From Childhood To Statism: Conflict Resolution
Anarchists are often accused of being utopian. Critics suggest that we are naive to believe human beings can peacefully coexist. “There will always be conflicts and you will always need an authority figure to resolve these conflicts,” they say.
I was always perplexed by these responses. They were part straw-man — suggesting that anarchists naively believed in a conflict free world — and part invalid deduction — asserting that if there was conflict then it was necessary for an authority figure to resolve it.
The first part wasn’t hard to understand. Straw-man arguments are a dime a dozen. But the second part seemed so illogical; how could anyone reach such a conclusion?
Why would so many people automatically associate the resolution of conflict with the necessity of authority?
Now I know at least part of the answer.
Everyday in school I see my students being taught two lessons that lead directly to the acceptance of statism:
Lesson 1: Conflict Is Bad
This is the first and less obvious lesson that is being reinforced constantly.
Conflict is a bad thing. It’s bad when it happens. It should be avoided at all costs. Conflict is the worst possible outcome of any interaction.
That’s what kids learn.
Teachers and assistants hover over children during every activity. And at the first sign of a disagreement they swoop down to “break it up.” The result of their interference is often that somebody gets in trouble.
These situations occur dozens of times every day. Two kids will argue over who gets to play with a toy or who gets to be first in line for their snack. They get into conflicts over taking each others’ crayons or books or whatever. They fight over who holds the jump rope they’re using to tie up their teacher and tickle him (I always get them back).
Almost every time something like this happens a teacher or assistant is waiting to step in and stop the disagreement — and sometimes to punish the student “responsible.”
This sends one message: conflict is bad.
Conflict Is Natural
Conflict isn’t bad. And it isn’t good either. I wouldn’t use any moral labels when defining conflict. Conflict is neutral.
Conflict is the natural result of interacting with other human beings. Every person has their own values, desires, and needs and everyone has different ways of satisfying those needs. In any relationship or community or society it is absolutely NORMAL that these different and competing interests result in conflict. It’s not a bad thing. How could it be?
What I would apply terms like “good” and “bad” to are the ways of handling conflict. For instance, violence is a pretty bad way of handling conflict (I’m looking at you, statists). Peaceful negotiation, on the other hand, is generally a pretty good way of handling conflict.
When a conflict is handled poorly the consequences can be devastating, as surely all of us have experienced. But a when a conflict is handled well, it can be a great thing and actually improve the relationship.
It is the bad ways of handling conflicts that causes teachers and assistants to interfere. They want to prevent the children from hitting or fighting or name calling. It’s well-intentioned. But by constantly interfering they don’t teach children real conflict resolution skills, they just teach them that conflict is a bad thing.
It also teaches them the second lesson, that when there is a conflict, the best thing to do is appeal to authority.
Lesson 2: Authority Resolves Conflicts
This is the second lesson. It’s more overt but it is also more dangerous.
The consequence of training kids that conflict is bad and that an authority will always be there to intervene imprints this programming onto them: when there is a conflict, an authority figure will resolve it.
On my first day of class — no exaggeration, my very first day — a student I had never spoken to before came up to me and said, “Arthur took my pen, will you give him a frowny face?”
I can’t remember the rest of the conversation, but it went something like this:
“No sorry, Eric, I don’t think I’m going to give him a frowny face.”
“He took my pencil!”
“He didn’t take my pencil, though, why should I give him a frowny face?”
Cue the blank stare I’ve seen hundreds of times by now. “But…but…you’re the teacher!”
“Want me to go talk to Arthur with you?”
“No, I want you to go beat him up and get my pencil back.”
The point of that dialogue is to show you just how much children are trained that authority is the ultimate conflict resolver. Whenever there is a disagreement, if you handle it on your own, an authority will intervene anyway and you’ll get in trouble. But if you appeal immediately to authority you might just get your way.
Authority is there to resolve your conflicts, whether or not you want it.
Conclusion
The connections to statism should be blatantly obvious.
Instead of teaching children infinitely valuable conflict resolution skills so that they can learn to handle disagreements peacefully and efficiently, they are taught to fear and avoid conflict. And in the case conflict does arise, they are trained to run immediately to the nearest authority figure and plead their case, otherwise there will be punishment.
This is what most children are exposed to for 12 years of school — and probably longer in their homes.
Is it any surprise that they become adults and can’t imagine a world where conflict is resolved without authority?
