Walking The Line

De-escalation and conflict resolution in fast-moving, dynamic and aggressive situations is much art as it is science – or rather I should say it is the art of using and applying science effectively. You must be able to recognize which situations can be de-escalated and which can’t e.g. predatory individuals with specific goals, such as relieving you of your wallet, or abducting you, are very unlikely to be talked down, and there are those individuals whose identity is too wrapped up in any conflict, that they are going to use violence regardless of what you say and do (something which may be exacerbated if they feel they have an “audience” that is watching and judging their every move). What you say is important, as is how you say it, and these are the two things I want to address in this article. I have written a fair bit about the ”content” of the dialogue you use – and don’t use – in such situations, however I haven’t written so much about the demeanor you should adopt, how confident you should appear, and the tone in which you deliver the things you say, etc. Aggressive situations can become violent very, very quickly, so there is usually little to no time to build a “rapport” with your aggressor, and so you have a very short time, and a small window of opportunity, to present a non-violent solution to the conflict/altercation which leaves your aggressor’s respect intact. This means your overall presentation of how you appear to an aggressor is extremely important.

Acquiescence to a demand is not the same as subservience or submission e.g. I can actively hand over my wallet to a mugger in order to control the situation, and test/check whether they will now leave, or whether I am required to enact a physical solution. Equally, I can agree to buy another drink for a person if they believe I’ve spilt their drink over them – whether this is the case or not. However, in both cases I don’t want to do so in an overly submissive manner; I must tread a careful path between not looking as if I’m posturing/challenging the person I’m dealing with, whilst at the same time avoiding appearing as if I’m the perfect individual to victimize further. One of the reasons that most hostage and barricade incidents are resolved through negotiation, is that the person involved also knows that there’s a team on the other side ready to go, should the negotiation process start to falter i.e. there are perceived consequences for not resolving the conflict peacefully. If you act overly submissive, pleading with your aggressor not to get physical with you, and being overly respectful with them – “Please Sir, don’t hit me, I don’t want any trouble…” etc. – you are presenting to them a scene where they can do what they want without any consequences or recourse; this may work as a ploy if you are trying to bait them into thinking that they can attack you whilst disarming them of the notion that you will retaliate, in order to act preemptively against them, however this is escalating rather than de-escalating the situation. Perceived consequences don’t need to be physical. Once when working in a club, I was able to get a university student (it was college night at the club) to put down a bottle he’d just smashed and was intending to use as a weapon, by quickly explaining the legal consequences of his action i.e. he’d deliberately fashioned/created a weapon to use in an act of violence, which if he’d used may have got him around 3-years prison time; something to be aware of when using “improvised weapons”. Whilst I don’t want to posture to an aggressor, and rely on perceived consequences alone, to deter an attack, they need to be there as part of any solution.

Just as I don’t want to be overly submissive, as this may trigger an attacker’s prey drive, neither do I want to posture, and draw/set boundaries that would only escalate a situation – obviously if somebody is trying to move me to another location, or remains after I hand over the wallet, etc., these are lines that it is unacceptable to cross. However neither of these situations would warrant de-escalation and conflict resolution in the first place. Aggressive incidents usually have a turning point, where the aggressor makes the decision to act violently towards you. This is usually when you and your aggressor, whether deliberately or inadvertently draw lines in the sand; where you both reach a point at which you recognize that the other is not going to present you with an alternative way out of the conflict. It may be that the person you are dealing with demands an apology, and you refuse to give it, because you don’t see yourself as being at fault in the situation. Generally, apologizing should not be your initial response to a situation as it can reinforce an aggressor’s justification to act violently towards you i.e. you have admitted that you are in the wrong, etc., however if that is something that would resolve and end the conflict i.e. it is one of your aggressor’s demands, doing so would be appropriate regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. Such moments when you refuse something as simple as this can be the turning point in a dispute, that could otherwise have been resolved non-physically. Our one “demand” in de-escalation is for the other party to act non-violently, all others should be malleable and flexible.

My stance, from which I immediately start the de-escalation process, sees me standing upright (confident posture), with my hands placed outwards (in a submissive fashion), guarding the space between us (presenting perceived consequences). I need these three components presented together both in how I look and what I say, if I am to stand a chance of successfully de-escalating a situation and improving my chances of being able to physically defend myself. Acting overly submissive and subservient is only going to escalate the situation, as is appearing as if you are posturing and challenging your aggressor. Learning and training to walk the path between these two extremes is the route to effective de-escalation and conflict resolution.