On Conflicts

In today’s fast-paced life, marked by unending EMIs, prolonged work hours, long commutes, and the piling up of mental and emotional load without any effective safety valves, there has been a quiet but profound shift in Indian households. Many have gradually turned into battle zones.

Add to this the presence of multiple egos, now developing even in toddlers, and homes begin to resemble low-intensity conflict zones where sudden flare-ups occur without warning. Home increasingly becomes just an apartment where one eats, sleeps and bathes, rather than an actual refuge from the world.

Home stops being a refuge,
and quietly turns into a conflict zone.

Why conflicts persist

Reducing conflict is conceptually simple, but never easy. The steps are straightforward; the execution is not. The central question remains unchanged.

Who will step back first?
Who will soften their stance?
And in a sense, who will accept defeat?

We live in an era of sharply defined identities. Most individuals actively define themselves, slot themselves into types and then strongly defend these manufactured identities. Personality traits, in that sense, are relatively stable.

However, behavioral responses, meaning how we respond to specific situations or individuals, are not set in stone. While personality is not very easy to change, responses are trainable, provided one is willing to tolerate the discomfort of changing long-established ways of reacting.

The real resistance to change comes from the fear of appearing weak. Flexibility is often mistaken for surrender. Tolerance is equated with defeat. This fear prevents individuals from modifying their thinking, regulating their reactions, and displaying even minimal adaptive behavior.

The expectation silently shifts to one belief:
change must come from the other side.

The overlooked regulator

Life, of course, is not black and white, though it is far more dark grey than off-white. Situations, the people involved, their emotional states, and accumulated fatigue all shape our responses.

Yet we do possess a powerful, though minimally utilised, weapon that can prevent escalation. This weapon is the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s inhibitory control centre, tasked with restraining one’s impulses, moderating emotions, and introducing perspective.

Unfortunately, during emotionally charged moments, limbic impulses, governed by the limbic system, frequently overwhelm this regulatory mechanism with stronger emotions and seize control.

What then can be done?

Before an action plan or verbal response is materialised, or before it escapes unfiltered, try running it in your mind like a dress rehearsal.

In interpersonal conflicts, especially spousal ones, words often pour out in a flood, aptly described as verbal diarrhoea. In such moments, the listener is rarely able to grasp intent. Attention shifts from what is being said to how it is being delivered.

Style begins to dominate content, aided by heightened emotional overload and pre-existing mindsets. Meaning is lost, tone takes over, and damage accumulates.

Only after weighing both costs should a decision be made.

Admittedly, performing this exercise during peak emotional arousal is extraordinarily difficult. This is where pre-commitment becomes crucial.

Pre-commitment involves deciding in advance how you will behave when triggered and accordingly setting rules for yourself before emotions hijack reasoning. When such pre-decisions exist, restraint requires less willpower and, because it is premeditated, does not feel like surrender.

And sometimes, even before a decision is reached,
the conflict dissolves on its own.

Not because it was cleverly resolved, but because of the long, pregnant pause taken to think. That pause allows physiological arousal to settle, emotional momentum to break, and perspective to slowly return.

Often, that pause itself is more than enough, far more effective than any mental gymnastics involved.

© Shashikant Dudhgaonkar