Introduction
Conflict is an inevitable part of life, whether in the workplace, at home, or within society. Many of us grow up learning one primary way to handle conflict, often shaped by our environment and experiences. For me, the lessons of conflict were rooted in survival and force. Growing up in the Orange Mound community of Memphis, Tennessee—a historically rich but often turbulent neighborhood—I learned to meet opposition head-on with aggression. That mindset was reinforced by the violence of football and the tactical mentality of military training, leaving little room for peaceful resolution. This article explores how I, and many like me, have come to understand the balance between pacifism and aggression in resolving conflicts across personal, professional, and societal settings.
My Journey: From Survival to Understanding
Lessons from Orange Mound
Growing up in Orange Mound, survival wasn’t just a lesson—it was a necessity. On the streets, conflict resolution didn’t mean sitting down to talk; it meant asserting dominance or risking vulnerability. Physical force and a readiness to defend yourself were not just valued—they were essential.
Even at home, this mindset persisted. My mother’s rules were clear: “Do what I say or else.” Dialogue wasn’t an option, and the consequences of disobedience were swift and unyielding. Peaceful resolution was seen as weakness, and weakness was dangerous. This foundation shaped my perspective on conflict: force was the answer.
Football at Melrose High School
Football amplified the lessons I learned at Melrose High School, where I was a dedicated student-athlete despite my loose gang affiliations. The need to act on violence, whether through fights or melees, often stemmed from deep-seated insecurities. Growing up, my light complexion, higher grades, and intelligence—qualities I didn’t fully recognize at the time—made me a target for teasing. On top of that, I struggled with dyslexia, a stammer, and a stutter, which only heightened my vulnerability. Football became an outlet for this inner turmoil, channeling my frustrations into physicality and competition, while also reinforcing the aggressive instincts I had developed to survive and assert myself in challenging environments.
Military Training: Tactical Aggression
My military training added another layer to this aggressive framework. Here, conflict was distilled into tactics, discipline, and execution. Opposition became targets, and resolution meant eliminating threats. The stakes were often life and death, leaving no room for ambiguity or negotiation. While this training instilled resilience and clarity, it also deepened my reliance on force as the primary mode of conflict resolution (Keegan, 1993).
A Turning Point: Learning to Look from Another Angle
It wasn’t until later in life, when conflicts began to affect my relationships and professional endeavors, that I realized something was missing. My approach worked on the streets, the football field, and the battlefield—but in personal and professional settings, it often escalated situations unnecessarily or created long-term damage.
I vividly recall a moment of clarity during a heated disagreement with a colleague. My instinct was to push back, to assert my point forcefully, but something stopped me. I realized that while I could "win" the argument through sheer determination, I risked losing the respect and trust of someone I valued. For the first time, I paused and considered their perspective. That pause felt unnatural, almost uncomfortable, but it shifted the dynamic entirely. We resolved the issue not through force, but through understanding.
Debunking Myths About Pacifism and Aggression
The interplay of pacifism and aggression is often misunderstood. Several myths perpetuate the idea that one approach is inherently superior or universally applicable.
Myth 1: Pacifism Is Weakness
Many believe pacifism equates to passivity or a lack of resolve. In truth, pacifism requires immense strength, as it prioritizes dialogue and reconciliation over retaliation. Figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated that nonviolent resistance can be profoundly impactful, disrupting systemic injustice without perpetuating harm (Sharp, 2005).
Myth 2: Aggression Always Escalates Conflict
Aggression is often viewed as inherently destructive, but it can play a constructive role when applied strategically. For example, assertive communication in the workplace or direct action against oppression can lead to meaningful resolutions without escalating violence (Keegan, 1993).
Myth 3: You Must Choose One Approach
A common misconception is that pacifism and aggression are mutually exclusive. In reality, the most effective conflict resolution strategies often blend both approaches, depending on the context. This adaptability allows individuals to respond dynamically, balancing moral principles with practical needs.
Pacifism and Aggression: Tools, Not Defaults
Reflecting on my journey, I’ve come to see pacifism and aggression not as opposing philosophies but as tools to be used wisely. Force and aggression are necessary in certain contexts, but they are not universally effective. Likewise, pacifism is powerful but requires careful application to avoid being perceived as passivity.
Internal Conflicts
In moments of personal doubt, I’ve learned to temper aggression with introspection. For example, chasing ambitious goals requires assertiveness, but overanalyzing every setback can be paralyzing. Balancing these tendencies has allowed me to grow both personally and professionally.
Workplace Conflicts
In professional settings, my leadership style has shifted from dominance to dialogue. I’ve found that fostering collaboration often yields better results than imposing authority, but I remain ready to assert boundaries when necessary.
Family Conflicts
Perhaps the hardest place to change has been at home. Growing up in a household where force was the norm, it has taken conscious effort to approach disagreements with patience and empathy. Breaking that cycle has not only improved my relationships but has also set a better example for my children.
Societal Conflicts
The lessons of Orange Mound, football, and the military have not been discarded—they’ve been reframed. In societal conflicts, I see the value of both peaceful advocacy and decisive action. Movements for justice require both approaches, working in tandem to address systemic challenges.
Final Thoughts: Growth Through Reflection
My journey from the streets of Orange Mound to the structured environments of football and the military has taught me that conflict resolution is not one-size-fits-all. Force and aggression were the tools I knew, but learning to balance them with pacifism has expanded my ability to navigate challenges. It’s a lesson I wish I had learned earlier, but one that has shaped who I am today.
Historical and scholarly perspectives affirm this nuanced view. As Keegan (1993) observes in A History of Warfare, aggression has been central to human survival and progress, but it is often the cause of prolonged suffering when unchecked. Similarly, Sharp (2005) highlights the power of nonviolent action, arguing that pacifism can dismantle systems of oppression when applied strategically.
Both pacifism and aggression have their place, but the true power lies in knowing when to use each—and when to step back entirely. For those still navigating this balance, I encourage you to reflect on your experiences, consider alternative approaches, and embrace the growth that comes with understanding.
References
Keegan, J. (1993). A history of warfare. Alfred A. Knopf.
Sharp, G. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th-century practice and 21st-century potential. Extending Horizons Books.
Comments