Conflict

Definition

Conflict is a collision of incompatible directions of action pursued by subjects, in which the realization of one direction obstructs the realization of another.

Three elements are important in this definition.

1. There are at least two directions of action. They may belong to two people, groups, organizations, or even to one subject if incompatible intentions coexist within them.
2. They are incompatible. This is not merely a difference. Two people can want different things without being in conflict at all. Conflict arises where differences intersect so that one action restricts another.
3. There is a collision in the reality of action. For example:
4. one subject wants to release on September 5, while the security team demands that it not be released without testing;
5. two managers demand that one developer complete two tasks simultaneously, each requiring their full capacity;
6. one subject attempts to control a resource that another subject simultaneously wants to control.

Sequence: Distinction → Direction → Incompatibility → Collision → Conflict

Rather than beginning with the everyday idea of “conflict between people,” it is useful to move one level deeper:

distinction → direction → incompatibility → collision → conflict

Three different phenomena are distinguished here:

• incompatibility is a relation between possibilities or directions;
• collision is an operation or event;
• conflict is the structure of interaction that arises when a subject distinguishes a collision as mutual obstruction between directions.

Example: two cars may have incompatible trajectories, but while they are far apart there is only incompatibility between trajectories. When both follow those trajectories within the same space, a collision occurs: an event. It becomes a conflict only when a subject distinguishes the directions and their mutual obstruction.

Etymology supports this construction: the Latin conflictus derives from confligere, meaning “to strike together, to collide.” The operation of collision is already contained within the word “conflict.”

Therefore, if a basic word is needed specifically for the operation, it is collision, while conflict is what arises from collision:

conflict is a relation or structure arising from the collision of incompatible directions of action.

A second consistent option is also possible: to treat conflict as the operation itself:

to conflict = to act in such a way that realizing one direction obstructs realizing another.

In that case, the noun “conflict” designates an instance of this operation.

Difference, Contradiction, Conflict

Three levels that should not be conflated:

Difference

A wants X, B wants Y.

Contradiction

X and Y cannot simultaneously be true or realized within the given construction.

Conflict

subjects begin acting from incompatible positions, and the action of one becomes an obstacle to the other.

Example:

Vasya believes the architecture should be rewritten. Petya believes it should not be rewritten.

This is still a disagreement. But:

Vasya begins rewriting the system, while Petya blocks his pull request and demands that the old architecture be retained.

Now there is conflict, because mutually obstructing actions have appeared.

Conflict Does Not Necessarily Involve Emotions

Conflict is a state of interaction in which the actions of subjects directed toward achieving their goals mutually restrict or exclude one another.

It follows from this definition that conflict does not necessarily involve emotions. One can be in conflict while remaining entirely calm.

Example: the Product Owner demands that a feature be released today, while the Security Officer prohibits release until a critical vulnerability has been fixed. They may be exceptionally polite. The conflict still exists because the two demands cannot be fulfilled simultaneously.

Conversely, people may shout at each other, but if their directions of action are compatible, this may be an emotional clash, argument, or dislike; there may be no structural conflict.

Structure of Conflict

Subject A → goal A → action A
Subject B → goal B → action B

action A ⟂ action B

The key element of conflict lies not in the difference between subjects, or even in the difference between their goals, but in the incompatibility of realizing their directions of action.

Collision Is an Event; Conflict Is a Layer of Distinction Above the Event

We see two processes moving toward each other and intersecting. In itself, this is a collision, an event in the sense of distinction and event: it was this way -> it became otherwise. There is no conflict within the collision itself.

For conflict to arise, a subject must perform at least three acts of distinction upon the event:

1. distinguish the first process as directed;
2. distinguish the second process as directed;
3. distinguish their incompatibility: realizing one obstructs realizing the other.

what is happening (no distinction)  — processes simply unfold
  + distinction of the event        = event (collision)
  + distinction of directions       = directed actions
  + distinction of incompatibility  = conflict

Thus, the same event allows different readings:

• an external observer may believe everything was intended: a planned intersection of routes, an agreed maneuver, a routine interaction. For that observer there is no conflict;
• a participant who distinguishes “my direction has been blocked” encounters a conflict;
• both participants, having agreed upon the incompatibility in advance, transform the collision into coordination.

Limit Case: There Is No Distinguishing Subject at All

If there are no observers, the event simply happens. In the early Universe, clouds of dust moving along different trajectories collide and form a planet. This is not conflict, not because “nobody suffered morally,” but because the elements of the construction are absent from what is happening: there is no subject, no directions of action, and no identification of an obstacle. In physics, it is simply an interaction of masses. Moreover, what would appear as an “obstacle” within a conflict framework is here the mechanism by which a planet is built.

Strictly speaking, even the word “collision” in this description is already our retrospective category. There is no event called “collision” within the process itself; there is an unfolding of physics that we subsequently distinguish as an event. Similarly, direction is not an intrinsic property of the process but the result of distinction: dust has trajectories, but not directed actions, because action presupposes a subject.

Two consequences follow.

Conflict can exist without collision. If incompatible directions have already been distinguished, conflict can exist before and even without physical intersection: the parties act in ways that block one another without ever meeting.

Collision can occur without conflict. The intersection of processes without a distinction of directions and incompatibility is simply an event. Conflict does not “reside inside” collision; it is produced through acts of distinction upon the event.

This does not mean that conflict is “illusory” or “subjective” in the weak sense. Once directions have been distinguished and actions unfold, the obstruction is real. But its location is not in the event; it is in the structure of interaction between directed actions that the subject has constructed over the event.

Where Incompatibility Resides: Types of Conflict

For management purposes, it is useful to distinguish:

conflict of goals ≠ conflict of requirements ≠ conflict of resources ≠ conflict of authority ≠ interpersonal conflict

They share a structure, but incompatibility arises in different places:

• conflict of goals: the goals themselves cannot be realized simultaneously;
• conflict of requirements: one subject faces mutually exclusive demands;
• conflict of resources: the goals are compatible, but they require the same limited resource;
• conflict of authority: it is unclear who decides, and decisions mutually obstruct one another;
• interpersonal conflict: incompatibility is attributed to the subjects themselves, often without structural incompatibility between actions.

The practical consequence is that resolving a conflict begins not with “who is to blame?” but with “where exactly does the incompatibility lie?” A requirements conflict can be removed by changing authority, a resource conflict by changing goals, and a goals conflict by separating the directions of action.

Connection to Other Documents

• What Distinction Is: distinction precedes processing; conflict is assembled from acts of distinction performed upon the collision-event.
• What an Event Is: collision is the input object of distinction, not an explanation; conflict is already a layer of interpretation and fixation of directions.
• Smoothing: conflict is not a “malfunction,” but a mechanism through which a new distinction is born. Smoothing is an operation of the opposite type: it erases boundaries and relieves tension. These are tools, not ideological camps; the problem arises when the mode of stabilization attempts to occupy the place of the mode that produces the new.
• The Main Reason for Conflict: disagreement is a mismatch between maps of distinctions, and conflict intensifies not because of difference itself, but because of an attempt to declare another person’s map of perception invalid. Erasing distinctions instead of comparing them is a separate mechanism of escalation.
• The Locality of Form Removes the Imperative of Expansion: the distinction between conflict of interests (a particular resource, territory, decision) and conflict of existence (“either our world or yours”). The former is compatible with the coexistence of forms; the latter is an ontological war arising from substituting a local form for reality as such.
• Managed Reconciliation Without Acknowledgment of Responsibility: how a system absorbs conflict, shifting it from the domain of establishing culpability into “constructive settlement”: there was conflict, now there is no conflict, and the question of responsibility has dissolved.
• Humanism: it is not consciousnesses as such that collide, but local forms constructed by subjects under particular conditions. Conflict arises where such forms overlap as incompatible elements. This agrees with the definition above: incompatibility belongs to directions of action, not to subjects as such.