Conflict, frustration, affliction, and misunderstanding are normal aspects of the mortal world. Speaking through Lehi, the Lord instructed us that "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nephi 2:11.) In mortality, opposition is present and makes possible choice and the exercise of agency.

        This does not mean, however, that we should encourage conflict or allow it to control our lives. God expects us to improve our lives and our social relationships as much as possible during our stay in mortality, and this includes resolving conflicts and learning to develop social relationships based on love, service, patience, and understanding. (See D&C 121:41-42; Alma 7:23.) While we can expect conflict, we should also expect to manage conflict and let peace and love abound.

        It is important to recognize the difference between patterns of conflict, in which two people (or two groups) are regularly in conflict with each other (as in sibling rivalries), and a situational conflict that may occur only once (as in a difference of opinion between two people who usually agree on things).

        A distinction may also be made between a conflict that is accidental or unintentional and one that is intentional. How we respond to a conflict and how we go about reducing it and repairing the resulting damage to the relationship depends largely on whether the conflict was intentional or not.

        The opposite of love and friendship is often identified as conflict, but the real opposite of love is indifference, apathy, and withdrawal (or divorce). As the sociologist George Simmel recognized, conflict is a form of association or interaction and is an indication that people care enough about their relationship to fight. As long as conflict exists, the two parties at least have a relationship, no matter how bad it may be. This conflict may lead them to hurt or even kill each other or to forgive and forget, but the conflict shows that something about the relationship is still important to the people involved. When the people show complete indifference or apathy, the relationship is dead.

        This leads us to a final distinction: conflict can have both positive and negative results. Our Heavenly Father realized that opposition was an indispensable part of mortality. Conflict or competition between two people impels both to improve, strengthens group boundaries, increases the identification of group members with their own group, and forces people to establish ties with others. As muscles are strengthened by stress, so people and groups can be strengthened by conflict and tribulations. Of course, conflict often has negative results, but it may also have beneficial effects if it can be used to strengthen personal relations, negotiate more satisfactory role relationships, resolve disagreements, and so on.

        Personality differences. Some people are outgoing and confident while others are more shy and quiet. Some people are aggressive or domineering while others are more submissive or adjustive. Some like adventure and others prefer security. Same people are giving while others appear to require much support from others.

        Experience and conditioning. People differ greatly in the experiences they have had in their lives as well as in the way they interpret these experiences. A person who grew up in a happy home may have a totally different outlook than another person who was abused or rejected as a child. Those who have lived through a war or depression may have a very different view of the world from those who have not experienced such things.

        Our experiences influence us to place greater value on some things than others and to believe that some behaviors are more successful or rewarding than others. If we are praised or rewarded for being quiet or saying our prayers, we soon learn to be quiet or say our prayers. If we gain benefits from being aggressive, we are more likely in the future to use aggression to gain our objectives. We tend to approach problems or people in ways that are customary or typical for us personally and for the members of the social group to which we belong. Thus, every person's life is a treasure trove of past experience and conditioning—a gold mine too vast to be explored or understood adequately by another person, but one we constantly return to for the resources to face our daily tasks and relationships.

        Talents and interests. People differ greatly in their talents, skills, and interests. Some people appear to possess great musical ability, while others have abilities in mathematics, mechanics, or language. Some people like the opera; others like football games or boxing matches. Of course, everyone has talents and skills, but some may have a greater variety than others. Many conflicts arise from these differences. An example would be a husband who likes to attend sporting events who has a wife who would rather go to concerts.

        Police have long been aware that family squabbles tend to escalate into violence more frequently than other types of misunderstandings. And social occasions, especially in the local tavern, are more likely to produce both friendship and violent confrontations. Many parents have noted that when the emotional level in the home gets high and people are laughing, teasing, and getting excited, misunderstandings and squabbles may also occur. They therefore try to keep the emotional level on a more even keel to help control conflict.

        Conformity to the expectations of others is much more extensive than nonconformity. We eat the food typical of our group (whether pasta or potatoes), sleep early or late as is the custom, wear clothing dictated by social custom, and follow the latest fads in diets or exercise or recreation. We stand in line without crowding in, speak when we are spoken to, cut our meat with a knife, and don't eat with our fingers. The expectations of others, especially those who are close to us, have a powerful impact on our lives.

        Some norms early a stronger moral tone than others, and some norms (like those regarding sex roles) may not be agreed upon by everyone. And the strength of norms tends to decline as people choose not to conform to the norm and act contrary to the expectations of others.

        One of the greatest sources of conflict in social relationships is disagreement about norms or nonconformity to group-held expectations. If a young man grows up in a group that teaches the norm of male aggressiveness and independence and then marries a young woman who learned a different expectation of male responsibility and quiet leadership, both the man and the woman may feel that the other person is not living up to his or her expectations.

        In my family as I was growing up, my mother always took out the garbage after a meal and put it in a garbage can in our garage. In my wife's family, her father always carried the garbage out of the house. When we were married, we both expected the other to carry out the garbage. What is most significant about this example, however, is that we did not communicate our expectations to each other. We simply had come to assume that certain things would happen, and we were both uncomfortable that the other was not living up to our expectations. Since we loved each other, we didn't want to criticize each other, so without speaking about the garbage we both waited for the other to take it out, and eventually one or the other of us would, all the while muttering under his breath. Only when the conflict became more marked did one of us mention it to the other; then we were able to discuss our expectations openly. Eventually, buying a garbage disposal solved much of the problem, and now we both take an equal responsibility to put the garbage down the disposal.

        Only by bringing their expectations to the surface and discussing them openly can people deal with them. But we should realize that norms may have been long internalized and that it is not easy to change one's norms once they are well established.

        Sin may be a source of conflict when people do not agree on what is sinful. At a restaurant a woman orders a cola drink. Her husband sees this as breaking the Word of Wisdom, and conflict ensues. On Sunday a boy plays a sandlot baseball game with members of his deacons quorum, and his mother accuses him of breaking the Sabbath.

        My three-year-old daughter taught me such forgiveness. I had been impatient and unloving with her on a Saturday night and had sent her to bed with some harsh words. The next morning I left for Church meetings that lasted most of the morning. During this time I felt sorry for my actions of the previous night and planned to ask my daughter's forgiveness. I finally arrived at our ward near the close of our sacrament meeting. Upon entering the building, I found my daughter sitting in the foyer on her elder sister's lap. I sat down beside them, and as I did so, my younger daughter slid onto my lap and settled in comfortably. She didn't say a word, but she gave me no sign that she remembered my harshness. I held her in my arms, I felt forgiven and healed of my sin, and our relationship was restored.

        These characteristics of family relationships lead us to emphasize three aspects of negotiations. First, negotiation is a way to solve conflicts to ensure that all who are involved benefit in some way. The basic idea behind negotiations is that a careful consideration of all alternatives should lead to a settlement that is an improvement for everyone over the existing situation. The problem is not who will give in, but how much each person must compromise to promote mutual benefit.

        The second aspect of family negotiation is that negotiations must be focused on a specific issue and the strategies used must be restricted to protect the relationship. When a husband and wife are negotiating over the frequency of visits to in-laws, it does not ordinarily help to bring up other unresolved issues such as appropriate Sunday activities while on vacation, techniques for disciplining a teenage daughter, or the current method of meeting family financial obligations. Typically, this only adds one more unresolved issue to the list. In addition, it is often tempting to use knowledge about the other person's weaknesses and emotions to obtain a favorable solution or to coerce him into a concession. For example, if a husband wants to visit his parents more frequently, and his wife knows he feels guilty about his inability to stand up to his parents' excessive demands, the wife may be tempted to keep the number of visits as they are simply by attacking his masculinity and pointing out the childish nature of his desires. His guilt may need to be worked out at some point, but it is destructive to use it on him in this way.

        The final aspect of negotiations in families is that they need to be based on mutual trust. A friend once described a disagreement with her husband in which he agreed to give up a football game to attend the wedding of a member of her family. She said, "He gave in so easily that I knew he was up to something. I am scared to death that he plans to use this on me to get me to do something I really don't like." Negotiations between persons who don't trust each other are greatly complicated by the guessing involved in trying to determine what the other person is really planning or meaning. A Jewish anecdote describes this problem: "Telling me you are going to Minsk so that I will think you are going to Pinsk helps me to know that you will go to Minsk. " People who are starting to resolve conflict by improving their negotiating skills must examine the trust in their relationship. If trust is low, the first order of business should be increasing trust.

        It is helpful to think of negotiation as a three-stage process: (1) information gathering and issue formation, (2)bargaining, (3) agreement.

        Most effective negotiators start out by seeking information and trying to clarify the issue. During this phase of the negotiations, it is important to avoid taking firm positions or forcing the other parties to take firm positions. Background information about the feelings of all the parties, their thoughts, and their actions are crucial. Find out where you are and where the others are. This will be extremely helpful in conducting the other phases of the negotiations. If I know that my daughter is feeling socially insecure and is afraid of being left out of social events, I will be much more skillful and considerate as we negotiate whether she will baby-sit or attend a school dance.

        Similarly, background concerning the state of the relationship is extremely important. When a wife and her husband resolve a conflict over the frequency of visits to in-laws, the alternatives considered, offers made, and reactions to suggestions may depend on the kind of relationship between them. What are the communication patterns (open, closed, or restricted)? Is the relationship healthy or in trouble?

        Finally, a negotiator should clarify the issues to be negotiated. Each person should state as clearly as possible the issues that raise the current problem. This is important because it focuses the discussion on specifics instead of allowing matters to remain general and vague. It also helps the people to know each other's concerns. Too often negotiations fail because, unknowingly, the parties are responding to different issues.

        The second stage involves the actual exchange of offers or suggestions. The various alternatives are presented and responded to. Some alternatives are eliminated because they are mutually unacceptable or totally undesirable for one of the parties Other alternatives are retained for further consideration. The basic question when an alternative is presented is whether the listening party should make a concession and modify some aspect of his position by moving closer to agreement with the other. People often fear making concessions because they are afraid of looking weak. However, concessions are extremely important in convincing the other person to compromise as well. Some modest concessions should be made early, but they should be accompanied by an explanation of the expectations of concessions from the others involved. A father might suggest to his daughter, "I am willing to have you go to your school party this Saturday instead of tending the younger children if you will tend them next Friday night."

        In addition to presenting alternatives, each person should respond to each suggestion to formulate new alternatives. The final solution to a conflict is often created during the negotiations. Some refer to this as seeking the formula to solve the problem. As my daughter and I negotiate over her activities on weekends, the ultimate solution may be a new suggestion arising from our reactions to earlier alternatives.

        The exchanges of alternatives and attempts to create new alternatives usually lead to an agreement. As the agreement is reached, it should be implemented with care, for two reasons. First, everyone needs to feel that he gained from the process. Second, the agreement reached on a specific issue lays the foundations for the subsequent negotiations. It is important to make certain that the trust and quality of the relationship have held constant or have improved. When agreements are implemented with care, the true strengths of negotiation emerge: the conflict is resolved, the parties are better off, and the relationship is improved.

Dr. James T. Duke, professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, received his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Utah and his Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has taught at UCLA, the University of Utah, and the University of Texas at El Paso. In 1971, Dr. Duke received the Professor of the Year Award for distinguished teaching at BYU.

Dr. Duke presently serves as a high councilor in the Orem, Utah, Sharon Stake. He has previously served as a branch president at BYU, as stake and ward YMMIA president, as stake and ward Sunday School president, and as elders quorum instructor. He has done research on conversion for the Correlation Evaluation Department of the Church.

He and his wife, Ruth, are the parents of nine children.

Dr. J. Lynn England, professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, received his bachelor's and master's degrees in philosophy from the University of Utah and his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pittsburgh. He has taught at BYU since 1970. His special interests are the sociology of knowledge and mediation and negotiation. He has published widely and is a member of several honorary and professional associations.

Dr. England has served as a teacher in various organizations of the Church, as a member of a stake Sunday School presidency, and as first counselor in the bishopric of his Orem ward.

He and his wife, Anna, are the parents of five children.