If you're a Conflict Avoider, you're part of the problem.

In which I -- sorry! I love you. I really do. But we've got to bust out of this epidemic of conflict aversion if we're going to save a world that really needs saving

I get it: No one in their right mind likes conflict. Everyone is conflict-averse. But here’s the problem with Conflict Avoiders: We enable others’ assholicness.

Which kinda makes us assholes ourselves.

I know. Harsh! But let’s break this down.

What’s wrong with conflict?

Nothing, on the face of it. Conflict is, in fact, a natural part of human existence. But conflict means a lot of scary things underneath it all. Namely, relational uncertainty. The threat of rupture. Disruption. Retaliation. Disequilibrium. If you find yourself in opposition to someone who might be hurtful or cruel or punitive — or if you’re afraid that person will see you as hurtful or cruel or punitive — then you could be walking right into the path of a lightning bolt. You’d rather avoid getting your feet blown off, thank you very much.

Conflict seems to have morphed from disagreement, which is a pretty unavoidable and sometimes desirable state, to battle, a state that should be avoided at all costs. From a space where two people (or more) can work at understanding each other to a gladiators’ arena, where only one bloodied person is going to remain standing.

Naturally, then, conflict-aversion is not just fear of disagreement. It’s fear of hurt. Of hurting someone else. Of being hurt oneself. I’m not sure how this happened, but it seems obvious that we are now living in an age when “That hurt my feelings” is a death warrant. There is no acceptable response. If you hurt my feelings or offended me, you’re canceled. No discussion. You will exist again when I let you.

In short, conflict has been reduced to a winner-take-all proposition.

No wonder everyone wants to avoid it.

What’s the problem?

To be honest, kindness is the problem.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love kindness. Reaching out to people, enveloping them in loving acceptance, caring for them consistently or in a sudden “random act” — all that is good and right.

But disingenuous kindness, ambivalent kindness, protective kindness (which is usually self-protective kindness) — these kinds of kindness can be really problematic.

Let’s say I’ve got a roommate who’s irritating the hell out of me. They constantly leave dirty dishes in the sink, which can stay there for days. They make meals for themselves and leave ingredients and utensils out on the countertop. They don’t wipe down the stove and never sweep the floor.

Or let’s say I’m a boss of some sort. And an employee of mine isn’t doing her job. She gossips with co-workers. She’s glum and non-participatory at staff meetings. She spins her wheels a lot and blames others for her inability to get tasks done. On top of that, other employees have complained about her to me.

A kind person — a conflict avoider — would stuff their irritation. They’d shove it down out of conscious range and try to deny it exists. Or they’d come up with a work-around, like pushing the roommate’s dishes and other crap into a corner or reducing the employee’s responsibilities. These are examples of disingenuous, ambivalent, and self-protective kindness.

• Disingenuous in that the kindness is not authentic. It’s not truly generous, loving, or accepting. It’s all for show because it masks the underlying negative emotions. And it masks the overarching emotion of all conflict avoiders: fear. Of being attacked. Of being disliked. Of being seen as someone they don’t want to be seen as: Ungenerous. Angry. A bitch.

• Ambivalent in that there are a couple of opposite forces at work, even if one of them (say, the irritation) has to be submerged. The “kind” response reveals the ambivalence: It’s neither all in (cleaning the kitchen) or all out (firing the employee). It’s midway. It’s non-definitive. It’s ineffectual. (And need I say it? If the kind response is just going ahead and cleaning up the kitchen, our conflict avoider has now moved into the category of enabler.) (Which is a bad thing.)

• Self-protective in that it shields the conflict avoider from the potential pain of confronting reality. For the conflict avoider, repressing irritation, frustration, even anger at someone who is impinging negatively on them is far better than risking the possibility of hurt. Conflict avoiders don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But consider this: Protecting others from hurt feelings is simply a cover for protecting oneself from having to deal with those hurt feelings.

A super kind person would go even further. They would leap right over being disingenuous, ambivalent, or self-protective and would go for their own jugular. They would harangue themselves for being bad and intolerant and demanding. They would blame themselves for not being able to deal with dirty dishes or under-performing employees. “What’s wrong with me?” they might ask themselves.

A kind person would do all this because it’s rude to confront someone about their flaws. It’s selfish to put one’s own needs or preferences above someone else’s. It’s wrong to have negative feelings about someone because bad feelings make you a bad person.

I call bullshit right here.

It is not rude or selfish or wrong to call someone out for being rude, selfish, and wrong. Leaving one’s dishes, food, utensils, and crumbs scattered around a kitchen you share with someone else is all three of these things. It is thoughtless, self-centered, and entitled. It is a type of oblivious assholicness (not seeing what’s right in front of you) that can really grate. Helping a roommate develop the skill of seeing the trail of shit they leave behind them is actually a very kind act.

It is not rude or selfish or wrong to hold a mirror up to an employee who desperately needs correction. Anyone who gossips, withdraws, blames, and spins their wheels is quite likely miserable. And they’re spreading their misery through their actions (and inaction). Allowing such an employee to continue in this destructive way is not good for anyone. In fact, the kindest thing a boss can do is draw the employee’s attention to reality and invite them to change. For their good. And for everyone else’s.

So kindness. Sometimes it’s just not the appropriate response. Or we have to expand the definition to include “offering corrective action in hopes of ridding the world of assholes.” Emphasis on hope. Like “You’re being an asshole right now, but I have hope that it’s a temporary condition that you can change in response to correct(ive) action from me, someone who cares enough about you and our relationship to stop you in your tracks.”

But offering corrective action! That’s hard. It’s inconvenient to have to deal with people who are impinging negatively on you. It takes energy to overcome inertia. It takes time to work through difference. It takes confidence and solid grounding in your own garden, your own needs and preferences, to present the problem calmly and reasonably. It takes open-mindedness and open-heartedness to approach someone whose needs and preferences, ways and means (and skills) are different from your own. It takes trust — in yourself and in the other person. And if you don’t completely trust the other person, it takes that much more trust in yourself that you’ll survive the pushback and whatever else gets thrown at you.

It can feel so much easier just to absorb the trouble, pretend you’re a bottomless pit of wonderfulness, see the best in people, assume good intentions, look on the bright side, turn the other cheek, hope for the best, etc.

But, as I hope I’ve made clear, kindness that serves the purpose of avoiding conflict — either because we fear we’ll hurt someone with our criticism or (related) we fear they’ll hurt us for shining a light on something they’d rather not see or deal with — is problematic.

This is why I consider Conflict-Avoiders to be part of the problem. Because, when we run away from disagreement or the possibility of hurt feelings, when we yield to oblivious assholes or arrogant assholes or bullies, when we stuff our feelings and heat up our resentment meters or crush our spirits with self-recrimination, we contribute to the world’s ruination. We allow the assholes to win.

But, given the dire negative stakes of conflict, what is one to do?

My answer (echoing Elasti-Girl in The Incredibles): ENGAGE!

Which is the subject of the next couple of posts. Stay tuned!

And, if you want an example of a brave teacher who overcame her conflict aversion to turn a chaotic classroom around, listen to this episode of my Teaching through Emotions podcast. It’s a great — and important — story!