rick2's review
3.0
It’s good… I think it’s a really decent model for talking about conflict, but I don’t think it has enough nuance to really make an impact. Essentially drawing the line into positive conflict and negative conflict is a positive step into a better level of sophistication around conflict. But it’s way too simplified. I think this model is probably helpful for talking with other people about conflict to an extent.
But the huge but here is that I don’t see someone reading this book and fundamentally changing the way that they interact with conflict.
First, enough with the jargon, the author mentions the word “understory“ nearly every chapter. Fire bringer, and other such nonsense words are popular and annoying. Sprinkled in the book like rat turds that you can discover while reading. The jargon detracts from the book and essentially creates its own little world where the author can solve the problems related to that but they don’t seem too heavily tied to the world I live in.
Second, The author picks her examples in a really weird way. We end up spending a lot of time with this guy who is a lawyer and runs for city Council and does a terrible job. But when she’s talking about global or larger conflicts we seem to skim over the details. Pointing to a few notable similarities and ignoring the details.
I think at the core of this book is a plea to treat other people with more humanity. Listening to them, seeing them for the complex humans if they really are. However the book falls short of really helping one to bridge that gap beyond consistently telling you to listen better
But the huge but here is that I don’t see someone reading this book and fundamentally changing the way that they interact with conflict.
First, enough with the jargon, the author mentions the word “understory“ nearly every chapter. Fire bringer, and other such nonsense words are popular and annoying. Sprinkled in the book like rat turds that you can discover while reading. The jargon detracts from the book and essentially creates its own little world where the author can solve the problems related to that but they don’t seem too heavily tied to the world I live in.
Second, The author picks her examples in a really weird way. We end up spending a lot of time with this guy who is a lawyer and runs for city Council and does a terrible job. But when she’s talking about global or larger conflicts we seem to skim over the details. Pointing to a few notable similarities and ignoring the details.
I think at the core of this book is a plea to treat other people with more humanity. Listening to them, seeing them for the complex humans if they really are. However the book falls short of really helping one to bridge that gap beyond consistently telling you to listen better
jpr86's review
5.0
Stop shouting. Start reading. One of the most important books I’ve read this year.
ebrock's review
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Absolute must read
msbedelia's review
4.0
This book makes a compelling argument for the idea that "high conflict" conflicts are counterproductive and take on a life of their own, strategies for identifying those conflicts, ways out in one's personal life, and the begining of ideas for how to do that on a broader social level. It has a great deal of utility.
However, it doesn't deal with the discomfort of treating disputes that diminish the personhood of groups- racism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc- and can create an existential threat for one group as merely problems of "high conflict." (Although I'm sure the book would argue that high conflict inevitably escalates into dehumanization, it doesn't deal with the dehumanization that might come pre-embedded.) This is uncomfortable. I think a proper wrestling with this would be worth a second book- where are the limits of the high conflict approach- Does it work with "ordinary" racism but should not be attempted with say, klan members? How do marginalized groups ensure safety? Does that require a mutually shared authority who is encouraging both sides to participate in good faith? Would a marginalized group acting on its own without the support of an authority the other side respected be likely to be "run over"?
I think this is a book where it is easy to say it's amazing and they key to everything, or it's missing perspectives that prioritize the safety of the marginalized and therefore belongs in the trash. I think it might be most useful to appreciate that it does contain some very useful perspectives that should be held in tension with its shortcomings.
However, it doesn't deal with the discomfort of treating disputes that diminish the personhood of groups- racism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc- and can create an existential threat for one group as merely problems of "high conflict." (Although I'm sure the book would argue that high conflict inevitably escalates into dehumanization, it doesn't deal with the dehumanization that might come pre-embedded.) This is uncomfortable. I think a proper wrestling with this would be worth a second book- where are the limits of the high conflict approach- Does it work with "ordinary" racism but should not be attempted with say, klan members? How do marginalized groups ensure safety? Does that require a mutually shared authority who is encouraging both sides to participate in good faith? Would a marginalized group acting on its own without the support of an authority the other side respected be likely to be "run over"?
I think this is a book where it is easy to say it's amazing and they key to everything, or it's missing perspectives that prioritize the safety of the marginalized and therefore belongs in the trash. I think it might be most useful to appreciate that it does contain some very useful perspectives that should be held in tension with its shortcomings.
bookrecsanddnfs's review against another edition
5.0
Wow. I can say so much yet so little about this book. It was a great topic to read about and I was really glad to see such an objective view of the conflicts that take place in the world- and how the "us" vs "them" mentality fuels toxic rather than healthy conflict. This really is a must-read and I will continue to recommend it while I work to apply what I learned in this book.