How To De-Escalate Conflict & Build Stronger Movements

The Loving Justice Practice Skills

“Deescalate all conflict that isn’t with the enemy.” - Margaret Killjoy, “The Sky is Falling; We’ve Got This”

What do we do when we find ourselves suddenly fighting against the very people we thought we were fighting alongside? How can we help when all of a sudden, we find our beloved comrades at one another’s throats - accusing one another of terrible and irreparable harm? How can we respond when a community event erupts into a callout, or when a friend accuses us of “causing harm” because of something we’ve said; or when a community member attending a drop-in dinner angrily shatters a large glass bowl, sending jagged shards flying into the communal soup pot and demands that everyone “keep eating” (a real incident that happened at an event I facilitated)?

This article provides a short and practical application-focused overview of a set of foundational skills and frameworks for social changemakers interested in the “how” of conflict de-escalation in communities, groups, and private relationships.

The tools presented here were developed through my own training and experience as a social movement mediator and facilitator, and are themselves heavily influenced by methodologies including but not limited to: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Polyvagal-Theory informed trauma therapies (though I am not without critiques of Polyvagal Theory), Processwork and Lewis Deep Democracy, and of course, Transformative Justice. I’m grateful to all of my teachers, their lineages, and all of the wisdom streams, I have had the privilege of drinking from.

Why Is Conflict De-Escalation A Priority For Social Changemakers?

There is a growing consensus among the political Left that conflict de-escalation for the sake of strengthening our ability to effectively organize and survive the onslaught of polycrisis, social collapse, and emergent fascism is becoming an increasingly urgent priority for activists to focus on. This idea has been forwarded by several activist leaders, writers, and thinkers over the past decade, becoming an overlapping (but somewhat distinct) cultural conversation within the Left alongside the fierce debate over “cancel culture,” the latter of which is too wide-ranging and complex a topic to succinctly summarize within the scope of this piece.

Readers interested in exploring the development of these conversations may find value in frequently cited and inevitably controversial works on the topic such as Conflict Is Not Abuse by Sarah Schulman, We Will Not Cancel Us by adrienne maree brown, and the more recent Calling In: How To Start Making Change With Those You’d Rather Cancel by Loretta Ross. Some might also consider my own text, I HOPE WE CHOOSE LOVE, and similar short pieces, a part of this dialogue. Such works have significantly pushed Leftist cultural standards, making space for uncomfortable yet deeply necessary conversations about the need to embed conflict de-escalation within Leftist organizing culture.

Yet conflict de-escalation as a stated value and conflict de-escalation as a collective skill are highly distinct, as any beginning mediator in social movements quickly discovers. Many people (including me!) who wish to practice de-escalation in the abstract often find themselves in pulled reflexively into patterns of swift escalation and toxic conflict in practice. As a conflict resolution workshop trainer, I often joke that nothing is dearer to my heart than conflict de-escalation and resolution, and through years of study, I have become an expert in de-escalation and resolution…for other people. The reality is that conflict in the actual is a different beast than conflict in the imaginary. Theory and values give us the why of conflict de-escalation. Skills, techniques, and repeated practices give us the how, which is what this piece is about.

Conflict, Survival Reflexes, and Somatic Shaping

An assertion I often make in training is that when in conflict, every individual body will default to whatever instinctively feels like the most survivable response in the moment. This is true even - or perhaps especially - when that default response doesn’t make logical or emotional sense from to an external observer. This is why we often observe, for example, certain young children lashing out violently at other children when they are feeling misunderstood - which of course usually has the effect of driving the other children away, thus reinforcing the sense of being misunderstood (and yes, adults do this too, sometimes but not always in subtler ways).

Our reflexive responses to conflict in a social environment are deeply engrained, conditioned tendencies driven by the body’s nervous system, rather than the parts of the brain more responsible for complex decision-making or perspective-taking (both of which are key aspects of relationship-focused conflict resolution). In the field of somatics, this is often referred to as a “somatic shape” or as a “survival reflex.”

If you take a moment to reflect on your own habitual responses to conflict, you will probably notice that:

1) You have one or two, perhaps three, primary behavioral-emotional patterns, or conflict survival strategies that you default to.
2) Your conflict survival strategies likely assert themselves to some extent even if you are consciously trying to change or suppress them, and they likely also manifest in some ways that you are not consciously aware of.
3) Your conflict survival strategies are likely attempting to protect you from something that you deeply fear, and they have likely been shaped by significant experiences in your developmental history, as well as by your social location

The diagram above, the “Window of Transformation,” is a conflict-focused adaptation of a popular model frequently used in trauma therapy called the “Window of Tolerance,” which was developed by Drs Dan Siegel and Pat Ogden, a medical doctor and psychologist respectively. The Window of Transformation maps common conflict survival strategies that we can observe in ourselves and others. This framework and its implications will receive its own, more detailed, article in the near future - but for now, suffice it to say that we can use tools such as this one to develop more awareness of our somatic shaping (that is to say, the unconscious tendencies driven by our bodies’ survival reflexes and the influence of society) and its impact on others. Compassion and solidarity for oneself are essential aspects of developing self-awareness - our conflict survival strategies are NOT “bad” or “wrong” - they are simply adaptations that have protected us in certain aspects of our lives and perhaps also restricted us in other areas.

The relevance of this framework to conflict de-escalation is that in order to de-escalate in a sustainable way, we are often required to intentionally shift our body’s nervous system state into one where we are capable of making choices that balance meeting our own needs and affirming our own perspectives with meeting the needs and affirming the perspectives of others with whom we do not agree or by whom we feel offended. I call this nervous system state the “Window of Transformation” - that state of embodied and emotional discomfort where we are nonetheless able to integrate environmental feedback and make changes to our position in real time, without abandoning ourselves.

Doing so, of course, is an advanced emotional skill for most people, and extraordinarily difficult to do (those of us, like me, who believe ourselves to be “naturally” good at de-escalation are often actually instinctively dropping into a state of performative change, that is, people-pleasing). Yet it is a skill that can be developed and strengthened over time with practice, and there are many methodologies that can be used to do so: Many forms of meditation and spiritual development, for example, as well as psychotherapy or counselling, conflict and leadership coaching, and social technologies such as Non-Violent Communication are focused on developing some version of this capacity. Each methodology has its strengths and drawbacks, and every individual will experience them uniquely to some degree. More on this topic will follow in later pieces. For now, I leave you with this question for reflection:

What supports you to find and stretch your Window of Transformation?

Conflict De-Escalation & Triangulation

The concept of triangulation comes from systems and cybernetics theory, and it is a prominent one in many methodologies of relational change work. Many people interested in self-help literature will have encountered a particular version of this concept known as Karpman’s Drama Triangle, which refers to three commonly observed archetypes in conflict, those being the “Victim,” the “Perpetrator,” and the “Rescuer.” More generally, triangulation refers to the instinctive tendency of human beings (and perhaps mammals in general) in conflict to emit various types of cries for help, which then enlist third parties to help.

If we return to our example of groups of children, the “tattling” impulse (of some children to immediately go and tell an adult about a conflict between kids, even when those conflicts are probably resolvable without adult intervention) is a very clear example of triangulation. Here, we would say the children are directly involved in conflict, and the adult is being triangulated, or as I like to call it, “at the point of the triangle.”

The role of the person or people at the point of the triangle is of massive importance to conflict, because they have an outsized yet often hidden or downplayed amount of influence over whether the conflict is escalated or de-escalated. Think again about the example of a group of children who triangulate an adult. The adults at the point of the triangle often has the ability to decide the outcome of the conflict to a enormous degree - whether they ignore the children, tell them to “work it out on their own,” pick a side, or offer advice has a huge impact on what happens next. Yet frequently, it is the children (and often usually one so-called “problem child”) who tend to be perceived as holding responsibility for the entire situation.

The same is often true for adults in conflict with one another: Most of us find ourselves at the point of a conflict triangle fairly often in our lives, and we aren’t always aware of the power we have in that triangle. The friend complaining to us about their romantic partner is triangulating us, for example. The gossip we hear and spread (yes, we all do it!) about that “problematic” or “annoying” person in the activist volunteer group is an example of triangulation as well. Any time we are pulled into a conflict between others, we are being pulled into the point of the triangle.

Triangulation is neither inherently good nor bad: It is one of the most natural conflict-related instincts for human beings, and it serves the important function of seeking support under stress. Yet its effects within activist communities can either be greatly helpful or devastating depending on who we choose triangulate when we are in a conflict, and how we choose to respond when we are being triangulated.

In activist communities, I tend to see one of two responses as the most common response to being triangulated in a conflict:

1) The people at the point of the triangle try to suppress, ignore, or dismiss the conflict; they do not meaningfully intervene. As a result, the people in the conflict feel abandoned, or even that the community has colluded in abuse.

2) The people at the point of the triangle choose a side and then escalate the conflict, participating in harmful gossip (some gossip is helpful, but some is harmful), engaging in bullying/social shaming/ostracizing, and forcing their own projected narratives about victims and villains onto the situation. Online social shaming rituals often associated with “call out culture” and “cancel culture” often take this form of triangulation.

Why do we so often choose to respond in this way? In the first place, when we find ourselves at the point of a conflict triangle, we are often being emotionally triggered without knowing it. We are experiencing our own memories of hurtful, frightening, or traumatic conflict, and then we play out those memories through our actions - in other words, we are projecting our own emotional needs rather than responding to the needs of the people who are engaged in the present conflict in the present time. In the second, it is generally very difficult to know what to do when we are being triangulated - we want to be helpful, or we want to rescue, or we don’t want cause trouble, or we want some combination of things that contradict one another.

I was taught by Chartered Mediator and conflict expert Betty Pries to reflect on the following questions when we find ourselves at the point of the triangle: In the first place, what kind of support is the person (or people) triangulating me actually asking for? (That is, we should not assume that we know what they want or need, and it’s often helpful to explicitly ask.) And in the second, do we want to be agents of escalation? Or agents of de-escalation? In some cases, escalation may be appropriate (for example, if a landlord is exploiting a tenant and creating an emergency, escalation may be needed to restore safety to the situation). In others, de-escalation may be more appropriate. What is essential here is making a wise and informed choice based on values, as much mutual consent as possible, and a care-filled assessment of the situation.

Conflict Metaskills & Microskills

The last set of conflict de-escalation tools I will introduce in this article is the framing of metaskills and microskills, with three examples of each drawn from my framework, “The Loving Justice Practice Skills.” This set of tools is meant to be used by anyone who is working through a conflict - whether you are directly involved, or if you are triangulated. The skills can also be practiced outside of a conflict context.

The term and concept “metaskills” comes from the Processwork methodology, and was coined by one of Processwork’s founders, Amy Mindell. Mindell elaborates on this concept extensively in her book, Metaskills: The Spiritual Art of Therapy. On Arny and Amy Mindell’s website, she defines metaskills as “the feeling qualities, or attitudes that bring learned skills to life and make them useful.” We can understand a metaskill as an emotionally developed stance or orientation towards the world that is practiced and shaped over time. I often describe conflict metaskills as the “how to be” aspect of working through conflict, as opposed to the “what to do” aspect, which I describe as techniques or “microskills.”

There are three metaskills that I have found to be essential in working through conflict in social change spaces. They are:

Compassionate Curiosity: This is a stance towards the world that involves a genuine desire to know more about perspectives and ways of being that we do not yet understand, intertwined with a deep belief in the sacredness of all human beings. Compassionate curiosity is, in my experience, the most commonly referred to conflict metaskill among all the methodologies I have studied, and generally it is something we all long to receive in the midst of conflict, which makes it inherently de-escalating. Yet I commonly receive pushback to this metaskill when I teach it in activist spaces, because compassionate curiosity unchecked by other metaskills can lead to an abandonment of oneself.

Holding Multiple Truths: This is an orientation that allows us to hold paradoxes, contradictions, and polarities within conflict work, which is crucial to meaningfully working through the deepest and most painful issues that divide our world. We find this metaskill under various names in many ancient spiritual lineages - the Yin-Yang symbol in Taoism, for example, can be said to represent this capacity among other things, and we find in multiple branches Buddhism and Hinduism references to the “union of opposites.” Depth psychology, as well, asserts that “holding the tension of opposites” is a fundamental skill for psychological wellness. When I teach this metaskill in activist spaces, the most common challenge to it is that sometimes there is not space for multiple truths because it is dangerous to entertain certain perspectives. Of course, this in itself presents a paradox or polarity: We need to hold multiple truths in order to resolve conflict, but sometimes holding multiple truths is what enables the most dangerous or abusive forms of conflict. The ability to stay with tension and explore nuance with discernment is key here - more on this in future writing.

Integrity: This metaskill may be said to balance the other two, and I find that it is often the one that allows activist groups to meaningfully integrate the framework. Integrity is an orientation and practice of staying true to our values, even as we explore the perspectives of others and make space for multiple truths. Integrity what allows us to, for example, remain committed to transgender rights, even if we may find it politically important to engage in dialogue with trans-exclusionary radical feminists (which is something that I have done). Integrity, similarly, is the stance makes it possible to commit to the practice of pacifism even if one is working in partnership and solidarity with activists who take a more militant approach. Integrity is about differentiation - knowing who we are and what we stand for, where we are willing to compromise, and where we are not.

There are also three corresponding micro-skills, or basic conversational tools that I often teach alongside the Loving Justice metaskills:

Compassionate Statements are about reflecting back to others what we have heard them say - not only on the level of words, but on an emotional level. Compassionate statements show that we are not only hearing the other person, but also that we are trying to feel and understand their emotional inner world. They also show that we care about the other person. Example: I get why you’d be pissed off at me, you really needed me to follow up on that commitment I made, What you’re going through sounds really freaking painful, I hear that you don’t feel like you can trust me and it’s sad but I understand why

Curious Questions are about inviting the other person to tell us more - stretching ourselves to practice wondering and noticing what we don’t know. Curious questions are not about “grilling” or interrogating another person, they aren’t an opportunity for us to play detective or analyze another person. They are about trying to open up more possibilities within a relationship dynamic, which requires us to be humble. Examples: What would your ideal scenario be moving forward? What does it feel like I’m missing that you need me to understand? Was there anything before this fight started that I could have done differently?

Firm Boundaries are about being clear about what belongs to us and what belongs to others when it comes to beliefs, emotions, and responsibilities. Setting a firm boundary means that we decline pressure from others to give up our own reality or people-please in a conflict, it also means that decline offers from others to people-please us. Examples: I hear what you’re saying and you’re allowed to be angry with me, but I also need you to stop calling me names; I promise to listen to your side of the story and try to understand, but I can’t promise to agree with one hundred percent of your perspective; I really want to connect and talk this through, and I also want you to know that my stance on trans women being a part of feminism isn’t going to change.

Putting De-Escalation Into Practice

Becoming more skillful in conflict de-escalation is lifelong journey that requires us to do both private inner work and collective cultural work. If you are a reader who found something valuable in this article, I encourage you to take it back to your friends and comrades to discuss further. Breaking some of these concepts down with an experienced mediator or conflict facilitator can also be helpful - psychotherapists are also an obvious choice of professional to discuss this with, but I will note here as a former psychotherapist that it’s often assumed that mental health professionals have high competency in conflict resolution when this is not always true (it’s not included in most mainstream training programs). Of course, the rubber really hits the road, so to speak, in live conflicts: In those situations, do your best to remember whatever felt helpful about this article and experiment with practicing the tools a little bit at a time.

It’s also extremely important to remember that de-escalation is not always desirable in all conflict situations (though I would argue it is in most interpersonal conflicts within activist movements), and that sometimes another approach may be necessary, which is another topic to address in future pieces. Furthermore, conflict de-escalation is a limited strategy in that it relies heavily on personal and interpersonal skills - broader and more systemic interventions into conflict, harm, and abuse are also needed to develop healthy communities and conflict cultures. That said, I have found conflict de-escalation skills and ideas to be among the most transformative that I have ever encountered, and I am simultaneously in perpetual yearning to improve my skill and astounded by how profoundly they have changed my life.