There is a kind of genius to that: When someone is presented an outrageous insult, there are two possible courses of action, each of which lowers the relative status of the insulted party.
Kevin Williamson (in “The Smallest Minority”)
We are going through a great crowd derangement. In public and in private, both online and off, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational, feverish, herd-like and simply unpleasant.
Douglas Murray (in” The Madness of Crowds”)
Introduction and focus of the essay
When president Ramaphosa is publicly accused by a head of another country of lying, when the leader of one country tells the leader of another, in a televised speech, to “F…k off”, when senior political leaders refer to other senior leaders as “Sleepy Joe” or “Crazy Nancy”, when president Trump follows up on his diplomatic conflict with Colombia with a social media post referencing “FAFO”, then we should realise that we have left, temporarily or as I believe, permanently, the previous polite, mannered world of diplomatic restraint and decorum, thought to be so necessary, so axiomatic of diplomacy, high-end negotiations and much of conflict management.
And this development has of course filtered down to all levels of political discourse and diplomatic levels. You can spend days just reading the public insults thrown at each other by senior and mid-level politicians, diplomats, government officials and other, related officials on social media. This conduct has leaked out to quasi-diplomatic / political actors, with people like Elon Musk leading the field, such as it is, in what will no doubt become a trend in wider fields of commerce.
This type of conflict management and negotiation has certainly called into question several levels of political wisdom, conventions, conflict management textbooks and settled strategies in coaching and policy making. For myself, and other people who have been working in these fields for decades, some of these new developments come as jarring examples of exactly how not to conduct yourself in these processes. For others, especially social media observers, the sheer drama and chaos created by these insults and behaviour is extremely attractive, fun and addictive. I suggest, at this relatively early stage, that the simple rejection of such strategies, or its acceptance in high-level conflict management and conflict negotiation is premature, and that each of us should carefully assess the pros and cons of this new direction in political, conflict and negotiation discourse.
Let us then have a look at a few selected strategic benefits, risks and disadvantages that should guide our decisions in ad hoc conflicts, strategy design and policy making. These are simplified examples, and more extensive, tailor-made information should be used in specific strategies.
The road to here
The reasons that brought us to this strange place are myriad, and I do not want to spend too much time on that, as it is really a separate enquiry, and if I am right, we are already standing in the middle of these developments, with the road to here being of minimal strategic value. In even a brief assessment of those reasons and causes, we will find a general deterioration of structures and institutions, a deteriorating respect and practical trust in politicians and institutions, a gradual public level of disrespect and even contempt in civil society, a sense that such conduct has no real consequences or accountability costs, a sense of frustration and not being heard, which in turn makes more radical conduct and options seem more attractive, and of course social media, where the anonymous can create new standards of discourse and uncivility that challenge and change norms very quickly. A detailed study of this process will no doubt show a slow start, with a gradual increase in acceleration, leading us to the state of the art of public insult where we find ourselves at right now.
A few strategic conflict benefits of this development
Are there any conflict benefits from acting in this way? Clearly, yes, as a simplified answer. The recent US elections have shown, on the surface at least, that unrestrained public insults, levelled at a crude, sustained and utterly unapologetic level, can be excused, forgiven and actually aid a political figure or party in blasting its message across areas and communities that a polite and civil message may not have reached. So we can put pure and simple attention-grabbing reach and magnification of a message on this list. Another strategic conflict benefit is the observable fact that these are often brawls that you cannot, and should not, stay out of.
Meeting such conduct with restraint and decorum has its place and time, but there will be times when you will have to join the pigs in the mud. We will return to this question later on. This type of loud and brash conflict negotiation and conflict communication also has the rather dubious but real benefit of creating the impression that something is being done, it energizes your target market, and a series of loud insults often stand in, in the public mind, as action, as “something is being done about this”. Politically, impressions are a currency of great value. This type of conduct also of course often acts as a deflection of intent - we do not really mind if someone else treats a perceived enemy of ours badly. This is a large part of president Trump’s seemingly invincible status in this type of conflict.
These are all very real, meaningful conflict benefits, as much as we may baulk against them on traditional, ethical or other grounds.
But the very biggest benefit, and one that modern conflict management, with the invaluable assistance of a host of inter-related other disciplines, have come to understand at great depths, is the enormous impact this type of conduct has on that deepest of emotional levels: our identity or value conflicts. We are all, wittingly or otherwise, a part of a range of groups, separate identities, each with their own codes and rules, mostly unwritten. In this way, we are women, fathers, Xhosas, artisans, socialists, farmers, Arsenal fans, readers, tech-savvy and so on. These identities shape and guide our lives in crucial, often existential ways, it is literally who we are, whether we notice it or not.
This forms the in-group, and if there is an in-group there is an out-group, and us, and a them. The fact that I am this age means that I am not a youth, the fact that I am a father means that I am not a mother. In these groups we accept, tacitly or otherwise, a certain minimum level of acceptable conduct, of what is right and what is wrong, hints or demands as to how people like us think, or behave. It sets us apart from them. Importantly, we are rewarded or punished, at various levels, for conforming to these standards and unspoken codes. Public transgressions may lead to subtle sanctions, a loss of prestige, commercial consequences, expulsion from the group or worse. Most of these identities are hardly noticeable and of little practical importance to us, but some of them are, in every sense, who we are, how we understand and function in the world.
With these identities in place, the skilled orator or conflict expert can manipulate a range of buttons and levers in persuading individuals or groups in chosen directions. These are enormously powerful, emotional forces, often hardly perceived or imperfectly understood, even by the target group. The in-group dynamic tells us what to do, how to think and reason about a specific issue, it rewards “correct” behaviour and punishes “wrong” behaviour, mostly at levels that very few can understand or do something about, even if they were to understand the dynamics of it.
A range of conflict studies show how, for most people it is simply easier to go along with the in-group narrative than to seek, or act upon possibly disconfirming evidence. The case studies and practice also show how we are, essentially, far more emotionally inclined than what we may want to accept, and that we have a range of pre-set emotional biases and predilections, often allied with our identity groups, and that we lean in that emotional direction first, and then seek confirming evidence that then assures us that we have taken a perfectly rational and objective decision.
All of these piano wires play perfectly into the modern day political and diplomatic streetfighter’s hands. A perfect storm of in-group dynamics, expertly steered by external manipulation, reinforcement, reward and punishment cycles, and unskilled strategies by opponents all lead us to this place, where originally, and seemingly objectively bad and destructive behaviour, becomes a modern, valuable conflict strategy. The initial emotionally charged bad behaviour, the insult, the shocking moment, triggers the emotional response, and from there on, this being identity conflicts, the target group actually do the work. They justify the behaviour, the look for reasons to excuse and understand it, acceptance is rewarded, dissent is punished, and in a very short time this behaviour becomes normative, because we have been doing this for a while now, and when I look around me you all find it good and justified, so I must find it so as well. All of this happens in a blink of an eye, and most of us do not even see the piano wires. This crucial process is aided and abetted by, ironically, the opposition.
As we can see daily examples of in social and other media, identity conflicts must be opposed in a very specific, very skilled and nuanced manner (see my earlier writing on that topic, or the suggested reading section below). If we seek to persuade people, and to change their minds, in identity conflicts, we need to know exactly what we are doing. Case studies show how public criticism, moralising, even objective evidence, when used incorrectly, turn out to be not just ineffective conflict strategies, but that they actually confirm and entrench people in their previously held worldviews.
The end result here, in our discussion, is that the way that the opposition responds to such objectively poor conduct, public insults and so on, aids and abets the original perpetrator of such conduct. These then are some of the actual benefits that, to the horror of some of us, accrue to the party that uses these strategies in political or diplomatic conflicts. Are there any strategic disadvantages or risks, then, in using these insults and taunts?
A few strategic conflict risks and disadvantages of this development
We are in the relatively early years of this playground-phase of political and diplomatic conflict, and time will bring us the benefit of more studies and scientific support for our conflict decisions. In the meantime, of course, the crowds are roaring, and we have to make some choices. Most people see themselves and their identity groups as basically decent people. Sustained poor public conduct can, and will, have a corrosive effect on relationships in the in-group. Sustained poor conduct will make it gradually easier for strong members in the in-group to start moving the internal Overton window, and to define and redefine such conduct within those parameters. Building seemingly objective arguments on emotional foundations will always be a very unstable exercise.
There will always be value in tradition, good manners, fairness and decency. While this may not be much in evidence in global politics at this stage, I already sense a yearning among significant numbers of people for things to be better, for a recalibration of what is important, of value, true and beautiful. Taking rudeness too far, for too long, may very well be a feasible strategy in the short-term, but as a long-term approach and strategy it still seems risky and unfounded. In weighing these considerations in the design of our own conflict conduct and strategies, it is important to notice one recurring theme in these identity conflicts: “it is ok for us to do this, bad as it may be, because they started it”. The dynamics and case studies clearly show us that in identity conflict dynamics fairness and procedural reasonable behaviour are held at a premium, and once we get stuck in a cycle of “they started it”, it becomes very difficult to break out of. It will serve an organization well not to have a body of work that can seem to establish such an accusation.
One of the best arguments against such conduct can be found in the case studies and praxis involving face saving, or the so-called social credits and debits. Insulting behaviour, against individuals or groups, leave lasting grievances and even hate, remnants that will not be removed simply by the terms of a rational agreement or armistice. Case studies show how individuals and groups are quite prepared to harm themselves and their interests as long as these social debits can be repaid. Again, these are the conflict dynamics of identity conflicts in play, and they are of course based in emotions, as much as they identified and experienced as objective, rational decisions. Simply put, a public insult on a public platform will have a payday, somewhere down the line. In conflict terms, this forces a short-term benefit versus long-term conflict creation debate on us as decision makers. Of course there is always the moral high ground calculus to bear in mind.
Victory, yes, but at what price? These strategies have a clear brutalizing effect on individuals and groups, and creating numb followers with blurred moral compasses may not be what you have in mind in the long run. Rude and insulting public conflict behaviour may also negatively influence people who are not, or not as yet, a part of that specific identity group, and who may have become allies or supporters of your cause in the absence of such conduct. There are other conflict negotiation benefits flowing from more conventional and constructive behaviour, such as reciprocity, the gradual building of trust and relationships and so on, and these specific tactics should all be built into more comprehensive conflict strategies.
Assessment and conclusion
As recently as four or five years ago I would comfortably have agreed with the conventional conflict advice to absolutely avoid any overtly rude or insulting conduct during conflicts. Limited case studies, an increased understanding of a range of conflict-related disciplines, and observable reality have conspired to lead me to a point where I have to, rather uncomfortably, advise against such an absolute rejection of such strategies.
Simply put, the absolute rejection of participation in such conduct may very well limit us in our conflict capabilities and abilities to effectively respond against such behaviour. In honour-based societies (such as the South African society in general) an absolute rejection of such strategies may appear weak or vulnerable, as incorrect as that may be objectively. That is of course not an invitation to behave as poorly as some of our opponents may be doing. Our brief study above have indicated a few very real negative consequences of such conduct, as much as there may be reason to consider the positives available to us.
The responses in these virtual poop-flinging contests must be carefully understood, and skilfully delivered, by someone who has an above average understanding of conflict and these specific dynamics. Getting this wrong amplifies the original insult, could trigger some of the identity conflict results we discussed earlier, and online unintended results like the Streisand Effect should be borne in mind – all in the space of the few minutes or so that an effective response may demand.
Every organization individual or specific conflict need to be assessed and advised on its own, specific merits, but as a general strategy, I would suggest the following framework:
1. Try to avoid such conduct as far as possible. Build up a credible reputation as someone who does not resort to such conduct first, and that a conflict with you may be conducted fairly, robustly and efficiently, without such conduct if you are not provoked. Let this pervade your organization, in letter and spirit. Repeatedly show your opponents that you are willing and most competent when participating in such events, but that there are other, less harmful, more constructive alternatives when they deal with you. Mirror the behaviour that you want to see from them. Influence their future behaviour.
2. When provoked, and here a working definition can be discussed and implemented, beyond a certain level, respond with the necessary but effective level of such conduct, for as brief a period as possible. The observable reality in the mind of the opposition must be that they can avoid this level of conflict, but if they cross the line they will meet with harsh and very effective retaliation. Let your followers know that these are the lines, before and after such events. Keep it to the minimum, so that when you do pull the trigger it is a noticeable event.
3. Train your involved people in certain conflict techniques, so that such conduct can be effective, well-understood and skilfully applied. Avoid those long twars that cause more harm than good. Surgically end the poor conduct of others by your own limited poor conduct. Such limited poor conduct must always be justified, limited, and bearing in mind all legal requirements so as to not inadvertently fall foul of such restrictions.
4. Continuously communicate this to your followers, including reasons for limited poor conduct, retaliation, and inculcate healthy conflict principles in them, as far as possible, and be careful not to encourage poor conflict behaviour from them in online and other conflicts.
Modern conflict management deals with conflict as it finds it. We cannot moralize our opponents into “the right” type of mannered conduct, we need to have the tools to effectively deal with these conflicts, facing the world as it is, not as we want it to be. With these caveats and practical strategies in place, we can effectively deal with this type of behaviour, and remain effective and successful in the modern conflict arenas.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. Dangerous Magic: essays on conflict resolution in South Africa, by Andre Vlok, Paradigm Media (2022), especially Chapter 4, dealing with identity and value conflicts
2. My article on persuasion in identity conflicts at DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS - part 2/3 - The Conflict Conversations
3. Relevant articles for your general consideration and their source material can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted on andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information)
(c) Andre Vlok
February 2025