As anybody who has studied English literature can tell you, drama is created by conflict. Without conflict, there is no drama. You can't tell a story about everybody getting along just fine. Whether the conflict is external (between Romeo's family and Juliet's family in an endless feud) or internal (between Hamlet and himself, undecided over what the best course of action is), there must be conflict before anything meaningful can happen.
This is true everywhere, however, not just in literature. You need conflict in your life - the "battle" gives you a goal, something that defines your life. How do you know whether you are achieving anything? You examine your conflict, and see how close you are to winning. Without this conflict, every day is the same. A man who has no conflict is, to be frank, boring - nothing happens in his life, it's empty. You can't talk to him about anything.
Having thought about it, I think there are two types of people in this area. There are those that consider the conflict in their lives to be a free-for-all battle against the rest of the world: they are on one side, with their allies, and everybody else is on the other side. The other type consider the conflict to be between those in the right, and those in the wrong, good-vs-bad. This latter type sounds a little dangerous - very fundamentalist. Everybody always accuses the Americans of being of this sort: they think that they are in the right, and that their enemies are in the wrong, and they use this as a justification for their actions. However, I think that the Americans are more of the free-for-all type: they think that the other side is wrong because it's the other side. They will denounce you as being unprincipled and terrorist if you criticize them, because you criticized them. They see it in terms of us and them, and then apply their principles to the situation afterwards, in order to justify it. By contrast, the good-vs-bad type will identify the principles they believe in, and will then defend those principles. I personally identify more with this latter type - I think it is a good thing to formalise what you think is good, then to do your best to be on that side.
I'd like to apply this dichotomy in the way people view conflict to two areas: software, and personal relationships.
Open Source advocates, I think, tend to be in the good-vs-bad camp. While some simply see Open Source as more practical than the proprietary way, a lot of advocates will fervently believe that not only is it more practical, but it is somehow right. Software wants to be free! It's wrong to withhold your code! I am definitely in this camp - I unfortunately get quite rabid about some of these issues. But one thing I've noticed is that many Open Source advocates are also activists in many other areas. The Rhodes/RUCUS geeks are all fervent Open Source advocates, and many of them are working on projects to bring computers, technology and education to underprivileged schools. The TuxLab phenomenon is well known: people give up a day of their time to go out and install computers in rural schools. They do this because they feel that it is the right thing to do. They are more often than not activists in other areas, too: most commonly politically.
On the other hand, Microsoft supporters (supporters, mind, not just people who are just using their software) tend to see the world as an us-vs-them battle. They license their software because they want to make money. More often than not, they will see no problem with charging exorbitant prices, if people are willing to pay them. They write software for personal gain, not because it needs doing. I know I am generalising badly here, but there is a definite trend in that direction, even if it is not always the case.
In personal relationships, this idea of conflict also applies. There are those who think that Liebe ist Krieg - love is war. You have to play your cards right to get what you want. Don't tell the other person how you feel too much, or too early - you have to keep your cards hidden, so you can play trump cards later. I've often noticed a strange phenomenon: two people who seem very loving and caring one week, once they break up, are venomously hateful to each other the next week. Their friends badmouth the other person, they are catty and mean. How can you go out with somebody for so long, and then do a complete 180 degree turn? The fact is, they are treating it as an us-vs-them conflict. If the person is not on your side, then they're the enemy. This is why you play mind-games during the relationship: it's a battle.
On the other hand, some people see it as a good-vs-bad battle. You're trying to do the right thing. You're open and honest. You lay your cards on the table, and so on. You consider that the relationship is a good relationship, and that the two of you are good for each other. Thus, you do your best to make it work.
Normally, people that do this get absolutely shredded by everybody else.
Being an us-vs-them fighter is often better for one personally. You're fighting for yourself, with whoever happens to be allied with you. If they don't ally with you, they become the enemy, and you can fight them tooth and nail as well. Since the only real principle is alliance, you can use any means to fight, be it dirty or not. On the other hand, a good-vs-bad fighter does not choose his opponents, he chooses his principles. Anybody aligned with his principles is his ally, whether he likes it or not. He cannot choose his methods, either - he must fight for the principles without betraying them. This is probably why he gets screwed so badly half the time.
Having said all this, I can't really think why you'd want to be a good-vs-bad fighter any more. Except that I think it's the right thing to do. However, somebody who was only interested in what was going to be best for himself (possibly an us-vs-them fighter?) would not choose that way, since it's bound to lose. He'd say, screw which way is the best to choose, I'm going with the way that's a winner. In other words, whichever way you see conflict, you're not going to change, because of the way you see conflict.
I'm not sure if that's bad or good.
Comments
Post new comment