We have suggested that all relationships experience conflict, and when we are able to negotiate a process of naming, addressing, and resolving a conflict that arises into our awareness, we find that we have actually strengthened the relationship. We have even suggested that all conflicts can potentially be resolved. So what then does it mean to resolve a conflict?

Typically we find that when a conflict arises in our awareness, there are actually multiple conflicts arising from many perspectives about a variety of issues. The complexity of most conflicts can overwhelm us and lead us to declare that this conflict is not resolvable. By this we give ourselves permission to give up.

It is certainly true that not all conflicts are of sufficient importance that the effort it would take to resolve them is worth it. We have too many conflicts to expect that we are going to fully resolve all of them. We have to “pick our battles.” But deciding not to address a conflict is not the same as pretending it isn’t there or insisting that nothing can be done. Indeed, we typically come to the conclusion that nothing can be done only after we have already put a lot of time and effort into seeking a solution.

We can put lots of effort into resolving a problem only to discover that, if we have had any effect at all, it has only been to make things worse. This is just the phenomenon that Albert Einstein was referring to when he stated that, “a problem cannot be solved by the way of thinking that created the problem.” This is the origin of the phrase, “thinking outside the box.” As long as we are using the perspective that generated the problem in the first place, all we are doing is regenerating the problem when we try to resolve it. We have to think outside the box. We have to discover a perspective that gives us an approach that constructs a solution to the problem.

A simple example here may be helpful. When John and Mary first started dating, they quickly fell in love and were very free in expressing their affection for each other. Mary liked finding a man who would really listen to her and she felt safe with him and wanted to be close to him and showed it by cuddling. John really needed a sense of being wanted and found it in Mary’s freely expressed affection. John’s attention gave Mary the safety to express affection. Mary’s affection gave John reassurance that he was wanted and allowed him to relax his anxiety and give her attention.

When John misunderstood Mary’s feelings, she felt unsafe and withdrew her affection. When she withdrew her affection, John felt unwanted and became anxious. His anxiety got in the way of his ability to hear her feelings and she felt more and more unsafe. As she lost her sense of safety she became less and less affectionate proving to John that she was interested in someone else and prompting him to angrily accuse her of being unfaithful. She insisted that she had no interest in anyone else to which he responded, “Then why are you so cold to me?”

John cannot restore affection to the relationship by being angry and accusatory. But from his perspective, affection is something that Mary used to give him and now doesn’t and he can’t figure out any explanation other than her interest in someone else. His framework for understanding the problem not only blocks his ability to solve it…it makes it worse.

For John to solve the problem he will have to be able to think outside of the box of his own assumptions. He will have to see from a different perspective.

As it happens, Mary has just the perspective that he needs. If he can only listen to her and see from her perspective then he will discover the solution. Not only will he get the perspective that unlocks the puzzle, but he will create the relationship in which Mary feels listened to, and safe, and free to express affection. They will both get what they need if he finds a way to a perspective that gets him what he needs. Everyone wins!

The capacity to resolve apparently irresolvable conflicts comes from the ability to see the situation from a perspective that constructs a resolution of the problems posed by the conflict. This means that we have to be able to observe all of the problems that the conflicted situation constructs. Mary’s problem is different from John’s problem. A resolution will not be possible without a response that addresses all of the problems. We may need multiple perspectives to be able to see all of the relevant problems and their solutions.

This is where the AQAL model comes in. It provides a framework in which we can access multiple perspectives from which to look at any given event. It even suggests perspectives that we might otherwise ignore. The more points of view, the more we will be able to see the event with depth.

This suggests that resolution depends on our capacity to see all of the problems from all of the perspectives and to design strategies for addressing them which meet all of the needs. So why would anyone think this was hard to do? Clearly, there are very few conflicts that are ever fully resolved. But the more fully we can use the presence of the conflict to see from new perspectives that allow us to more fully meet all of the needs, the more satisfied each will be, and the more satisfying will be the relationships we construct with others.

Let’s look at some of the issues in John and Mary’s relationship. From the perspective of the resources in the relationship, they each want to have affection shown freely. From an identity perspective, Mary and John need to know that they are important to each other.

Mary gets that by experiencing John attending to her feelings, but John gets that by experiencing Mary’s physical touch. When Mary doesn’t touch John, it means to John that she doesn’t want him. When John doesn’t know Mary’s feelings, it means to Mary that he doesn’t care about her. Their process for addressing their unmet needs is to accuse the other of being who they are each most afraid that the other might be. This process doesn’t disclose what they need and it doesn’t lead them to act in ways that move them toward what they need.

If Mary can recognize that she needs to be known and that she is assuming that she isn’t known because John doesn’t want to know her, she can tell him that she isn’t experiencing him as someone who knows what she is feeling and can wonder if he would like to know. If John can recognize that he isn’t feeling wanted by Mary and that this is because she is not being affectionate, he can state that he wants a relationship with her in which affection is freely expressed and he can wonder with her if she wants such a relationship. If they can each hear that the other wants an affectionate relationship in which their feelings can be safely expressed and fully heard by the other, then they can begin to observe what they each do that gets in the way of such a relationship without blame and recrimination.

This example uses the perspectives of conflicts as resource-based, identity-based, and process-based. Using different perspectives can lead to different understandings and different strategies. There is no limit to the number of perspectives or to the potential strategies. There is no point at which we have done everything. We may have done all we are willing to do, but we haven’t done all that could be done.