A way with worlds: 30 - Cycles of Conflict

When writing of conflicts, it's too easy to break things into good guys and bad guys. I can point to any number of historical events - or, sadly, as of this writing, current events, where it's very difficult to do so.

What is odd in writing conflicts is that, when we stand back, the good guys and bad guys may not be obvious, yet it seems rather obvious to those in a conflict who the good guys and bad guys are. As authors, however, we fall into the good guys/bad guys dichotomy too easily.

Back in college (years ago), I read a book called Maps of the Mind by Charles Hampden-Turner, an attempt to examine various theories of psychology and philosophy and how they may back each other up. Part of it dealt with conflicts, and influenced both my views of writing and of life. I'm going to attempt to summarize the basic idea here.

THE BALANCED MIND:
The human mind is a self-balancing, self-correcting system; we learn, adapt, grow, and change. We learn not to stick our hands in the fire, we learn that a person is not as we thought they were and remember it.

Our value system, our way of interpreting information and determining reactions, is also part of this self-correction. We may encounter an ethically questionable situation, but we can usually interpret, adapt, and learn. The system survives as no one part of it unbalances the others, and so all parts of our value system exist harmoniously, more or less. Think of it almost like a wheel, turning smoothly.

Now, what happens if part of that wheel becomes unbalanced . . .

UNBALANCING:
Sometimes (all too often) our self-correcting value system gets disrupted, and some part of it, some idea becomes dominant in the value system. Suddenly, the smoothly-functioning self-balancing system becomes co-opted to support that one idea.

It could be a racial stereotype. It could be greed. It could be fear or ego. It could be a benevolent idea. But, suddenly, one idea dominates the others and becomes obsession. The rest of the value system starts supporting it, and suddenly the balance is lost.

Then, the system spins out of control. It is no longer balanced. Love becomes obsession, fear becomes utter paranoia, minor differences become exacerbated into genocidal rage.

One idea has become prominent over the entire system of thought.

OUT OF CONTROL:
The system is slowly falling apart, like an unbalanced wheel fluctuating on its axle. It may correct itself.

Or, it may get worse.

Other values get co-opted to support the obsession, and soon there are more gaps in the ethics. So more values are co-opted. The entire system of thought is vainly trying to fix itself, not by balancing ideas and thoughts and ethics, but running around trying to explain everything, each explanation requiring more grandiose meta-explanations.

An enemy becomes a threat of epic proportions. A great war is launched. Innocent people are slaughtered. Slautghter is justified by superiority (or God, or Darwin, or history, or genetic superiority). Accusations are made. Accusers are made enemies. One's own people become targets of slaughter. Slaughter is justified by security . . .

You get the idea.