Talk:Conflict (sociology)

message: Need to add: -
ben rules  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.253.15 ([[User talk:86.139.253.15|talk]
Approaches -
* Traditional ie avoid conflict (conflict is bad)
* Human Resources ie accept conflict (conflict is inevitable)
* Interactionalist ie promote and manage conflict (conflict is essential)
Talk about: - 
* Fuctional vs Dysunctional conflict (Coning, Dyck)
* Conflict vs dispute (taxonomy)(Fenn)
* Integrative vs Distributive solutions (Ury and Fisher, Lax and Sebenius)
* various models of managing conflict
* Affective vs Cognitive conflict (Amason)
Parasite 21:21, 10 June 2004 (UTC)

message: there are far too many red links.
very poor references of discussion. You should have use more framework and states the name of the author, this is not a good source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.157.29 (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LINKS 

message: I have no idea what kind of photo would best accompany this article, and it's not clear that anyone else does, so I'm removing the  template.  If you put it back and have something specific in mind, please comment and be explicit about what you think would help. Tim Pierce 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Is there enough workplace-specific content out there to write a separate article on conflict in the workplace? Or maybe conflict in organizations? Or would there be too much overlap with conflict in general? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Workplace conflict

message: ===== On becoming rational about something that is highly emotional =========
There is as yet no comprehensive Theory of Conflict and this lack is demonstrated by this article.  Clear definitions of terms would help.  Also the fact that conflict is a cultural artifact (i.e.: a culturally constructed communications process bounded by rules and traditional structures [e.g.: "proper" subjects, time and place, ways of addressing, deference and power signals, acceptable forums and means of resolving]) needs addressing.  What is conflict and how it is dealt with vary greatly by ethnic and other cultures.  There are ways of analyzing conflict that are sociologically and anthropologically sound -- none are here referenced.  Myself, i divide all conflicts into two basic/essential types: political (involving power and decision-making) and cultural (involving norms and expectations, roles, perception, etc.), although in reality, of course, all conflict comprises some of each. 
The confusion between difference, disagreement, conflict, discord/dispute, and violence is a difficult one to address in USAmerican English (connotations as well as denotations).  The need for conflict to escalate to a level of attention in order for conflict resolution to take place needs to be addressed.  Conflict is not per se necessarily evil, wrong, bad or unnecessary -- neither is it always necessary. 
Finally, as Bateson says, No matter what we're talking about, we're talking about how you and I relate.  This is the function of conflict: It is a kind of communication -- its meta-message is bifurcated: this relationship matters AND this subject/situation matters.  A better organized article will deal with these issues in a rational way.  Let's get to work. 66.212.78.220 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Holistic and Systemic Analysis of Conflicts 

message: There is as yet no comprehensive Theory of Conflict and this lack is demonstrated by this article.  Clear definitions of terms would help.  Also the fact that conflict is a cultural artifact (i.e.: a culturally constructed communications process bounded by rules and traditional structures [e.g.: "proper" subjects, time and place, ways of addressing, deference and power signals, acceptable forums and means of resolving]) needs addressing.  What is conflict and how it is dealt with vary greatly by ethnic and other cultures.  There are ways of analyzing conflict that are sociologically and anthropologically sound -- none are here referenced.  Myself, i divide all conflicts into two basic/essential types: political (involving power and decision-making) and cultural (involving norms and expectations, roles, perception, etc.), although in reality, of course, all conflict comprises some of each. 
The confusion between difference, disagreement, conflict, discord/dispute, and violence is a difficult one to address in USAmerican English (connotations as well as denotations).  The need for conflict to escalate to a level of attention in order for conflict resolution to take place needs to be addressed.  Conflict is not per se necessarily evil, wrong, bad or unnecessary -- neither is it always necessary. 
Finally, as Bateson says, No matter what we're talking about, we're talking about how you and I relate.  This is the function of conflict: It is a kind of communication -- its meta-message is bifurcated: this relationship matters AND this subject/situation matters.  A better organized article will deal with these issues in a rational way.  Let's get to work. 66.212.78.220 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On becoming rational about something that is highly emotional ====