Essay 1 of 4
The best warriors do not use violence. The best generals do not destroy indiscriminately. The best tacticians try to win without fighting. The best leaders become servants of their people.
(From Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching, chapter 68, translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English (1972)
Introduction and focus of the series
Ever since my Buddhist years in the early 2000s I have studied Eastern philosophies and systems of conflict engagement. This quite naturally led to the development of friendships and client networks that have further enhanced my insights and appreciation of Eastern thoughts and systems in general, and their Chinese versions in particular.
So, a bit of a spoiler alert, I suppose, and also the premise and framework of our four-part series: our study will seek to show the uniqueness of these conflict systems, their foundational underpinning, and the various conflict strategies and techniques that flow from those origins. I believe, and hope to show, that there is much of value there, and that Western conflict management systems stand to gain enormously in studying and, where deemed necessary, applying the study and praxis of these Chinese approaches to our own Western systems. My own conflict work, both the consulting and academic versions thereof, are richly influenced by these systems of thought.
With my bias then duly disclosed, I can assure the reader that I am not an uncritical advocate of China as a country, as a political system or their conflict systems as our focus of study. There is much to critique across the board here, and my admiration and respect for some aspects of what we are about to assess do not extend unquestioningly across all things Chinese. I should add two points here, before we leave this question behind. Firstly, I am also not an uncritical advocate of any Western country, my own included. Much of what China as a government is often criticized about, we find in some form or another in Western society, often making these debates exercises in partisan hypocrisy. Secondly, as with all of my consulting work, even the political side of it, I continue to maintain that we can be effective conflict practitioners without taking overt political stances. I manage to do so quite easily.
I also hope to show that, for those of us involved in these fields, directly or indirectly, there is an immense practical value, a need, to be more than superficially acquainted with these fast-moving developments, regardless of our political views regarding China. In our journey, then, we will have a look at some of the philosophies that ground modern Chinese conflict management, and the studies, strategies and techniques that then flow from those foundations.
We will make use of case studies, academic and practical opinions and best practices, and we will consider a comparative study of those best practices with the so-called Western systems. In seeking to condense a topic that with merit can be extended over a number of hefty books into a series of essays, I will of necessity have to limit the depth and scope of our assessment. I will however seek to retain as much nuance and value in the selected topics as our space will allow.
We also need to be clear on my acknowledged generalisations with regard to certain terms and concepts that we will need to use. What do I mean when I talk about “Western conflict management”, or “the Chinese approach to mediation”, to name but two examples? There is clearly no monolithic, simplified existence behind those terms, and I ask your indulgence in understanding that we do need to simplify and categorize some of these concepts in order to make progress with our discussion. I am fully aware of the rich nuance and diversity that pervades these concepts, and it is only in my effort to bring us all closer to understanding them that I simplify as necessary.
A brief summary of the foundational philosophies
Just as we cannot claim that Western conflict management was born of any one source, say Greek philosophy, or Christianity, so we cannot say that modern Chinese conflict management arose from any of the eastern philosophies or religions. But, just as the Western traditions of thought and religion most certainly shaped their societies, so too Chinese society was shaped by a variety of these schools of thought, and in both instances of course attitudes towards conflict and systems resulted from the development of those respective societies. I do then believe that there is some value in a brief discussion on some of these main influencing factors, as I can still see their traces and influences in modern Chinese conflict management. In doing so we should not see Chinese conflict management systems as specialized systems of these schools of thought, but as merely reflecting the views of the society that was shaped by those ideas. As we will see, these influences have been reduced in recent years, as a result of a variety of factors.
Chinese society has a much more open attitude to differing religions and philosophies, where they take note of these influences at all. In the West, we see a tendency where an individual or community will select a religion, if any at all, and then follow the tenets of that school of thought, while in China people are quite open to being influenced by, as they see it, the best or most practical of a variety of such options. In this way, a community or individual may be influenced by an eclectic mix of philosophies from Confucianism, Chan, a range of local folk religions and traditions, and Daoism (aka “Taoism”), among others.
From Confucianism China has received an enduring and deep reverence and valuation of social stability and mutual respect. Relational ethics and harmony are valued as common good treasures. For purposes of our discussion, this translates into a strong preference for conflict tools such as mediation and compromise, and non-adversarial processes and outcomes that seek to restore or maintain the underlying relationships involved in conflict. To further apply this philosophical foundation to our focus on diplomatic and commercial conflicts, Confucianism’s influence can be seen, in China’s diplomacy, in its advocacy for mutual respect and peaceful coexistence, terms that are often found in its foreign policy narratives. In the commercial category, Confucianism has provided indirect negotiation styles, a preference for relationship retention over immediate gains, and the most crucial category of maintaining face (“mianzi”). We will return to this important aspect later on in the series.
From Daoism, China’s conflict management systems have integrated the concept of wu wei (translated as “non-action”, but actually being not quite that) and an inspiring level of adaptability. Conflict here is resolved more through aligning with the natural flows of energies and resources, rather than forcing outcomes. In the diplomatic arenas this leads to China’s policy of avoiding direct intervention in foreign conflicts, and in the commercial conflict sphere it leads to flexible, context-driven negotiation. To a lesser extent, the influences of local religions, Chan, legalism and so forth support and integrate quite naturally with these abovementioned philosophical foundations, often being experienced as seamless influences by Chinese conflict practitioners and policy designers.
On to these philosophical foundations we will then include such subsequent additional influences, mostly brought about by state policies, such as Communism, socialism and other more recent influences, in our study of modern Chinese conflict management.
In our next instalment (2 of 4) in the series, we will start to assess the various conflict and negotiation styles that flow from these philosophies, the institutions that can be used as examples in our studies, and the current state of conflict management in China.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. Hamlet’s Mirror: conflict and artificial intelligence, by Andre Vlok, Paradigm Media (2023).
2. Relevant articles for your general negotiation and conflict work, and their source material, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.) (c) Andre Vlok
May 2025