Definition of Ideational Conflict
Ideational conflict is a disarmingly simple phrase. It refers to a form of constructive conflict that deals exclusively with ideas. Its purpose is to use reason to come to rational conclusions through civil debate and discussion.
Other People Are Reading
-
History
-
In the modern world, political democracy and republicanism have been based largely on the importance of ideational conflict. The argument, made by J.S. Mill and many others, is that political decisions can only be just if the whole community can engage in debate. This means that ideational conflict, the debate over ideas, is central to justice and political freedom.
Features
-
The main feature is the one ideational conflict has exclusively: the debate over ideas. When personal attacks begin masquerading as "social ideas," ideational conflict ceases to exist. Ideational conflict is a constructive form of conflict, since all views are heard and some consensus can come about through the debate itself.
-
Function
-
Ideational conflict, which is another name for a "debate" over important ideas, is a means for a group to come to a conclusion about a socially important concept or decision. The civic virtue of a society must be maintained. This means that while debate can get heated, the bonds among members of the group cannot be harmed in any way. A balance must be struck between vigorous debate and the social bonds that bring people to debate in the first place. Debate would not take place if the people involved cared little about what happens to the community.
Benefits
-
This kind of conflict is essentially constructive. It permits all points of view to be heard, leaving no one, or no specific idea, out of consideration. Even if one loses the debate, at the very least, the losing side realizes their voices have been heard. It brings the whole community into the discussion, bringing all levels of expertise on various facets of the idea under debate.
Problems
-
Groupthink is when the community shares opinions because they are popular. This stifles debate, and often comes into action when members of the group are friends and wish to avoid any serious debate that may disrupt that. The opposite extreme is when the group is fractured through the intensity of ideational conflict and debate ceases, replaced by other methods such as armed force. The significance of this is clear: ideational conflict is necessary for civic life and social freedom. When ideational conflict does not exist, it is because people do not care, they do not think anyone will listen to them, they are afraid or they do not want to "rock the boat." None of this fits into a free, civic-minded community.
-
