The Great Lie
September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain touched down at Heston Aerodrome to thunderous applause and excitement. Chamberlain had returned from a critical diplomatic experience in Munich; one where he had hoped he could secure for his people the promise of peace and harmony.
Tension between Germany and Czechoslovakia had reached a boiling point. Nazi aggression created discontent over the Sudetenland, a primarily German occupied region of the Czechoslovakian territory. At first, Hitler demanded that the Sudetenland be given autonomy from the Czech governance. During Chamberlain's first visit, he agreed to Hitler's terms. Hitler's response startled Chamblerain; the acquisition of the Sudetenland was no longer enough, rather the entire dissolution of the Czechoslovakian territory was Hitler's desire. Hitler had moved the goal post.
Back and forth, heads of major European nations negotiated until an agreement had finally been struck; Germany would receive the Sudetenland, and Europe would be spared the atrocities of war and conflict that Hitler had promised if he didn't get his way.
"My good friends," Chamberlain announced to the crowd at Heston Aerodome, "for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
Convinced that his ambitions would go unchecked, Hitler expressed to his inner circle: "Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities, No masters, no men of action... our enemies are small fry. I saw them in Munich."
Less than 12 months later, Germany invaded Poland and ignited the most deadly and destructive conflict in Earth's history.
Looking back on the experiences of Neville Chamberlain, I am certain he would have been beside himself with confusion, embarrassment, and dupery. I can imagine Chamberlain's internal dialogue, "But how? I did everything right! I went to him. I gave him the benefit of a doubt. I empathized. I listened. I reasoned with him. How could I have been so foolish?"
History does not smile upon Neville Chamberlain. His diplomatic efforts have forever branded him an appeaser; gutless and spineless. But we forget, he was not the only man involved in the diplomatic missions to Nazi Germany. It might surprise you to know President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man that history remembers quite differently, actually applauded Chamberlain's efforts through telegram. "Good man", FDR had messaged to Chamberlain. In reference to the Munich agreement, FDR would say "I am not the least bit upset over the final result."
These were good, educated, well-meaning men. They were sharpened leaders, experienced in worldly affairs and hardened by the experiences of war, negotiation, and international treatises. The avoidance of conflict was their desire, and a righteous desire to be sure. Are we so sure we would we have done anything so very different if placed in their shoes? The answer to that question should make us uncomfortable.
This is something I have given a lot of thought to lately. Harmony, order, and peace are virtues upon which I place high values. I like to create and live in environments where order and unanimity are the norm, not the exception. To me, entropy is an enemy. To see good things collapse, degenerate, or decay is something I do not easily abide. So to that end I worked; I worked to establish environments that best reflected those values, and I worked to avoid disrupting those environments. I worked to avoid conflict.
Conflict is uncomfortable, and I believed that discomfort could not coexist with harmony, order, and peace. As such, conflict was something to be avoided. I figured, much like Mr. Chamberlain must have figured, "If I could:
- Put forth more personal effort,
- Meet someone on their side of the middle-ground,
- Keep silent my frustration and displeasure,
- Defer my needs and wants,
- Establish more trust and good-will,
- Go the extra mile enough times,
- Ignore misconduct or misbehavior long enough,
... Then the conflict would cease. Cooler heads would prevail. They would certainly remember eventually all the good I had done for them. Reason would win. Patience would payoff. Effort would not go wasted."
So I settled into a rhythm of people pleasing; deferring conflict with the belief that conflict would subside, that genuine people would recognize genuine effort and genuine sacrifice, and then reciprocate it. Of course, genuine people do reciprocate... but not all people are genuine.
There comes a time when one must realize, and I mean truly realize, some people cannot be bargained with. Some people cannot use intellectual reason. Some people cannot, and will not, understand the concepts of fair, mutual, and reciprocal. For some folks, this is an impossibility.
At one time I believed that reason and goodwill existed in all persons, and that locating it or uncovering it was a matter of hard work and over-exertion on my part to establish trust, and a willingness to work with people in good-faith. If they didn't respond in kind, I put that on myself that I needed to try harder, to be better, to show more understanding/concern/good-will.
Now, before you think I am engaged in a writing exercise of self gratification and promotion, you should know that I write this more from a perspective of disdain and disgust. People-pleasing made a liar out of me. I lied to myself and to others:
"That's ok."
"No harm done"
"Happy to help"
"It's not a big deal"
"Things will be better"
"They don't mean that"
"This will blow over"
These were lies I told myself and others in the hopes that conflict would be avoided and that the harmony and peace I placed such a high value on would not be disturbed or up-ended. These lies stem from a single great lie: that conflict is bad and must be avoided at all costs.
This lie made me blind to an essential truth: Conflict avoided is only conflict deferred, and in most cases it becomes conflict intensified.
Conflict vs. Contention
This is a tricky subject for me to grasp, and it is one I am still wrestling with on a daily basis. On the one hand, I understand now more than ever that boundaries must be set, rights must be respected, and you have got to stand up for yourself. But as I reflect on this, I ask myself where is the line? What is the distinction between backbone and belligerence? Being just and being a jerk? My understanding of this topic is still in it's infancy, but I think the best way of explaining my understanding of where the line exists is to make a distinction between conflict and contention.
Whereas conflict is a natural occurrence that we must all endure and accept as a essential part of our mortal experience, contention is a debauched alternative that is not only corrosive, but contradictory to the aim of our earthly experience.
Conflict pursues resolution. Contention builds resentment.
Conflict says "let me show you." Contention says "I'll show you."
Conflict asks "What is right?" Contention asks "Who is right?"
Conflict states "That won't work for me." Contention declares "I won't work with you."
Conflict creates opportunities. Contention closes doors.
Conflict favors fact finding. Contention favors falsehoods.
Conflict requires cooperation. Contention requires quarrelling.
Conflict is disagreement. Contention is disagreeableness.
Conflict can produce a clear direction. Contention deals only in misdirection.
Contention is evasive.
Contention is deceptive.
Contention is escalatory.
Contention is vengeful...
I think you get the picture.
Still, there will be those who view a stoic approach to conflict as contentious. Remember, so few people out there truly understand the distinction between conflict and contention, and even fewer folks truly understand your situation. If you hold to a boundary, you will face accusations of digging in your heels, or being inflexible or unreasonable. Remember that your aim is to resolve conflict, not to make friends or to please everybody. There is a big difference between being liked and being respected. No matter your efforts, not everyone will like you. But you can be in a position where most people respect you.
Winston Churchill, Chamberlain's lauded successor, helped drive this point home when he said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something, sometime in your life."
A Warning
Before we continue, there is something you must understand, lest you believe I am giving you a fool-proof philosophy on winning the day in every single conflict you encounter. At some point in your life, conflict will arise wherein you are entangled with disingenuous people. You may think, as I did, that facts will win the day; that truth and resolution of conflict will matter most when it comes down to it. Lying, cheating, stealing, and manipulating do not win the day. We are taught integrity wins the day... but not always.
Liars win. Cheats get the upper hand. Thieves get away with their crime. Manipulators can, and oft times do, turn the world upside down, leaving you disoriented and asking yourself difficult questions; questions you never thought you'd have to ask. The common literary conclusion of every superhero story where the good guy rides off into the sunset, smile on his face, and victory in his wake... this is not always the reality. Even when the stakes are high, and you believe there is no possible way that society, your community, or even God almighty would allow for injustice to be carried out, it sometimes is carried out in ways you didn't believe possible.
I am tempted to pray that you never experience that level of heartache, nor endure the deep loss of those things that matter most to you in this world. That is something I have no control over. However, I can offer you a remembrance that the goal is not to win; at least not in the sense that we have come to most widely understand winning. The goal is to resolve conflict through integrity, courage, and without thought as to how others might perceive you.
Embracing Conflict
That being said, let me share with you some thoughts on how one might best approach conflict. While my understanding and skills with conflict resolution are admittedly minimal, I do feel there are some good ways to start looking at how we can better embrace and grow our conflict skillset.
My first thoughts bring me back to one of my all-time favorite cinematic scenes from the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Towards the conclusion of the Battle of Helm's Deep, the ferocious and vengeful army of Isengard has driven the people of Rohan to shelter behind the walls of the last defensive keep. The situation seems lost. All hope of help has been extinguished. The enemy is bearing down on the gates, and any chance of victory has faded. The kingdom of Rohan is on it's deathbed.
Overwhelmed by the situation, King Theoden looks mournfully at Aragorn and laments, "So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?"
Aragorn himself knew the gravity of the situation. He was on the same battlefield, lost the same men, and endured the same grueling fight. Aragorn, being the rightful heir to the kingdom of men, understood better than anyone the loss that they were sustaining. In response, Aragorn encouraged King Theoden, "Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them."
When faced with conflict, how do you react? Do you pass on that dreaded phone call? Do you leave unanswered that nasty email? Do you freeze in the face of verbal accostment? You might be tempted (understandably so) to walk away, leave well enough alone, avoid poking the bear, or resist escalating things. What I suggest is something quite contrary. When it comes to conflict, a better approach might be to actually embrace it; to ride out and meet it.
Of course, exercising caution and prudence still should be part of any approach to conflict. It is not a time to put aside reason, to throw caution to the wind, or to rely solely on emotion. Any decisions or actions based on these responses are sure to make a bad situation worse. Do not delay the inevitable conflict, or put off a meaningful resolution, only because you wish to salvage whatever small bit of comfort and order you wish to preserve. This is complacency at it's best, cowardice at it's worse.
For a greater understanding of this topic, I would highly recommend a listen to a TedX talk shared by Kwame Christian. He explains the utility and importance of conflict in the most simplest and basic terms than I have found currently. He explains:
"Conflict is an opportunity to either repair or strengthen valuable relationships, or identify and remove malignant relationships with minimal damage."
If you can approach conflict with this mindset, then you can best utilize conflict to get what matters most to you. You can inhibit or cut-off the toxic relationships that lead to destruction and disappointment, and you can enhance or create the lasting relationships that will build you as much as you build them.
This will be difficult, to be sure. You will be tricked into worry over how others might perceive you, how you might lose support, or how you might be ostracized. Do not fear what others may think. In many cases, sides have already been chosen and people will have drank their preferred flavor of Kool-Aid. Winning hearts should not be your ambition. Fighting for what is right should be the ultimate aim. Commit to your heart and memory the words of a popular hymn, "Do what is right... let the consequence follow."
"But," you may protest, "I am right!! I have been wronged! I can prove it too. If only someone would listen. If only someone would consider a different opinion. I have proof; irrefutable, indisputable, and absolute. Does this not count for anything?"
It does not. It does not count two-bits, at least in the sense that you want it to count. You might have a sizable bundle of exculpatory and explanatory arrows in your quiver. You might have the high-ground, both morally and veritably. You might be so far beyond reproach that you feel untouchable to harmful barb or projectile. But here we come to find a bitter truth: it doesn't matter two-bits.
This is a heavy realization, to be sure. Before you mistake me for a man defeated, despondent, or diminished, please understand my intent. I aim to build up, not break down; to edify, not exterminate. Power, not pity, is to be found in this truth.
Consider with me the case of Flavius Belisarius, counted by historians among a venerated group identified as the Last of the Romans. Under Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, Belisarius oversaw the preservation and expansion of the then broken Roman Empire, nearly restoring it to it's former glory. Belisarius conquered the Vandals of North Africa, recaptured and protected Rome from the Ostrogoths, defended the empire's Eastern borders from the Persians, and repelled the advance of the Hunnish horde. At one point, Belisarius was even offered the position of Emperor of the West, an offer he refused out of loyalty to Justinian I. He was the personification of honor and loyalty. Certainly a man beyond reproach.
What did Belisarius' impeccable character gain him? His competence was often questioned by underlings. He was recalled from campaigns by a jealous Emperor who feared his popularity. The incredible gains and victories he had accomplished for his country were squandered by lesser men. He faced mutiny and quelled riots. He became victim of false accusations, being implicated, convicted, and later imprisoned, for whole-cloth conspiracies against the Emperor. He was contemptuously smeared, libeled, and slandered. He endured humiliations at the hands of his adulterous wife. Legend has it, Justinian ordered his eyes put out in his later years, allegedly forcing him to live a beggars life. Hardly the reception or reward befitting of a man who had served with such honor and distinction.
Belisarius was not a stranger to conflict. In fact, it seemed to him a constant companion; a life long partner. His response to conflict, whether in victory or defeat, was consistent: "Do what is right... let the consequence follow."
Time after time, despite the harm and injustice done to Belisarius, he chose to do the right thing. He denied the offer to take up the seat as Emperor of the West. He answered the call of his country, coming out of retirement to repel an invasion of the Bulgars. He patiently awaited a pardon by the Emperor. Historical accounts show almost nothing that would expose Belisarius as resentful or vindictive in the wake of the the maltreatment that he endured. I don't believe for one moment that this means Belisarius was a harmless puppy or that he endured these injustices lying down. But I do think that this shows an appropriate way to handle conflict; with integrity and long-suffering.
This is the example. This is the right way to embrace conflict. You must act in such a way so as to make clear to yourself, and to others, that you will not give in. You will not retreat. You will not roll over. Rather, you get back up on your feet. You square up. You take the next punch. And then you repeat... over... and over... and over again.
Peace is not the absence of conflict. Peace is freedom from conflict. In this, there is a subtle difference.
Conflict is an unavoidable mortal experience. I do not suggest that peace, therefore, cannot be achieved or accomplished in mortality. This is a false assumption. If peace is the freedom from conflict, that is to say that conflict does not govern us. We are not shackled, bound, or perturbed by it. These are the effects of contention. On the other hand, conflict propels us, motivates us, and improves us, but only if embraced appropriately, and navigated skillfully. This is what is mean when I say peace through conflict.
