The Art of Necessary Conflict

Our topic for our next meeting is reflecting on Conflict, a concept we are all familiar with and most of us will associate with negative emotions and experiences. It is safe to say that most of us have learnt to avoid conflict, often at all costs. Conflict is seen as something unnecessary, risky and hurtful and those who act out conflict are often considered maladapted, selfish or even mean. In our discussion we should ask, if that is a true validation of conflict or could it be, that conflict is beneficial, even necessary?

Before sharing a written reflection on the topic, here the basic definition of the conflict first: “An extended struggle, fight, or disagreement, often driven by different opinions, goals, or needs. A natural, often unavoidable, disagreement or clash between parties arising from opposing interests, values, or actions.”

Here is a text I have enjoyed reading on the “Philo Thoughts” website some time ago, which I post here as a piece of an open publication. I simply cannot explain or express thoughts about this topic any better than this:

“We are often taught that maturity means agreement, that wisdom shows itself through calm consensus, and that the highest social virtue is the ability to smooth things over. “Let’s agree to disagree” has become a moral badge, a way to signal tolerance, balance, and emotional intelligence. And sometimes, it truly is. But just as often, it is a polite way of avoiding something essential.

Not all disagreement is destructive. Some forms of conflict are not a failure of connection but a deeper expression of it. To argue seriously with someone is to take them seriously. It is to believe that what they think matters enough to be challenged, and that what you think matters enough to be defended. When disagreement disappears entirely, something human often disappears with it.

There is a kind of grit to meaningful conflict, what could be called a noble survival instinct. It is not about domination or winning at all costs, but about staying alive intellectually and morally. Through friction, ideas are tested, sharpened, sometimes broken and rebuilt. Without resistance, beliefs grow soft. Without challenge, convictions decay into habits.

Modern culture often treats polemics as inherently toxic. We are encouraged to keep things pleasant, to avoid tension, to disengage at the first sign of discomfort. But this constant retreat can leave us strangely lonely. We coexist without truly meeting one another. We nod, we tolerate, but we do not wrestle with what actually matters.

Productive disagreement is a form of intimacy. It requires courage, restraint, and respect. It asks us to stay present when it would be easier to withdraw, to listen even while pushing back, to risk being disliked in service of something more honest. In this sense, conflict can become a shared labour, a joint effort to approach truth rather than a battle to assert ego.

Of course, not every argument is worth having. Some conflicts are empty, fuelled by pride or performance. But avoiding all disagreement is no virtue either. There are moments when harmony is not peace but silence, and when politeness becomes a way of abandoning what we actually believe.

The challenge is not to seek conflict for its own sake, but to recover our tolerance for it when it is necessary. To remember that growth often arrives through friction, and that some of the most meaningful human connections are forged not through agreement, but through the willingness to stand firm, listen closely, and remain engaged even when it would be easier to walk away.

How do you decide when disagreement is something to avoid and when it is something worth enduring in order to grow?” (End of citation)

So, let’s discuss, do we agree with these points, which are mostly in favour to face conflicts, rather than avoid them, although in a civilised, courteous discourse.

What are the benefits of conflict and debate and what happens when we avoid them? What are our experiences and what are our expectations on either way of dealing with conflict? Could relationships generally benefit from a better way to solve and address conflict and how would this affect political and social discourse, where conflict is built into the fabric of cultures, societies and nations? Let’s discuss…