The Non-conscious Mind
Overview
Euphemistically speaking, this module shifts our primary focus from the “body” to the “mind” and, specifically, to the non-conscious mind. It is important to remember that all the perspectives examined in this course are interconnected and overlapping. No perspective is completely separate from any other. This is why the various perspectives are better described as “layers” than as “levels.” Having said that, for pedagogical reasons, this course separately discusses the non-conscious mind, then the strategic mind, and afterward the relational dimensions of individuals (the module on language and symbols).
It can be useful to begin this particular module by surfacing students’ assumptions about what it means to be “rational” or “non-rational” when it comes to conflict. In the activity folder, you will find a discussion activity that addresses this question: “when it comes to conflict do you believe that people are essentially rational, or essentially non-rational?” Before directly engaging with the specific readings and materials, I recommend facilitating this activity.
The discussion is based on a forced-choice question. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. The underlying purpose of the question is to encourage students to be introspective – to reflect on what they, personally, (at least initially) assume or believe about people during conflict. The question is also intended to encourage them to consider how much we judge others based on what we, personally, believe about human nature in conflict, particularly in relation to what we believe people “should” do or how people “should” be in relation with conflict. Put differently, (to coin a reference from Displacement theory), we tend to project our own beliefs about conflict onto others and then hold them accountable based on our own subjective truth. For example:
- Assume I privilege reason (such as problem-solving). Assume further that when it comes to conflict behaviors and interaction, I assume people are essentially non-rational. I may orient my actions as a conflict professional toward getting the parties to become more “rational:” “Get a grip!” “Calm down!” “Put a lid on it!” “Let’s reason together” and so on. In other words, I might see my conflict practitioner role as getting the non-rational impulses in others out of the way so the person can begin problem-solving. I might also judge a person adversely who does not (or is not able to) go along with my attempts to get them to act “rationally”.
- Similarly, assume I privilege reason and also believe that when it comes to conflict, people are essentially rational. Now, if I observe a person acting out in a way that doesn’t make sense to me (i.e. doesn’t appear “rational”) I am perhaps even more likely to judge the person adversely.
- Finally, assume I am open to the possibility that people can have different underlying triggers for enacting conflict – some of which may be embedded in the non-conscious (“non-rational”) mind. Assume further that I believe it is possible for conflict interveners to relate to parties in different ways, including relating to them in the “non-rational” space – with genuine empathy. In this case, I am likely to be more comfortable relating to parties whose conflict behaviors and interactions don’t “make sense” to me. My capacity for empathy may give me the capacity to be more open and curious about their subjective experiences. I might be less judgmental or otherwise approach my interactions with parties in conflict very differently than in the first two examples.
The point here is not whether one set of assumptions (“rational” or “non-rational”) is or isn’t right. Instead, the point is that understanding our own underlying beliefs and assumptions about how people “should” behave matters. Our own assumptions have a very practical impact on how we work with others who are in conflict. We treat people differently depending on what we hold to be true. As you might see, the discussion that begins this module touches on “awareness of self” in both the cognitive (belief system) and the emotional (emotional intelligence) dimensions.
Having said that there is not a “right” answer about a discussion focusing on “rational” v “non-rational” conflict behavior, this module’s focus is intended to challenge students to examine the possibility that focusing on the non-conscious dimensions of people’s behaviors and interactions can matter in conflict work.
For our purposes, the sample theories students are studying in this module include system one thinking, social identity characteristics and the notion of “displacement” – how we might externalize, project, and then attach feelings (of anxiety, fear, anger) onto a “suitable target” as a means of self-protection. All three of these sample theories illustrate how a conflict professional might find insight into a conflict or conflict behavior that doesn’t, at least on the surface, “make sense.”
Readings and supplemental resources
Primary readings:
Perspectives on Conflict, chapter 5 – The Non-conscious Mind
Supplemental resources:
System One and System Two
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Social Identity theory
Brewer, M.(2001). Ingroup Identification and Intergroup Conflict: When Does Ingroup Love Become Outgroup Hate? In Ashmore, RD, Jussim, L. and Wilder, D Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction (pps. 17-41)
Displacement theory
Ascher, W. and Hirschfelder-Ascher, B (2005). The Displacement Hypothesis. In Revitalizing Political Psychology: The Legacy of Harold D. Laswell.