins desires to bring her to a party where the upper classes will be in attendance—the royal ball. But the good professor realizes that getting Liza invited is a relatively small problem for him. What he wants additionally is that she is a success at the ball. He and his friend, Colonel Pickering, pause to consider what being a success is.

They decide that to be successful, Liza will have to improve her speech, be able to move gracefully around the ballroom, and to learn to dance as the other ladies do. Once they understand this, both gentlemen devise a rigorous plan involving training for six months before they take Liza to the ball. Although their plan doesn’t come off entirely without hitches, the viewers of the play clearly come away understanding that the thoroughness of the planning and the practicing of the skills were enormously helpful.

Now, what have we learned from these scenarios? First of all, when you try out a plan that has promise to fulfill your desire, you are attempting to increase your power. If your plan is well designed and skillfully carried out, it may succeed in fulfilling your specific desire. However, short term success of a plan to achieve a specific desire might be offset because it ends up interfering with the likelihood that other desires will be fulfilled. Dagwood fulfilled his short term desire of getting Blondie to the party, but by putting her in a situation where she had a large chance of embarrassing his mother, he may have hurt his long-term goal of getting his mother to like Blondie. If you want the quality of your resolution to be high, increasing your power requires that you become skillful at fulfilling desires in the short and long term.

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.