Rethinking Conflict: From Resolution to Relationship

In our mainstream culture, we’ve been taught to treat conflict like a problem to be solved: get to agreement, reach a compromise, find a solution. And quickly, please.

 

But what if this outcome-obsessed mindset is actually making conflict harder, not easier? What if it narrows our possibilities, stifles creativity, and cuts us off from the deeper purpose of conflict altogether?

 

Conflict isn’t just about resolution. It’s about how we show up with one another. To remember that, we need to unlearn the colonial lens we’ve inherited and reconnect with more relational, grounded ways of being together.

 

---

The Colonial Frame: Control, Transaction, and “Resolution”

Much of the Western approach to conflict is rooted in values like efficiency, control, and individual gain. Conflict becomes a negotiation for power: who’s right, who gets what, and how fast can we “move on.”

 

But that’s not neutral. When dominant culture shapes the process, whether in workplaces, governance, or mediation, it often means that those in power write the script and win. Their language, logic, and goals become the standard, while other ways of knowing are pushed aside. We see this in the historical, and ongoing, treaty process in Canada:

“The written text expresses only the government of Canada’s view of the treaty relationship: it does not embody the negotiated agreement.” — Sharon H. Venne

 

Treaties were never meant to be contracts. For Indigenous peoples, they were relational agreements rooted in kinship, reciprocity, and care for the land, focused on shared responsibility rather than ownership. Colonial systems, however, imposed a transactional framework, turning treaties into tools of dispossession and control.

“As Indigenous peoples, we understand that each time we take from the land, we give back to the land… Treaties were never about buying and selling land. Rather, they were about kinship.” — Carlie Kane

 

---

When We Lose Relationship, We Lose Ourselves

Colonialism reshaped not just treaties, but how we see ourselves and each other. Practices that once helped people reflect, relate, and stay human together were stripped away.

 

The Indian Act, for instance, replaced traditional, community-based governance with band councils and Indian Agents, removing communities’ ability to resolve conflicts according to their own customs. Over time, relational practices were replaced by courtrooms, boardrooms, treaties treated as contracts, and mediation reduced to negotiation, with outcomes measured by individual gain rather than connection or care.

 

“I do not think the measure of a civilization is how tall its buildings of concrete are, but rather how well its people have learned to relate to their environment and fellow man.” — Sun Bear (Ojibwe/Anishinabe, White Earth Reservation medicine man and founder of the Bear Tribe).

 

It’s no wonder conflict feels so hard today. We’ve been taught to win or avoid. We’ve lost the muscle for sitting in discomfort, listening deeply, and staying in relationship, especially when it is difficult.

 

---

Conflict as a Path Back to Relationship

Conflict is not a detour from relationship, it is relationship. It’s where growth happens, where people are seen fully, and where trust is built. Relational conflict reminds us that:

• We are interconnected to each other, to story, to land, and to history.
• Conflict doesn’t need to be solved to be meaningful. It can be held, explored, and witnessed.
• True dialogue isn’t about compromise, it’s about understanding and honoring difference.
• Healing isn’t about quick fixes. It’s about restoring connection and dignity.

 

---

Shifting Our Practice

If we want to do conflict differently, as facilitators, leaders, educators, or humans, we need to focus on how we relate to each other, not just resolution.

Ask different questions:

• Not “Who’s right?” but “How are we showing up with each other?”
• Not “How do we end the conflict quickly?” but “How do we stay present and curious in the conflict?”
• Not “How do we avoid conflict?” but “How do we engage conflict in ways that create growth?”

 

We also need to claim and reclaim practices that dominant systems erased: story, ceremony, slowness, collective reflection, and connection to land. These are not extras, they are essential.

 

---

Remembering What We Already Know

Conflict doesn’t need to be feared or rushed. It is a space of possibility, where new relationships, insights, and ways of being can emerge.

 

When we approach conflict as relational rather than transactional, we honor what it means to be human. It isn’t always easy, but we can learn from Indigenous and community-rooted cultures that have long understood this truth: conflict is not the opposite of connection; it is one of its most powerful expressions.

 

Despite colonial losses, communities are reclaiming relational practices, reminding us that healthier, more connected ways of engaging with conflict are not lost, they are waiting to be remembered and practiced.

 

---

If this post sparked something for you, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Share them here, explore more on The Love in Revolution Blog at Conflict Revolution, or connect with me directly at julie@conflictrevolution.ca.

 

References

• Venne, S. H. (1997). Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous perspective. In M. Asch (Ed.), Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada: Essays on law, equality and respect for difference (pp. 173–192). UBC Press.
• Kane, C. (2023, October 13). Treaty 3: Honouring its truths. Canadian Museum for Human Rights. https://humanrights.ca/story/treaty-3-honouring-its-truths
• Sun Bear. (1980). The Path of Power. Prentice Hall Press.