There are a lot of things we deal with that we consider bad or good, that really aren’t inherently anything. They’re neutral until we give them meaning or a response.

For instance, Change is neutral. Some people love change and some people cringe away from it. But change in itself isn’t good or bad. It has consequences and adds challenges to our lives that can have incredible positive outcomes. But it can have negative fallout as well. Change doesn’t equate to bad. Change is change. It is what we make of it.

Conflict is the same. Different people have really different feelings about conflict. Conflict isn’t bad or good itself. It can be really uncomfortable in relationships, but conflict can also generate a lot of positive change. Conflict can generate evolutions and improvements that make things significantly better. The friction from conflict can move progress significantly faster than it would otherwise go. Shying away from conflict entirely usually stagnates a situation until the conflict that does result is much bigger than it would otherwise be. We look at conflict through our own personal lens and we give it certain attributes. We are in control of how we interpret such neutral concepts.

This is true of a lot of statements and conversations generally. Most things that come up in a divorce case are neutral – until they are distinctly not. One client wants a table or a recliner – that’s seemingly neutral. But then we learn that the context of that item is a family heirloom or it’s the one thing the other side values. That’s no longer neutral, it’s aggressive.

I talk to clients a lot about whether an act or statement from the other side actually is disrespectful or they just feel disrespected. Those are distinctly different things. Feeling disrespected is completely valid, but it is not always objectively reasonable. Is an uninvolved person going to look at this scenario and assume that the other person was intentionally disrespecting you? If the answer is no, then we need to focus on your feelings and your reactions, but we don’t need to address the statement and position itself.

I ruminate a lot on the intended meaning behind certain statements versus the perceived receipt of that feeling. This issue comes up a lot in inter-generational communication. When my dad uses a word or phrase that is no longer socially-acceptable, is he intentionally being disrespectful or is he doing what he’s been taught is correct and unintentionally insulting someone? If the intent is to be neutral-good, we should strive to receive it that way. If we worked to be less offended and less afraid of conflict or change, we would much hardier at interpersonal relationships.

I guess the conclusion here is assume the best of people, not the worst. Don’t assume they are bringing about conflict because they are trying to be aggressive – maybe they are just hoping for positive change. Let’s assume that change is an opportunity for improvement, not a disrespect of history or a commentary on the failure of past deciders. Let’s assume that people are not trying to be disrespectful, even if that’s how it comes across. If we assume the best of people, there’s a much stronger likelihood of building solutions and resolving problems on a minor level before they become more major and more aggressive.