Executive Solution Overview
– 2 years ago **files (1)** – ## Untitleddocument60.pdf **## Untitleddocument60.pdf** Class Discussion – Week 2 Before thinking about into conflict resolution, it is essential to conduct a conflict analysis. In Chapter 2 of "Constructive Conflicts," Kriesberg explores the origins of social conflicts…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– 2 years ago
**files (1)**
– ## Untitleddocument60.pdf
**## Untitleddocument60.pdf**
Class Discussion – Week 2
Before thinking about into conflict resolution, it is essential to conduct a conflict analysis.
In Chapter 2 of "Constructive Conflicts," Kriesberg explores the origins of social
conflicts, presenting various theoretical explanations. The chapter introduces several
fundamental theoretical ideas.
Please relate any of these ideas for this week's discussion to a specific conflict
example. This example can be a personal experience, a historical conflict, a current
one, etc. Consider aspects such as inequality, status, power, values, beliefs, etc., all
discussed in the chapter.
In its basic form, a theory aims to explain a phenomenon, shedding light on why
something occurs the way it does. As you explore a form or specific case of social
conflict, think critically about explaining. Your discussion post will serve as your initial
conflict analysis.
Examples
1. There were a few theories that I felt really draw attention to some of the
conflict happening today all over the world but specifically here in the
United States.
I would say the United States is pretty divided on just about everything, you can find like
minded people, groups and friends who will agree with you but for the most part there is
division wherever you go. I would say though with the cultural and religious diversity that
is to be expected, not everyone has to agree about everything and conflict is bound to
happen.
However, there was an event recently that happened and I won't go into depth about
what happened but it started the conversation of what life mean especially when it
comes to health care and insurance. During this time there was a large number of
Americans who were really connected on this issue. People from different cultural and
political backgrounds all seemed to be agreement that insurance companies are evil.
For lack of a better phrase that's the word I used.
Now most of the people who were posting videos on platforms like Twitter, TikTok,
Facebook and many others all voiced their own stories of dealing with insurance
companies and I can even share my own. My family falls under my dad's insurance and
they aren't great. When my mom needed her medication for her type 2 diabetes they
would not cover it, this was expensive but life saving medication. She would have died
without it but for the longest time they wouldn't cover it, they kept telling her it was her
doctors but it was them. My mom now just pays for it out of pocket because she can't be
without it.
There were so many stories like this, about multiple insurance companies. People
whose family members couldn't get cancer care, people whose insurance wouldn't
cover their infants time in the NICU, hundreds of stories of this problem. Now this isn't
really a new feeling, but the event that happened had people coming together and
talking about why healthcare in the US is so bad and why it needs to change. People
from all types of backgrounds were talking about the need for change.
Now this really is just my personal outlook but from what I've seen this is really the most
united I had seen people in a while. Even the news stations were reporting about how
people were calling for better changes and considering there are some people out there
who fall in the political area that is against most universal things, healthcare was not
one of them. People want to be able to live, they want their families to live and they
don't want to be left with a half a million dollar bill while an insurance owners make
millions.
Now there were a few theories I could cite from Kriesberg for my analysis starting with
Relations Between Adversaries on page 36. "The adversaries themselves frequently
cite these factors, each side attributing the conflict to the other side's actions. Analysts
frequently point to the relations between the adversaries as the crucial source of their
conflict."(Kriesberg, 36). I could be reading this wrong too so correct me if my analysis
doesn't fit, but this really does relate back to the conflict I wrote about. While there is still
division in the US, it became less in a way. I would say people who aren't the one
percent and who are stuck with terrible insurance plans(primarily the working class and
those 26 and older) were more connected. Kriesberg writes that people divide and
define themselves infinitely but in this moment the division became more clear. This was
really about class and the power dynamic. It became clear from hearing about the
people who have lost family members or people who might not even pay off a hospital
bill in their lifetime. "Some divisions are well established, antedating the emergence of a
particular conflict. They may have been formed in the course of a long-past
fight."(Kriesberg, 36). This is an issue that has been bubbling under the surface for a
long time and I would say that a lot more people are really starting to divide themselves
based on that class and power imbalance.
I did also want to add in a few points from Kriesberg on Inequalities in Class, Status
and Power, I know I touched on a few of my own points but wanted to add it to my
analysis. "The idea that inequality universally produces conflict rests on assumptions
about human nature."(Kriesberg, 37). Kriesberg does go on to write about things being
desirable and that there is a basis for cooperation as well as conflict but that also
depends on social conditions. I would say that inequality(in this instance) has created
conflict. People want to live, they want to be healthy and they should be able to go to
the doctors office and hope that insurance will cover the cost of life saving treatment,
whether that be an operation, medicine, or anything else. It is no surprise that conflict
has risen over this.
2. The conflict I’m sharing revolves around a difference in parenting
philosophies between me and the parent of my child’s friend, whom I’ll call
Jim. My husband and I hosted a Halloween gathering for the
neighborhood kids, with invitations specifying the party would run from
3:30 to 5:30 p.m., featuring pre-trick-or-treat pizza, fruit, and games. We
served food for everyone, even offering beer and wine for the adults
though my husband and I don’t drink alcohol ourselves.
The kids enjoyed games and admired each other’s costumes and at 5:30, I
announced, “Time to head out for trick-or-treating. Party’s over.” My husband
agreed to take the kids trick-or-treating while I stayed home to clean up and hand
out candy. To my surprise, several parents returned to my house a couple of
hours later with their kids, assuming the party was still on. Unsure if my husband
had invited them back (he hadn’t), I didn’t turn them away. Tired but
accommodating, I sent the kids downstairs for a candy exchange and a
kid-appropriate Halloween movie, while I served drinks again to the parents.
During the middle of a conversation the adults were having, Jim suddenly said,
“Christina, is this REALLY what you had in mind when you invited us? The kids
are just parked in front of the TV, shoveling candy in their mouths.” I was shocked
by his rudeness, especially as a guest in my home after I had hosted and fed his
family. I knew Jim didn’t allow his children to watch TV or movies at home—a rule
I’d respected when my son visited—but we were at my house, and it was his
choice to let his child stay.
Upset but keeping my composure, I walked downstairs and turned off the movie,
telling the kids they could exchange candy but not eat any of it. Back upstairs, I
told Jim, “To be honest, I wasn’t expecting guests at this hour. The invitation said
the party ended at 5:30 p.m. It’s 8:00 p.m.” I then made a small display of
cleaning the kitchen counters and yawning. Jim left soon after, clearly unhappy,
and we haven’t interacted since.
I was pretty upset after Jim left my home, feeling like I was being judged unfairly
and having received a rude comment in front of a room full of guests. Not only
were the kids having the time of their lives, but we had paid for all of the food,
games, beer, wine, and party favors, and I had clearly stated on the invitation that
the party was over at 5:30 p.m. I wasn’t judging Jim for raising his voice a little
too much or knocking back a few too many drinks in front of his kids (something
that went against my own parenting philosophy), so why should Jim judge me for
letting our kids watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and eating a few
pieces of candy?
The incident has me reflecting on how parenting philosophies can clash and how
those differences are sometimes framed through biases. Using the lens of
in-group and out-group categorizations described in Chapter 2 of Constructive
Conflicts (p. 35), it seems Jim may have divided parents into groups based on
their shared values. To him, the “in-group” likely consisted of parents who
completely prohibit technology use for children, while I fell into the “out-group”
because I allow my son to occasionally watch TV or movies. This might have led
him to overgeneralize and assume that because I allow technology, I don’t
prioritize my child’s mental health or education. In reality, my children are deeply
loved, bright, kind, and creatively stimulated in many ways—qualities I wish all
parents would respect and support
**## Untitleddocument60.pdf**
Class Discussion – Week 2
Before thinking about into conflict resolution, it is essential to conduct a conflict analysis.
In Chapter 2 of "Constructive Conflicts," Kriesberg explores the origins of social
conflicts, presenting various theoretical explanations. The chapter introduces several
fundamental theoretical ideas.
Please relate any of these ideas for this week's discussion to a specific conflict
example. This example can be a personal experience, a historical conflict, a current
one, etc. Consider aspects such as inequality, status, power, values, beliefs, etc., all
discussed in the chapter.
In its basic form, a theory aims to explain a phenomenon, shedding light on why
something occurs the way it does. As you explore a form or specific case of social
conflict, think critically about explaining. Your discussion post will serve as your initial
conflict analysis.
Examples
1. There were a few theories that I felt really draw attention to some of the
conflict happening today all over the world but specifically here in the
United States.
I would say the United States is pretty divided on just about everything, you can find like
minded people, groups and friends who will agree with you but for the most part there is
division wherever you go. I would say though with the cultural and religious diversity that
is to be expected, not everyone has to agree about everything and conflict is bound to
happen.
However, there was an event recently that happened and I won't go into depth about
what happened but it started the conversation of what life mean especially when it
comes to health care and insurance. During this time there was a large number of
Americans who were really connected on this issue. People from different cultural and
political backgrounds all seemed to be agreement that insurance companies are evil.
For lack of a better phrase that's the word I used.
Now most of the people who were posting videos on platforms like Twitter, TikTok,
Facebook and many others all voiced their own stories of dealing with insurance
companies and I can even share my own. My family falls under my dad's insurance and
they aren't great. When my mom needed her medication for her type 2 diabetes they
would not cover it, this was expensive but life saving medication. She would have died
without it but for the longest time they wouldn't cover it, they kept telling her it was her
doctors but it was them. My mom now just pays for it out of pocket because she can't be
without it.
There were so many stories like this, about multiple insurance companies. People
whose family members couldn't get cancer care, people whose insurance wouldn't
cover their infants time in the NICU, hundreds of stories of this problem. Now this isn't
really a new feeling, but the event that happened had people coming together and
talking about why healthcare in the US is so bad and why it needs to change. People
from all types of backgrounds were talking about the need for change.
Now this really is just my personal outlook but from what I've seen this is really the most
united I had seen people in a while. Even the news stations were reporting about how
people were calling for better changes and considering there are some people out there
who fall in the political area that is against most universal things, healthcare was not
one of them. People want to be able to live, they want their families to live and they
don't want to be left with a half a million dollar bill while an insurance owners make
millions.
Now there were a few theories I could cite from Kriesberg for my analysis starting with
Relations Between Adversaries on page 36. "The adversaries themselves frequently
cite these factors, each side attributing the conflict to the other side's actions. Analysts
frequently point to the relations between the adversaries as the crucial source of their
conflict."(Kriesberg, 36). I could be reading this wrong too so correct me if my analysis
doesn't fit, but this really does relate back to the conflict I wrote about. While there is still
division in the US, it became less in a way. I would say people who aren't the one
percent and who are stuck with terrible insurance plans(primarily the working class and
those 26 and older) were more connected. Kriesberg writes that people divide and
define themselves infinitely but in this moment the division became more clear. This was
really about class and the power dynamic. It became clear from hearing about the
people who have lost family members or people who might not even pay off a hospital
bill in their lifetime. "Some divisions are well established, antedating the emergence of a
particular conflict. They may have been formed in the course of a long-past
fight."(Kriesberg, 36). This is an issue that has been bubbling under the surface for a
long time and I would say that a lot more people are really starting to divide themselves
based on that class and power imbalance.
I did also want to add in a few points from Kriesberg on Inequalities in Class, Status
and Power, I know I touched on a few of my own points but wanted to add it to my
analysis. "The idea that inequality universally produces conflict rests on assumptions
about human nature."(Kriesberg, 37). Kriesberg does go on to write about things being
desirable and that there is a basis for cooperation as well as conflict but that also
depends on social conditions. I would say that inequality(in this instance) has created
conflict. People want to live, they want to be healthy and they should be able to go to
the doctors office and hope that insurance will cover the cost of life saving treatment,
whether that be an operation, medicine, or anything else. It is no surprise that conflict
has risen over this.
2. The conflict I’m sharing revolves around a difference in parenting
philosophies between me and the parent of my child’s friend, whom I’ll call
Jim. My husband and I hosted a Halloween gathering for the
neighborhood kids, with invitations specifying the party would run from
3:30 to 5:30 p.m., featuring pre-trick-or-treat pizza, fruit, and games. We
served food for everyone, even offering beer and wine for the adults
though my husband and I don’t drink alcohol ourselves.
The kids enjoyed games and admired each other’s costumes and at 5:30, I
announced, “Time to head out for trick-or-treating. Party’s over.” My husband
agreed to take the kids trick-or-treating while I stayed home to clean up and hand
out candy. To my surprise, several parents returned to my house a couple of
hours later with their kids, assuming the party was still on. Unsure if my husband
had invited them back (he hadn’t), I didn’t turn them away. Tired but
accommodating, I sent the kids downstairs for a candy exchange and a
kid-appropriate Halloween movie, while I served drinks again to the parents.
During the middle of a conversation the adults were having, Jim suddenly said,
“Christina, is this REALLY what you had in mind when you invited us? The kids
are just parked in front of the TV, shoveling candy in their mouths.” I was shocked
by his rudeness, especially as a guest in my home after I had hosted and fed his
family. I knew Jim didn’t allow his children to watch TV or movies at home—a rule
I’d respected when my son visited—but we were at my house, and it was his
choice to let his child stay.
Upset but keeping my composure, I walked downstairs and turned off the movie,
telling the kids they could exchange candy but not eat any of it. Back upstairs, I
told Jim, “To be honest, I wasn’t expecting guests at this hour. The invitation said
the party ended at 5:30 p.m. It’s 8:00 p.m.” I then made a small display of
cleaning the kitchen counters and yawning. Jim left soon after, clearly unhappy,
and we haven’t interacted since.
I was pretty upset after Jim left my home, feeling like I was being judged unfairly
and having received a rude comment in front of a room full of guests. Not only
were the kids having the time of their lives, but we had paid for all of the food,
games, beer, wine, and party favors, and I had clearly stated on the invitation that
the party was over at 5:30 p.m. I wasn’t judging Jim for raising his voice a little
too much or knocking back a few too many drinks in front of his kids (something
that went against my own parenting philosophy), so why should Jim judge me for
letting our kids watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown and eating a few
pieces of candy?
The incident has me reflecting on how parenting philosophies can clash and how
those differences are sometimes framed through biases. Using the lens of
in-group and out-group categorizations described in Chapter 2 of Constructive
Conflicts (p. 35), it seems Jim may have divided parents into groups based on
their shared values. To him, the “in-group” likely consisted of parents who
completely prohibit technology use for children, while I fell into the “out-group”
because I allow my son to occasionally watch TV or movies. This might have led
him to overgeneralize and assume that because I allow technology, I don’t
prioritize my child’s mental health or education. In reality, my children are deeply
loved, bright, kind, and creatively stimulated in many ways—qualities I wish all
parents would respect and support