Gautam John wrote:
Is conflict necessary for progress?
It's inevitable. Two good books on this subject: From science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, and from business, The Innovator's Dilemma, by Clayton Christensen. There are many others, but these are my favs. Bottom like: existing structures or paradigms rarely change. Instead, they are replaced. It's clear /conflict/ pervades the replacing process, but I'm more interested in exploring the more subtle links of /cooperation/ across paradigms. They are most certainly there, but I think they are overwhelmed by all the shouting.
Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social?
I don't think so. Just look at some common personal experiences. Someone wants to grow in some way -- new job, new degree, get in shape, stop smoking, move to a new location, buy a house, whatever -- and that will cause a great deal of internal conflict. Conflict /can/ be good if it gets you off the couch. It has to be managed properly and then let go after an appropriate time, though. I think too many people unconsciously focus on the conflict when it would be better to focus on actually doing the work necessary to change. You can change or you can be changed, but staying the same is rarely an option for very long.
Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
