It seems there are conflicts among people who say there’s no way they’ll ever agree with one another.

Conflict researchers call these conflicts “intractable.” Their defining characteristics are ongoing and involve issues of values and identity. The parties view others as polar opposites and ignore or downplay any positive information about them. Peter Coleman describes the “fuel and lifeblood” of intractable conflict as “pain, misery, loss, loyalty, rage, frustration, fear, anxiety, and despair.

There are some guidelines for dealing with intractable conflicts. First step is to de-escalate anger and distrust. This is illustrated by activist Sally Gearhart profiled in the 2025 film “Sally!.” In her environmental activist days she admits to having made obscene gestures to the drivers of logging trucks loaded with redwoods in Northern California. Later, she said, she was “gentler,” by merely glaring at the drivers and mouthing obscenities. Though she acknowledged neither tactic was effective.

Still, later she recounts how she stopped judging and badgering, but instead chose to seek what she calls the “joining point” or the place they share as human beings who deal with similar struggles, such as working to feed one’s family. Recognizing those shared struggles made it possible for her to crusade without creating enemies.

In addition to identifying any goals the parties shared Sally described other steps for dealing with intractable conflicts, which included addressing peripheral issues first to establish a working relationship before working with secondary parties. She would turn her efforts on secondary partiers if she discovered they were more realistic and hoped they might exert influence on the primary parties.

Most importantly, though, is to accept the reality that no progress can be made until all parties are ready for resolution.

In the words attributed to Coco Chanel, “Timing is everything.”

Lately I’ve been asked about the use of the word “transactional” and how it applies to conflict management.

The etymology of the word is from the Latin “transigere,” meaning, “to drive through” or “to accomplish.” The word first came into use during the 1850s. It’s now commonly used in business to refer to relationships where each party ”gives and gets” something of value.

On the surface that seems equable, but there are at least three other considerations.

First, transactional relationships are based solely on reciprocity. No consideration is given to morals, ethics, or any principle.

Second, there is no emotional component or personal investment to a transactional relationship. The parties do not have to like or respect one another.

Third, transactional relationships are by definition limited in time by the reciprocity. When either or both parties no longer ”gets,” the relationship is dissolved and no further interactions is desired nor expected. This third consideration is in stark contrast to contemporary conflict management and negotiation theory, which stresses the value of long-term mutual benefit and relationship development.

A person who values transactional negotiation and relationships values the immediate deal and has no interest in developing long term connections because there are always ”new deals to be made.”