A review by msbedelia
High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out by Amanda Ripley
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.