In the first article in this series we saw how groups repress or marginalize certain kinds of behaviour, attitudes, activity that run counter to or disturb its sense of identity, ideology or values. Groups may experience significant disturbance, discomfort and tension at the boundaries or edges of their identity and interfaces with groups who have opposing identities. We also saw how leakage through secondary processes of repressed or emergent aspects of the individual’s or the group’s identity creates a troublesome information float of incomplete communications, double messages, and a potentially disturbing atmosphere, which is a continuing source of group tension - one that may build and erupt in a subtle or volatile way and disrupt the task and primary process of the group. Using the signals of secondary process to resolve and transform conflict is a core method of Processwork. In this article we explore this and other Processwork concepts that help us enhance our awareness and understanding of conflict and how to resolve it in groups.

Bargaining, negotiating, mediating and other conflict methods work when people in reasonable rational states of mind have already agreed to work on their conflict with one another. Processwork offers us a ways of working with a group when they are in turmoil, violent or when people do not want to resolve it or even talk to one another (and also when they do). Processwork demands of us a step farther than most – it asks us to awarely take our opponents side and be able to occupy a neutral witness position as well as being fully on our own side and to do all of this in an authentic and aware way. As we have already seen, awareness is the key to the Processwork approach to conflict and working on our individual edges, rank, experiences of abuse, etc. (innerwork) is core practice in developing this capacity.

Like many other approaches to conflict, feelings and how we deal with them are at the heart of Processwork. However, in Processwork attention to feeling is not just about emotion - it extends to a broader, sentient experience that is deeper, more subtle and often momentary. Awareness and processing of non-consensus reality – those real experiences we have which are subjective and not open to consensus verification, is seen as critical. Attention to proprioception, kinaesthetic, as well as auditory and visual channels and sensitivity to group atmosphere and pre-verbal/ nonverbal experience greatly extends the range and depth of awareness and the range channels for gathering information about the field level. During conflict people are often in non-ordinary or altered states of feeling - heightened states of awareness or sensitivity affected by invisible influences in the field.

It is sometimes helpful to view Processwork as a very powerful conflict tool that needs to be used when conflict is highly complex, but it is not just such a tool. Processwork can also inform how we use other conflict tools in a more sophisticated manner because of its emphasis on awareness, metaskills (e.g. beginners mind, fluidity, compassion, non-attachment), inner-work, multiple levels and frames of reference and the tracking of signals. First let us explore some further Processwork perspectives on conflict.

Conflict generators
Most conflict theories acknowledge that context is an important generator of conflict. But context can be understood at consensus, non-consensus and essence levels. At the consensus reality level there seem to be causal generators of tension such as policies, structures, economic differences, shortages of resources, etc., to which we can attribute or blame for the conflict. We seek out who started it, who is responsible, and analyse the conflict so we can sort out the problem, disagreement, or the relationship having identified the causes. However we know that this does not always work even if we have good analysts and responsible people. While this may occasionally work, it is usually impossible to work out the causes of complex conflict and resolve it in such a rational way..

At the consensus reality level we can appear to be individual and separate, but at the non-consensus reality level we are deeply entangled/ interconnected with each other. Mindell offers the metaphor of how at the surface level we may see two separate trees while underneath the earth their roots intertwine making it difficult to tell whose roots belong to whom. At the field/ non-consensus reality level there are no boundaries – it is hard to figure out who started it and who is responsible despite our tendency to personalise and blame each other for causing the conflict, whether by simple attribution or more sophisticated psychological explanation. We mind-read, assume we know the others mal-intent or that they were trying to deceive us. None of this is verifiable – it is non-consensus reality - but we try to give it the status of consensus reality to strengthen our claim rather than acknowledge its subjectivity. Mixing up consensus and non-consensus reality levels can be highly troublesome and escalatory.

This non-consensus level entanglement is difficult for the empirical, sensory, causally oriented mind to understand. We are so driven by psychological notions of individuality and separateness that we marginalize or minimise our connectedness. But we cannot address conflict effectively without recourse to our connectedness albeit that we can only experience this connectedness in a subjective non-consensual sort of way. Mindell suggests, for example, that we would not be getting into conflict with another if part of us did not agree, at least partially, with our opponent’s point of view. So to explain what creates tensions or conflict in group, Processwork draws on metaphors from physics, shamanism, Taoism, that extend our understanding of context and illuminate interconnectedness in ways that run counter to much popular psychological understanding.

Such theories orient us to more complex and difficult to pin down conflict generators - the subjective non-consensus, dreamlike experiences of culture, group atmosphere, which we must access through our feelings, sentient experiences and dreams. One might say that they experienced a certain person as “aggressive and belligerent” while another might say “Oh that is strange… I did not experience her like that at all.” In rational consensus reality, either one or the other must be untrue, but in non-consensus level of reality, both are recognised as real experiences even though they appear to contradict each other. If we do not accept the paradoxical and seemingly contradictory nature of non-consensual reality, conflict becomes more difficult to understand and resolve. Mindell suggests the need for both psychological and shamanic/ quantum physics perspectives to deal successfully with the complexity of our conflicts.

Many conflicts are fuelled by projection (psychological explanation) i.e. when an individual or group gets stuck at an identity edge/ point of resistance and projects its negative disavowed attributes on to another. Becoming conscious of and taking responsibility for our disowned parts and so withdrawing our projections can help us resolve much conflict rapidly. However, once cleared, the polarisation often seems to recur/recapitulate itself, so the psychological approach of working with and withdrawing projection, though helpful, may only provide temporary resolution.

Processwork also views conflict as the field differentiating and trying to express itself (physics/ shamanic explanation) – it is as if parts of a field/ dreamlike experience - roles/timespirits (suggesting German “zeitgeist”/ spirits of the times/ strange attractors in physics) try to confront, conflict with and get to know each other – i.e. individuals are being used by the field as channels rather than creating the field by their differences and actions. Fields create atmospheres that polarise and seem to compel individuals within the group to occupy roles, at least temporarily, if not for more lengthy periods. e.g. falling in love, fanatical behaviour, isms, or ideological sub-groupings which support, conflict or interfere with the group’s consensus reality boundaries, group norms or primary processes.

There are similarities here between the projection and field experiences in the sense that boundaries between individuals and groups become unclear and entangled but the explanations and approach to resolving them are different – both psychological and field approaches complement each other. Sometimes it is as if the group conflict is being played out within the individual and their dreams, while at other times the individual seems to play a role in the group conflict or appears to be causing the conflict.

The field as a source of conflict
Fields are troubled and polarised by time spirits and any group conflict can be seen as arising from tension between roles/ timespirits. E.g. polarities such as insiders outsiders; men women, followers leaders, bosses workers, villains and heroes and so on. Roles may appear in reaction to others or identified in patterns of behaviour exhibited by members. Ghost roles are roles that appear in speech or an atmosphere but are not directly represented in the group. Such roles/timespirits may overlap with social roles but they usually have archetypal or super-human qualities that are more transpersonal or larger than life. These roles or energies are universal and to be found in the great stories and myths across all cultures and locations. Every village has its Don Juan, its bully, victim, wild child, or at least those who temporarily occupy these roles.

At the field/ dream level we can encounter subjectively felt timespirits that draw us together or set us in conflict. For example we may feel the pressure of cultural tradition or perhaps constraining values pull us in one direction while another set of values attract us toward a more liberating lifestyle. If certain individuals become identified or stereotyped in these polarised roles they may get stuck in them, personalise the conflict, begin to treat each other badly and blame each other for the hurt inflicted. Here it is helpful to ask what role is in conflict with what rather than who is in conflict with whom i.e. to take a field perspective and identify and fill the roles.

If group members can step outside these roles to a more neutral/observer position they may be able to see how they have been polarised by the field that the culture is trying to resolve. They may thus see each other as less personally to blame, have more compassion for each other and connect with each other by realising how painful it is regardless which pole you happen to occupy. Such empathy and compassion is enhanced by consciously switching roles. Opponents also recover connection with disavowed parts of themselves by going over these edges. In this way the conflict often dissolves or is enacted in a more conscious and compassionate way that honours or transforms all sides.

When in conflict we are generally more susceptible to being polarised by timespirits/ field roles. Roles are like whirlpools and vortices – they can suck in individuals who may loose consciousness of their individual identity and become unconsciously identified with the role or timespirit. When rapt in the emotions of that timespirit/ role, we are in kinds of altered states e.g. inflated, moody or depressed states, anger, jealousy, love, melancholy, etc. We may seem possessed or overwhelmed by them – unable to shake them off or appear to be controlled by them. In these “altered” states we may behave in ways that are out of character with how others and we “normally” experience us. We may need encouragement to explore the state and the role, and help to disidentify from it and realise it is but one of the roles we as an individual/ group member can choose to occupy.

Consciously identifying with/ playing the roles, even temporarily, has transformative potential. We may expand our identity, improve our relationship capacity and our range of behavioural choices – perhaps all three. E.g. what appears on the surface (consensus reality) to be an oppressive role e.g. an authoritarian teacher may turn out to be deeply compassionate in essence while a morally upright role may turnout to be tyrannical when processed. Timespirits and roles have the ability to transform when we deeply engage with them and in so doing can transform our perceptions, beliefs and attitudes through our engagement in the process. Sometimes the role we find despicable seems to transform when we discover its essence while at other times we find the energy or quality of the rejected role is just what we need to exercise more to resolve our relationship difficulty.

We may fear some roles and we often identify the people who fill them with the role as bad or evil and think of them as nothing but the role and incapable of change. But we must not reduce the individual to the role they are playing. We need to remind ourselves they are bigger than the role, often only occupy it temporarily and have the capacity to embody/channel many different timespirits/ occupy many different roles. These roles or transpersonal energies can be allies or create trouble for us, help us transform or imprison us. Our aware experience and conscious enactment of their energies is key to the outcome of our/their conflicts. As we delve into the sentient experience of field/ dream level we often find unexpected unity – the essence level of experience and accompanying resolution or dissolution of polarities

Fields tend to balance – turbulence will be followed by equilibrium and again by turbulence and so on. We need to trust this cyclical process and help it out. The field may find balance by the destruction of one side or the whole but if we help the different parts/roles to become aware of and relate/speak to each other it helps them evolve and grow. Ghosts roles – implied in the language of participants but not present, or experienced as background feelings in the atmosphere contempt, jealousy, envy, love, need to be identified and brought to awareness or they will disturb or possibly destroy the group.

Incongruity and double messages
Mindell says “Incongruity is the mother of tension and conflict; it is a sign of the system balancing itself.” Incongruence is the sending of two conflicting messages simultaneously - double messages. Our reluctance as individuals or groups to admit to this double signalling, or at least one part of the double message, triggers or escalates many conflict dynamics. We identify with one but marginalize and resist awareness of the other because we would have to acknowledge disowned parts of our identity that disturb our self image and the way we prefer to be seen. We identify with the primary process but not with the secondary one. So too, groups polarise into favourites and the black sheep, the insiders and the outsiders, the high ranking and the low ranking. Even speaking about such polarisation may be very troubling for the group so pretence of unity is often underpinned by hidden tensions that build up, erupt into open conflict and engulf the group when not acknowledged and processed.

Groups resist looking at their incongruities as it might mean owning disavowed parts, having to change or allow other parts exist. Groups have edges and rules that promote some kinds of behaviour and forbid others. Such groups may become incongruent, rigid or lifeless or might be polite and tolerant on the surface but not really relating behind the mask of seemingly good behaviour. Real energy may be outside the group in the form of gossip, complaining etc. Some identify with the rule makers others align with the rule breakers, others give double messages – a potent cocktail for conflict. Group conflict can be seen as stuckness or rigidity and introducing fluidity back into the system through working with awareness, edges, and role switching helps get the group moving again.

Conflicts in the group often surface as hotspots. E.g. when people speak freely or spontaneously express themselves through a role there can be a reaction of intense discomfort, frozenness or volatility. These represent the surfacing of conflict and offer opportunities for change, resolution or transformation if awarely processed. They are often felt as bodily reactions and can be subtle at first and easily missed. However, they tend to recycle and escalate if members fail to acknowledge and address them. Sometimes hotspots cannot be dealt with in the moment so framing/ acknowledging what happened can allow the group to proceed temporarily.

The group in attempting to deal with such polarisation has to get over a number of barriers or edges –firstly to allow awareness of such polarisation to surface, secondly to see it as significant and thirdly to take action and do something about it. To do so the group requires a meta-communicator, facilitator or elder who can identify with and support all sides. The elder needs to be able to side with the insiders and the outsiders, with the repressive forces and with the rebellious ones while also being able to disidentify from all in favour of the whole.

Rank and conflict
Rank is often associated with position in a hierarchy such as military rank, organisational or social rank. High rank is usually associated with power, privilege, and confidence, while low rank is often associated with a sense of insignificance, low influence, having difficulty in standing up for oneself, and so on. However, rank can also be psychological, spiritual, economic, or physical as well as those kinds of rank already mentioned. There is often one or more unspoken pecking order in group situations. We tend to be more aware of the rank we do not have rather than the rank we do have which often results in misuse or abuse of the power that goes with it.

Unconsciousness of rank, or misuse of it, is a continuing source of conflict in groups. When people with high rank are confronted with unconscious or disowned rank or obliviousness of the impact of their rank on others they are often bewildered, confused, hurt or angry and will often react with denial. Since their health, wealth, skin colour is not intentional it does enter their awareness that they reflect “rank” and they cannot see how they can be held responsible for something they did not do. Such lack of rank awareness and its impact can violate or provoke violence in those who feel powerless or marginalized by it. Lack of awareness of rank and its impact tends to disrupt group functioning and may draw attack, revenge or retaliation from those who see themselves as victims of such misuse.

Rank, though often abused in groups, it is not inherently bad nor is abuse of it inevitable. All of us have some kind of rank whether we are aware of it or not. Rank is often inherited, or acquired by virtue of the social, economic, ethnic, educational legacy of our forebears or geographical location – the luck of the draw – the circumstances into which we are born, more than by dint of our own efforts. For example, a good address or geographical location can significantly help your chances of getting a good job. As a result we are often unconscious of such rank and privilege, unless of course you happen to live in an area with a reputation for deprivation and criminality. These affect our status in the group.

Typically, when we are unconscious of our high rank, we have the luxury or privilege of being able to ignore or dismiss the concerns of others – it is not my problem – the outcome does not affect us. We exude an air of detachment, objectivity and coolness as if above it all or unaffected by the issues at stake. We often judge those of lower rank as being irrational, hot-headed and incoherent if not unbalanced, abnormal or lacking in some way. We demand that the person of lower rank control themselves, speak calmly and explain themselves in language that we can understand. We demand that they be like us and cannot understand why they do not take responsibility for the plight in which they find themselves. After all we work hard so why can’t they just stop complaining and get on with it!

High rank often arises from membership of the dominant or majority culture or grouping e.g. typically white, educated, healthy, wealthy, and so on. As such, rank is a subtle state of mind, attitude or belief that is often unarticulated, or indirectly stated in the language we use, the clothes we wear or where we live. It is also a subconscious sense of how we feel about ourselves reflected in our sense of self-esteem and confidence that is linked to membership of the mainstream culture. What does not belong to this dominant identity is seen as abnormal, marginalized and of less value. Having the privileges of the dominant group we often forget the pain and the problems of being excluded or marginalized.

Unconsciousness of rank appears in unintended or double messages or signals and double signals are hard to defend against, as they are subtle, submerged, unarticulated and indirect. Such unconscious signals tend to trigger unconscious retaliatory responses and escalating cycles of attack and defence. Surfacing them to consciousness, clarifying and taking ownership of them is often the key to unlocking many relationship difficulties and conflicts. We need to be alert for such double messages if we are to pre-empt potentially destructive escalation.

The mindset of lower rank is one of defensiveness – fight, flight, play dead. When in this state, we are usually so focused on, and agitated by, the person of higher rank and/or so submerged in our own sense of inferiority, powerlessness or victim-hood that we forget to remind ourselves of our own rank. We often project our own power on to the person of higher rank, rendering the power imbalance even more daunting or threatening. In the moment, we may feel so angry or fearful that we cannot speak and come across as inarticulate or appear stupid.

Deep democracy is seen as the antidote to abuse of rank. It entails accepting the simultaneous importance of all voices and roles and levels of experience. It opens the path to Eldership – a role and stance that supports all parts and helps us deal with conflict though paradoxically, often experienced as a source of conflict it self for that very reason. (for further exploration of rank see Vol. 2 No. 12)