There are many definitions of conflict, as you point out. The usual definitions of conflict from Conflict Theory are the actual or perceived incompatibilities of needs, values, or interests; or competition for limited resources. However, these sorts of definition have limited application in some conflicts.

For example, sometimes siding with one group does not mean sharing the group’s needs, values, motives, identities, attitudes, or interests. Public conflict, for example, binds people together despite their differences. Sometimes there are lots of resources and there is still conflict. Sometimes, everyone in the conflict agrees on the desired outcome and allocation of resources but fundamentally disagree on how to achieve their mutual goal. So those definitions really aren’t helpful in such cases.

Thus, after a lot of exploration over the years, I’ve settled on the explanation of conflict as Rex (1981:3) defined it: “action which is oriented intentionally to carrying out the actor’s will against the resistance of the other party or parties” that changes over time.

That fits my definition as informed by complexity science and conflict theory. It has nothing to say about motive, interests, resources, needs, or values, yet it captures the emotion that creates the conditions for conflict.

I’d be happy to discuss this with you further anytime.

Very best wishes
Deborah

Cheers, JP