You have to get to the root of a snag in order to make a breakthrough, because it’s possible that what you thought you knew is actually wrong. Unlearning is perhaps the hardest thing to do, but it must be done. Any knowledge, unless updated, becomes worthless.
Viswanathan Anand (five-time World Chess Champion)
Introduction
Conflict, in all its multiple forms, has changed considerably in the last decade or so. In geopolitical conflict we have a return to realism, and weapons and strategies that were once the pillars around which entire campaigns were built are now obsolete, replaced by weapons and strategies that were inconceivable a few years ago.
In the political arena, conflict is outstripping the conflict competencies of untrained politicians, with significant attacks on democracy and the institutions of society, most probably best illustrated by the developing conflict field of cognitive warfare.
Corporations struggle to understand, and then integrate, the new conflict realities where national and global boundaries have fused into one focused area, and where the smallest margins make the difference between success and commercial annihilation. In the interpersonal field the increased understanding and use of identity conflict strategies and social media leave the average individual or small community incredibly vulnerable to modern-day conflict that thrive on polarization and the commodification of the individual. Through it all runs the thread of the existential risks, threats and possibilities of artificial intelligence.
Conflict, in its weapons, its reach and potential destructive power, has changed in ways that cannot be seen as being merely progressive, or incremental, steps. We are no longer in Kansas, Toto. Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz will only take us so far, and no further, in this brand new conflict environment. The very meaning of strategy has changed.
In this article we will see how conflict has simply outstripped most of the tried and tested measures and strategies developed over time to contain or resolve conflict as human engagement, the harm this is causing, and what solutions exist. In the latter category we will take a specific look at my own work and conflict programs as an example of what is available in the various categories.
The evolution of conflict
One of the advances in our joint understanding of conflict through the ages is the acceptance that conflict should not be seen in simplistic terms. Conflict is so much more than formalised wars or declared intentions of harm, it need not be loud and obvious. It can be a subtle trade war hidden behind expressions of good intent, it can be strategic partnerships, a coalition government, or a free app on your phone.
In conflict and conflict negotiation, especially in the developing field of cognitive warfare, the methods of persuasion has changed so radically, and the aims of such conflict have been so affected by the delivering technologies, that part of the hidden dangers of these conflicts lie in the fact that so many people do not see these warzones as conflict in the first place. Traditional trench warfare, lines of tanks and armadas of warships are becoming less and less relevant, less and less necessary. Drone warfare, cyberattacks, or the simple changing of opinions across a wide range of a civilian population may prove to be far more effective than conventional warfare as we have come to understand, and apply, it.
The stagnation of conflict management
The seismic shifts in the power re-alliances of the new multipolar world, with nations scrambling to get on top of the epochal changes being wrought by the global return to geopolitical realism, all tell a spectacular tale of new conflicts, with new considerations, risks and strategies emerging.
As a particularly illustrative case study, we can briefly pause at geopolitical mediation and peacebuilding, where the seemingly invincible liberal order and its solutions have been shown to be far less effective in a range of African and other conflicts than conventional wisdom has been telling us (see the suggested resource list below for the link to my article on this).
Changes in conflict, gradually creeping into everyday realities, found the conflict strategies and clichés wanting, causing confusion, skepticism and harmful cycles of despair and a search for more radical solutions. Technology, including artificial intelligence, and the general complex challenges brought about by the brave new world continue to show up how outdated the conflict competencies of most politicians are. Social media has changed interpersonal conflict in important respects, with a reach and potential harm that regularly creates case studies in how not to deal with modern conflict. Corporate and political media responses to internal crises regularly show the extent to which the question, much less the answer, is simply not studied and understood fully.
In addition to modern conflict showing up the limitations inherent in effective conflict responses, as we have seen above, the field of conflict management in general has split into various strata of competency. At the political, corporate and interpersonal levels there is a cottage industry of work that hardly delivers much more than a mediocre level of self-help, trite commonplaces that look good on LinkedIn AI-generated pamphlets, and has no realistic chance of being effective in the real world where these new conflicts operate. This extends to fields such as mediation and general conflict management, and it is increasingly doing the discipline harm in the difference between what it promises and what it can deliver.
Old outdated knowledge and strategies are simply given a new marketing paint-job, and required to do a job that it has no chance of being successful at. An important aspect of this challenge is the fact that the distinction between what is available and what is delivered is not easily understood, even by sophisticated consumers. Respected figures and organizations, among which political parties represent a very visible category, have simply not moved with the developments that these various forms of conflict have been undergoing, leaving a field sorely unprepared for the challenges they are mandated to resolve. This, among other negative conflict outcomes, has a bearing on foundational aspects of society, such as democracy, the integrity of information and increased polarization.
The evolution of conflict management
A different level of organization and practitioner to the abovementioned one has taken note of the winds of change sweeping conflict studies and practice, and they have adapted to those new and utterly different demands, often after learning the hard way as to the limitations of the old, and the potential of the new. If conflict management is approached as a dynamic, multi-disciplinary discipline, and not the safe, settled field of yesteryear, then the horizons change, and the news turn from grim to very good.
With the pain of largely enforced growth and being forced from our comfort zones have come the advantages of new abilities, new solutions and a much more scientific approach to conflict and its solutions than the “compromise and play nice” school of conflict. Just as the new forms and levels of conflict are much more than just incremental, gradual elevations of the same type of conflict, so too are the new abilities and solutions. The intense study and judicious application of multiple strands of practical, real world conflict strategies from fields as divergent as neuroscience, artificial intelligence, complexity science and a range of others have allowed conflict studies and practice not just to keep up with, but in many respects gain on the development of conflict in all of these forms.
Practically speaking, this means that conflict practitioners have now moved on from a set curriculum of books and knowledge, to a challenge where they must, depending on the specific demands of the work that they are doing, build a foundation of specific conflict knowledge, and then choose specific fields of information and skills that are not in themselves primarily conflict related, creating a gestalt effect of a new set of skills and strategies, composed of various tailor-made building blocks, assembled in a dynamic and never static process of creative application that is so far removed from the staid “Five points to end your conflicts” approach as to constitute an entirely different field of work.
This then logically leads to a discipline where there is not one specific avenue to training, improvement or successful conflict management as a practice discipline. It depends on an accurate and skilled reading of what the conflict dynamics of a particular field may be, and then engineering the required skills for that challenge, built on the foundations of related, complimentary conflict strategies and practices.
As an example, we will look at my own conflict practice, and what sources I apply in crafting the solutions I need for the work that I do. This will need to be assessed for the specifics of every other conflict practitioner and conflict itself, and is offered as an example, not as a rigid template.
A case study: my personal solutions
i. Framework structures
Most of my work encompasses corporate, workplace or political conflict. I cannot, for every new mandate, start afresh, with new building blocks. While bearing in mind the now-proven dangers of outdated conflict practices, there are a few foundational disciplines that must be mastered, and which will serve the conflict practitioner well across changing dynamics.
Here I include:
(a) using artificial intelligence agents to construct scenarios and data management, leaving myself, involved teams and my clients to deal with processed data and options purged of improbabilities or unacceptable risks;
(b) complexity studies, an essential field that is indispensable in the understanding and management of the complexity of modern conflict, without doubt the biggest characteristic of such conflicts (this includes various specialised forms of it, primarily Prof Michael C Jackson’s Critical Systems Thinking);
(c) two foundational practices developed by Peter T. Coleman, being Conflict Intelligence (CIQ) and Systemic Wisdom (SW), both systems which provide flexible conflict architecture from which to work;
(d) an advanced study and application of modern identity conflicts, as being the most important key to modern conflict, conflict negotiation and persuasion, and a surprisingly rare skill to find among modern conflict practitioners.
If there was an aspect of modern conflict work that I would regard as indispensable, must-have knowledge, it would be these foundational skills. My advanced students all get to work with these concepts to the point of advanced efficiency, and it is, for me, difficult to conceive of a successful conflict practice without these foundations. The possibility exists, I concede, and I retain an open mind on that possibility, while of course keeping an eye on developments and any new foundational practices worthy of the name.
ii. Additional sources and inspirations
Building on those foundations starts to then increasingly depend on the specifics of the work that is required, and an increased level of specialization and diversification becomes allowed and necessary. For my own work, most of the additional building blocks come from:
(a) the developing field of cognitive warfare, which deals with a specialized approach to dis- and misinformation, social media dynamics, media responses, and the manipulation of opinions and decision-making;
(b) a range of neuroscience informed conflict strategies, specifically including social neuroscience and its work with intergroup conflict;
(c) inspirational work being done on the persuasive abilities of storytelling as a specialized conflict discipline;
(d) specific aspects of micro-sociology, specifically work on face saving, nonverbal developments, and the use of video technology in conflict management;
(e) an advanced study and application of geopolitical developments, primarily around multipolar conflict, realism and related aspects;
(f) an advanced study and application of the best in modern elite negotiation, as this relates to conflict negotiation, persuasion and problem solving.
While not a separate field of conflict studies, I may add the use of the next generation of conflict systems design (DSD), with its digital / AI integration in designing specific conflict systems, once the work has been done using the abovementioned sources.
Conclusion
As our discussion shows, the original line of conflict management has reached a stage of speciation, where the field has split into two very distinct groups, where they can hardly be seen as part of the same discipline. The earlier models will continue to be popular, and of course there are basic levels of conflict (especially interpersonal conflict) for which it may be all that is needed. It is however an evolutionary dead-end, with increasingly limited application and use.
The nature and reach of our human conflicts have changed, changed to the extent that it is not even just about human conflict. It has developed from an important part of human engagement to a far more existential reality, one that we need to understand in its finest nuances, if we are going to survive the conflicts of the next decade or two.
I am highly confident that we have the tools for that job. We increasingly understand the human mind, and the sources, mechanisms and dangers of our conflicts. We are moving on from harmful or ineffective solutions, and slowly we are starting to see what it takes to turn our conflicts into our greatest sources of inspiration, innovation and progress.
Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading
1. My essay on Mediation and Peacebuilding can be accessed in the Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding (2nd edition), Chapter 19, Taylor & Francis (2025)
2. My book on our conflicts and artificial intelligence deals with modern strategies on combining conflict and AI, and is called Hamlet’s Mirror: conflict and artificial intelligence, Paradigm Media (2023)
3. Our blog at www.conflict-conversations.co.za has a rich variety of articles expanding on specific aspects of the article.
(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.)
(c) Andre Vlok August 2026
* Author’s note on the use of artificial intelligence in writing this article
I learned to draft, argue and write in the hard school of litigation. I enjoy and value the very human process of creating ideas, of testing my own knowledge and thoughts. It is a process that I need, for answering some of my professional and even personal questions, it is cathartic and inspiring. Other than the most basic research assistance I do not use any AI in the creation of my written work, this article included. It is a matter of pride, of preference, and of mental health. Whether that is a wise choice or not, I will leave to the reader to decide.