The Cognition of Conflict: Ontology, Dynamics, and Ideology - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 20

Fig. 1.5 The mind on
dependence relations

Unknown
Dependence

Subjective
Dependence

Objective
Dependence

Illusory
Dependence

1.6.1 Who Comes First?

Who is right, Hobbes or Durkheim? Is it “bellum omnium contra omnes” or
cohesion and solidarity ?
Conflict and cooperation have the same foundation !
The real structural basis and origin of sociality is dependence and power, but
dependence and power presuppose goals and are “mentally grounded.” They depend
on the minds of agents, not only because they derive from (different) goals and
competences/skills, but because the agents' knowledge about them is also crucial;
that is the cognitive emergence of the conditions for conflict or cooperation.
Social dependence results from being in a common world, that is, from interfer-
ence (my actions can facilitate or prevent your goal achievement, or vice versa).
X depends on Y as for a given action/resource (a) of Y relatively/for a given goal
(that p) (Sichman et al. 1998 ).
Dependence is first of all an objective social relation : the combination of a lack
of power of one agent (relative to one of her goals) and of the corresponding power
of the other agent. But, of course, subjective dependence is also crucial (Fig. 1.5 ).
The dependence network determines and predicts partnership and coalition
formation, cooperation, and exchange, as well as competition and conflicts; in
addition, it affects the functional structure of organizations, rational and effective
communication, negotiation power, and power over others, among other aspects.
Given our interdependence, we can compete and fight or we can exchange
and cooperate. Both directions (solidarity and homo homini lupus ) emerge spon-
taneously on a structural basis and are later orchestrated and organize social action
and society. Both Hobbes and Durkheim are right.
If by war we simply mean the competition for scarce resources or incompatible
outcomes, based on a common world, that is, on interference, there is no alternative
and it is not our choice and decision. Interference and possible competition of
all against all are objective, unavoidable, and emergent. They are intrinsic to the
purposive nature (e.g., goals, outcomes, resources, conditions) of our behavior and
to the different conditions we find ourselves in (e.g., skills, resources).
If X simply has the goal that P, but in order to achieve P she must use resource R
or achieve or maintain the condition that Q, but in the same world (interference) Y
exists, who has the goal that W (or that Not P, or W that implies Not P) or needs to
exploit R, which is not enough for both, or needs to eliminate or avoid that Q, per-
haps they will ignore each other, but they will actually fight one other, they will com-
pete for R or for (Not) Q. Either X will win, that is, she will simply realize her goal,