Amanda Ripley's "High Conflict"

The cover of "High Conflict" bears a knot of tangled barbed wire, an evocative metaphor for intractable conflict. I was drawn to the book because of the conflict that has fully ensnared politics in the United States. In that case, powerful people have found ways to thrive within a conflict that is increasingly generating its own momentum. Like all high conflicts, this one is a self-destructive spiral that will eventually degrade our quality of life. What can be done to untangle the knot?  How have similar conflicts around the world been unwound and what lessons were learned?

Politics aside, Ripley defines “high conflict” in contrast to healthy conflict, which is a normal and necessary part of life. High conflict doesn’t lead anywhere and hurts all involved. In a failed marriage, high conflict can lead to a costly fight over a small item whose value is dwarfed by the funds required to sustain the legal battle over it (Ripley provides a real example involving a crockpot). In a community, it can mean ostracization from close neighbors and stagnating progress on issues that affect everybody. Gang violence might be the purest distillation of high conflict, with rival groups responding to arbitrary signals and defending a stretch of sidewalk with deadly violence. At the national level, high conflict has resulted in systemic violence on the most brutal scale.

Ripley describes the “fire starters” that ignite and sustain high conflict. They are: 

• Group identities

  Humans are wired to form groups, even based on random or arbitrary factors. Groups simplify regular interactions, help us build almost instant connections with others, and give us meaning. But some of the benefits of group identity can also fuel high conflict. For example, groups develop identifiers (bumper stickers, yard signs, the way you wear your hat) that make targeting members of the opposing group easier. Groups also provide abundant targets for retaliation as individual members become indistinguishable in the eyes of their opponents. Social media supercharges the negative externalities of group identity because it accelerates the speed of interaction, is omnipresent (no time for de-escalation), and forces all participants to be mostly reactive.  

• Conflict entrepreneurs

  Every high conflict involves people who almost gleefully stoke discord. Unfortunately, these figures are often central to a group’s identity (the friend with the best gossip, the politician skilled at “owning” the other side). 

• Humiliation

  The psychologist Evelin Lindner wrote that humiliation is “the nuclear bomb of emotions.” Humiliation leads to hatred and a fixed, incurious view of the opposition. Humiliation even factors heavily into international relations, where it has fueled many violent conflicts. 

• Corruption

  When key guardrails of public society—such as government—are eroded by conflict, those in conflict seek their own justice, escalating and deepening conflict. 

Ripley offers ways to recognize high conflict and describes strategies for mitigating it. In politics, systems that provide space for coalitions to flex and shift are less susceptible to high conflict. Binary thinking is at the heart of high conflict. The two-party system and plurality elections in the United States force us to make binary choices when deciding who to vote for. Unfortunately, the polarizing event of a months-long (years-long?) election makes governing, with its demand for compromise and cooperation, almost impossible.

Although the structure of our political system is probably impossible to change quickly, there are some ways to tamp down the conflict. Referenda and ballot measures (like the one that led to Brexit) should be avoided because they have a way of destroying nuance and inflaming conflict. Ranked-choice voting and proportional representation could slow the “doom loop” that has subsumed American politics (there are good organizations working on this). Finally, we should support politicians who are not only “moderate,” but who find ways to communicate without using fire-starter language. This can be a tall order when such speech is algorithmically boosted online. 

Those who have worked to resolve high conflict emphasize the power of communication (especially active listening or "looping"). Participants must demonstrate a real attempt to listen to and understand the opposing side. It can be especially useful to uncover the “understory” beneath a conflict. Deep-seated pain or insecurity often fuels high conflict and might be totally obscured by unrelated demands or arguments. 

When communicating about politics, it may take special effort to be heard and understood by members of the other group. For example, Jonathan Haidt has written about six moral foundations and how those who identify with different political parties tend to respond to them. Liberals respond best when arguments are framed around care, fairness, and liberty. Conservatives focus more on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Tailoring the message, and using looping when receiving the response, can lead to a more productive dialogue.  

In personal relationships and local conflicts, simply avoiding conflict entrepreneurs can go a long way. Creating distance and slowing down interactions (avoiding social media) can also be helpful. Unfortunately, some high conflicts take years to unravel with lots of stops and starts. A “saturation point,” when the misery the conflict causes becomes intolerable, is often necessary to chart a path out of conflict. 

"High Conflict" is one of the most interesting and useful books I have read recently. Ripley’s thoughtful descriptions of high conflict and its consequences are peppered with a rich variety of real stories of conflict from around the world. These include gang warfare in Chicago, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the FARC conflict in Colombia, local politics in a small Californian town, and the left-right divide in the United States. I especially enjoyed her fascinating descriptions of the conflicts that develop between astronauts and ground control during NASA missions. The humanity of the characters embroiled in these conflicts is captured through frequent vignettes. She uses this growing bank of real examples to illustrate characteristics of high conflict and remedies for those who are caught in it.

Above all else, I found this book to be practical. A short appendix includes a summary of the characteristics of high conflict—equally applicable in a marriage or a national political debate. Ripley’s descriptions of resolutions to brutal conflicts of the past are sobering but also inspiring. Practically, this book has led me to notice the language of high conflict in political discussions with people in my social circle. It may also help me to recognize and diffuse conflict in my classroom or among my colleagues. "High Conflict" is an easy and engaging read that I would highly recommend to anyone who feels stuck in conflict.