By Christoph Weller

It seems obvious that crises and their management can lead to conflicts, but what about the conflicts that precede a crisis and what kind of conflicts need to be dealt with when a crisis comes to an end? A conflict-theoretical perspective on crises, the conflicts that accompany them and their management reveals that certain actors and groups already benefit from the emergence of a crisis. Crises also bring advantages, not for everyone, but for certain groups. This is one of the reasons why many things are controversial in crises and why well thought-out conflict management is called for.

Crises only occur when a problem is declared a "crisis". The first part of this text therefore looks at how crises arise and the conflicts that accompany them. Which aspects and dimensions of crises are disputed and what the differences relate to is then the subject of the second part. The resulting conflicts will be referred to as "crisis conflicts"; the third part will then address how to navigate and act within them, making it clear that the conflicts associated with crises require the ability and willingness to deal with conflict.

1 How do crises actually arise?

There are no generally valid characteristics for crises, only subjective attributions or social consensus in the recognition of a politically imposed crisis attribution (cf. Wollinger 2023). With the exception of individual, personal crises, a socially relevant crisis is therefore created or even declared in public discourse if the description of the crisis has sufficient resonance in society (see Bösch et al. 2020; Steg 2020). This was obviously the case during the pandemic, while the start of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine was also referred to as a "crisis", but not when inflation rose to over 10%. When individual groups in a society experience a crisis, it is not automatically referred to politically as a crisis; even the process in which crises arise or are created is obviously controversial.

Certain spokespeople in the political public sphere may want to declare an issue, a development or a problem a crisis, while others do not want this, or at least do not react in agreement and thus do not reinforce the crisis, but rather contradict the description of the crisis. This can be understood as a conflict in which different interpretations of a political development as a crisis or not as a "crisis" clash. This is where crisis conflicts begin: understanding the process of discursively creating a crisis as a conflict over interpretations then leads directly to the question: what interests are being pursued by proclaiming a crisis or yet another crisis? Or to put it more pointedly: who benefits from the declared crisis or from declaring a certain development a crisis?

We probably all have a tendency to wish for a time that is as crisis-free as possible, or that only things that particularly affect us or are important to us are declared a crisis. But politically, a crisis, i.e. a corresponding interpretation and designation, is advantageous for at least three reasons:

A crisis generates particular attention for a specific section of reality, a specific problem, and can therefore push other issues into the background that the public would rather talk less about. For example, we would probably have dealt with Long Covid and its effects - as a "crisis" - much more intensively if the war in Ukraine had not brought about a new crisis for our country.

The declaration of a crisis calls for immediate action and decisions, demands an interruption of normal routine processes or justifies them - for example, it legitimizes executive action and tends to circumvent the protracted nature of democratic decision-making processes. This is also intended to prevent the crisis-like nature of the development from being disputed to any significant extent. From the perspective of political decision-makers, the crisis is therefore also intended to provide an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to act politically and to justify the pursuit of one's own interests as crisis management.

A crisis also legitimizes special, extraordinary measures that could not be implemented in normal mode. A recent example is the special fund for the Bundeswehr, which required an amendment to the Basic Law that would never have been made if it had not been interpreted as a "crisis". Crises open up political options for the normally impossible.

2 Conflicting interpretations of the crisis

Due to these political advantages of crises, it is therefore hard to imagine that there could ever be a time without crises. At the same time, nobody wants to be constantly governed in crisis mode or, as the opposition, always run after a government's apparently successful crisis management. The existence of a crisis is therefore fundamentally controversial, which leads to corresponding differences and ongoing debates. The following five dimensions of crisis conflicts can be distinguished:

1. The starting point or the first dimension of crisis conflicts is therefore the conflicts of interpretation as to whether or not a particular issue, problem or development should be labeled and treated as a "crisis" at all. In addition to these conflicts of interpretation regarding the discursive production of a crisis, the crisis that is then established is accompanied by four further conflicts regarding the political and social handling of a crisis.
2. There are differences regarding the substance of the crisis or the diagnosis of the crisis: what exactly is affected by the crisis, what are crisis decisions required in relation to? This is not always the subject of dispute, but it often is, and the outcome of these conflicts is significant for how the crisis is dealt with in the future. The so-called "climate crisis" is not a problem for the climate, but for various vulnerable groups of people who, for example, live on islands, have to flee their habitats due to flooding or because longer periods of heat reduce their life expectancy. On the other hand, those who consider themselves and their own group to be invulnerable to these dangers will not want to acknowledge a climate crisis. This gives rise to social conflicts about what exactly constitutes the crisis and how it should be described.
3. There are then also differences about the causes of the crisis. The potential for conflict is already evident in this plural, as attributing a crisis to just one cause rarely seems appropriate to the complexity of crises and their management. The "crisis of democracy", for example, is to a large extent linked to the increasing radicalization of certain groups in our society - but is that the cause of the crisis or is the inadequate prevention of radicalization the cause of this crisis? Or is it the external influences on the content of social media that are intended to undermine Western democracies? Or was it something else entirely? This will also be debated once a crisis has been declared.
4. There are also differences and conflicts about the appropriate or effective measures and strategies for overcoming a crisis, because they will favor different groups and make others the losers of the crisis. At first glance, the suspicion arises that whoever declares a crisis also wants to generate benefits from crisis management. However, in the course of a crisis and its management, the description of the crisis can change or even be fundamentally called into question. If the crisis phenomenon is described differently, other ways of coping also open up. As a rule, this also changes the constellation of actors and conflicts within which there is a dispute about how to overcome the crisis.
5. A fifth dimension of conflict in connection with crises concerns the differences over how the structural measures taken to overcome the crisis should be assessed in the long term. Since the crisis was usually also able to justify structural changes, it would be logical to examine in the further course whether the adapted structures continue to be appropriate and useful, or whether the coping measures taken should be scaled back again once the crisis is over. Even the supposed end of a crisis is therefore still accompanied by crisis conflicts.

This describes five distinguishable differences in crisis conflicts that characterize the disputes in different phases of the crisis. In relation to at least these five conflicts, a crisis and its resolution remain controversial, especially between crisis winners and crisis losers. But from our conflict perspective, this also means that a crisis can be critically examined from these five points of view in terms of who benefits from the crisis and which interests become apparent in the context of creating and overcoming a crisis. This is reflected in the following five key questions:

1. Who names the crisis, proclaims it, affirms it and tries to dominate the conflict of interpretation, wants to bring about certain changes and legitimize them with the "crisis" - which ones?
2. Who is advocating which diagnosis of the crisis?
3. Who identifies which causes of the crisis?
4. Who is advocating which crisis management strategy?
5. How should crisis management be assessed in the long term and who may want to make their crisis management measures permanent?

These five constellations of crisis conflicts can be used to analyze and identify who is pursuing which interests and strategies in and with a crisis. But where does one position oneself in these conflict constellations, especially in view of the danger of being one of the losers of the crisis? If the crisis interpretations are not to be left to the potential winners of the crisis, crisis conflicts are the order of the day. The differentiation of conflict constellations then makes it possible to articulate contradictions and to act consciously and purposefully in crisis conflicts.

3 Conflict management in crisis conflicts

It is an everyday experience for each and every one of us that we get into conflicts. And this refers solely to social conflicts in which at least two people are involved. Conflict management differs from this "getting involved" in at least two ways:

Firstly, conflict management begins with recognizing that there is a social conflict and that one is involved in this conflict; one could also say: acknowledging that one is a party to the conflict in this constellation. Only on this basis is it possible not only to react to and argue about the substantive differences in the conflict, but also to act in relation to the further course of the conflict. All options for action, from evasion and ignoring, tactical adaptation or targeted de-escalation to deliberate escalation of the conflict, remain available. However, exerting a targeted influence on further conflict interaction in this way requires the recognition of a substantive difference and the existence of a conflict as a socially challenging situation.

On the basis of this recognition of the conflict, conflict management then means acting intentionally in relation to the further development of the conflict. How should the conflict - i.e. the substantive difference and the other party to the conflict as well as the relationship with them - be assessed and how should it be shaped and managed? Regardless of the assessment of the substantive difference, this can be influenced during conflict management. Consciously shaping this social dimension of the conflict is at the heart of conflict management (see Weller 2013) and goes hand in hand with gaining greater clarity about what the conflict is actually about, what exactly is in dispute (e.g. which of the five dimensions of crisis conflicts mentioned above), and what significance this difference has for the person concerned.

"Conflict management" therefore means recognizing the social conflict and acting intentionally with regard to the further handling of the conflict constellation. As a rule, conflict parties can do this themselves, without the need for conflict counseling or third parties. However, it takes special effort to distinguish the differences in content from the social constellation in conflicts. This is why the term "conflict management" seems so appropriate. And this work is worthwhile because it is the only way to exploit the opportunities inherent in conflict, both in terms of content and social aspects (see Weller 2020). For example, discussions about the crisis lead to a better understanding of the causes of the problem or new ideas for solutions to overcome the crisis. In addition, constructive conflict management intensifies social relationships and strengthens trust between those involved, even beyond the crisis.

In the case of crisis conflicts, this means that attention should already be paid when the conflict over the interpretation of the crisis attribution has not yet been decided, but can still be influenced. With regard to the upcoming conflict management, it is important to recognize that we may represent different positions and thus be involved in crisis conflicts that can be managed constructively with the appropriate conflict competence. What needs to be done?

When the next crisis description becomes recognizable, the following questions can be used to clarify your own position along the different dimensions of crisis conflicts and, if necessary, initiate conflict management:

1. Would we be crisis losers or potential crisis winners?
2. Which diagnosis of the crisis seems appropriate to us, which description of the crisis should we articulate opposition to?
3. What causes of the crisis are being put forward or brought to the fore in public debates? What interests are possibly being pursued? Should we raise objections to this, initiate a crisis conflict?
4. Which crisis management measures are preferred and how? What conflict constellation arises from the differences over crisis management and how can this conflict be dealt with?
5. Are there structural crisis management measures - or crisis exacerbation - that require positioning and conflict management?

Crises are no fun and crisis conflicts are also exhausting to deal with, but what appears as "crises" is man-made, even if a natural disaster was the trigger. Therefore, the existence of a crisis and its management are political processes in which different dimensions of the crisis will always be disputed. This can be influenced in the mode of conflict management if we recognize and acknowledge the corresponding crisis conflicts and their dimensions and act intentionally in relation to the conflict interaction - as conflict parties in crisis conflict management.