Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

B is for Battle

B is for Battle

“‘Even if you are accepted as a refugee, there is no guarantee 

that you will be permanently resettled in Australia.’

The words were delivered in a harsh and unsympathetic tone by a woman whose countenance bespoke weariness. Thuza physically experienced the lack of emotion. Translated from English, they were soul crushing words in any language. Being told that her claims for asylum would not be processed faster simply because she had jumped the queue, deflated her further. In opposition to the lie told to her by the man she had paid and prostituted herself to, was the truth that there was no advantage in applying for refugee status on Australian soil. It was not a short cut.”  – excerpt from chapter 4, Ashmore Grief

Conflict is a constant staple of most of our lives. We are always fighting something or someone, even if only battling against our own proverbial demons. We struggle for peace and for contentment, as we battle against the system, against injustice, against each other. Some people even seem to enjoy conflict. Whatever private or public war they are waging defines them and brings order and purpose to the lives. We’ve all met people who stagger from one personal disaster to the next, as we look on and wonder why they keep doing that do themselves.

Why do we make life difficult for ourselves? Why do we complicate things? Choose foolish and difficult paths which necessitate battles? Sometimes, for whatever reason, we make bad choices, and then complain about the adverse consequences, or the lack of success. We’re a bit dumb some times, us humans, aren't we?


Life is characterised by conflict. Ashmore Grief explores the struggles we all experience: the struggle to survive, the struggle to find purpose and meaning, and the struggle to belong. The battle will continue until we find ultimate peace in Heaven.

Photo sources:
http://jennylincoln.com/team-success/conflict-serves/

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Bending over backwards

I have had the opportunity over the past six months to participate in a workplace literacy research project. A dozen of us literacy practitioners were asked to provide literacy and numeracy training to employees at various pilot sites, and to gather information about what worked and what did not.

This week we gathered together at the completion of the project to discuss what happened. Each of us was asked to speak for five minutes on a particular aspect of our project which the project managers had identified, from our final written reports, as worthy of further exploration in the group setting. My topic was flexibility.

I talked about flexibility being a desirable attribute in some circumstances and undesirable in others. For example, flexibility of thought is a good thing when attempting to deal with the unexpected, or in coping with change, but it's not good in relation to adherence to safety procedures. A cricket bat would not function at all if it was constructed of the same type of rubber as floor mats in cars. Sometimes rigidity is crucial to effectiveness and positive outcomes. Other times it is a hindrance.

In the case of the company I worked with, it was necessary for me to be flexible with the training schedule because it had to be changed on a weekly basis due to the unavailability of participants. My flexibility was limited though because I was only available one and half hours, two days per week. The company's flexibility was limited by the fact that they needed to serve their customers first, and attend training second.In the end, training was suspended because the frequent interruptions to, and forced rescheduling of the training caused us to believe that we were wasting our time. The level of flexibility shown, whilst initially helping the advancement of the project, ultimately resulted in early termination of the training.

We have to be flexible in life and in how we deal with people but extremes should be avoided at all costs. We all have to determine how flexible we are willing to be. How far are we willing to bend before we break? How far are we able to bend before we break? Do we want to bend at all? If we are thin rubber cricket bats we won't break but neither will we be of any use. At some point our flexibility stops being useful and becomes unhelpful, or worse destructive. I talked about car floor mats, and some people believe that bending over backwards for everyone indicates weakness. People who are that "flexible" may be labelled doormats. On the other hand, people who don't go out of their way to help others, who don't inconvenience themselves, may be criticized for being selfish.

A line has to be drawn somewhere between flexibility and rigidity. The fact that everyone draws this line in a different place on the spectrum is the reason why we have conflict.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Honour Among Thieves

What was truly frightening about the Godfather, and the many gangster films which followed it, was the fact the mafia did not believe society's laws applied to them. Using extortion, intimidation, and extreme violence they said, 'we will do what we want to do.'

They were not a lawless group of people however. They merely adhered to their own laws and their own standards. They had their own morality regardless of its legality. The argument goes, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. A whole book could be written on the immoral acts of history which were legal. Of course the judgement on what was immoral would be the author's point of view. Does that mean, therefore, that morals are only a matter of opinion? Who sets the standard?

All the social problems and crimes which occur in our world result from different standards; standards which do not measure up to the ultimate standard of goodness.

How many arguments, how many actions have been perpetrated by people believing their behaviour was okay or justified in the circumstances? In one family swearing and drunkenness is acceptable, in another it is not. Punching a man is okay if he throws the first punch. Working for cash to avoid tax is acceptable to many while others feel it is dishonest. These are examples of relative morality and relative morality is a conflict causing plague in society and in the world.

Surely the basis for society's morals must be an absolute standard. Surely it must be God's revelation of his Character and His will for us which is in the Bible. Even those who feel certain laws don't apply to them, like the mafia will be judged in the end by their Maker. Who can decide what is truly good apart from one who is perfect?