The Under-Understory: The Assumptions That Shape Conflict
Many theories of conflict acknowledge that the positions we defend and the arguments we engage in are rarely the true source of the conflict. Beneath the surface is often a deeper story, assumption, or unmet need that has been triggered.
Marshall Rosenberg, founder of Nonviolent Communication, argued that all conflict is a "tragic expression of an unmet need." He suggested that when people's needs are met, conflict diminishes. Rosenberg identified a range of universal human needs, including safety, autonomy, respect, connection, and joy. At the heart of conflict, he believed, is an unarticulated and therefore unmet need. Until that need is recognized, the conflict is likely to persist.
In Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury advance a similar idea. They argue that the positions people defend are often a cover for deeper interests and needs. Their influential negotiation approach focuses on uncovering those underlying interests to create solutions that address what matters most to both parties and allow for mutually beneficial outcomes.
Amanda Ripley explores a related concept in her book High Conflict. She introduces the idea of an "understory", the deeper narrative that shapes how people interpret events and respond to one another. Like Rosenberg, she suggests that there are common human concerns and fears that fuel conflict. And like Fisher and Ury, she argues that meaningful progress is difficult until these deeper dynamics are understood.
I think there is an even deeper level: an under-understory. This level contains our assumptions about basic human worth, scarcity and abundance, and whether people are fundamentally good or ill-intentioned. It is difficult to listen for someone's understory if, at some level, you have already concluded that they are unlike you, unreasonable, or bad.
It becomes easier when we start from a different assumption: that, like us, the other person is trying to navigate their day, make sense of their circumstances, and meet important needs. Curiosity about another person's understory requires believing that their behaviour makes sense from within their worldview and given the resources available to them. It also requires believing that beneath their position is a need that is not so different from our own.
These are generous assumptions, but they are important if we hope to lead through conflict with compassion and move toward collaborative and constructive outcomes.
They are also assumptions that are easy to abandon when we feel tired, threatened, or under pressure. Yet they are worth revisiting because the under-understory is not only about understanding the other person. It is also about understanding ourselves. Often, progress begins when we become clear about the needs that are not being met beneath our own position and become genuinely curious about what needs might not be met for the other person. From there, new possibilities emerge and we may finally begin to move toward a resolution that works for everyone.
This reflection draws on ideas from Nonviolent Communication, principled negotiation, and contemporary conflict theory, while extending them through the author's own observations about the assumptions that shape how we understand ourselves and others in conflict.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Ripley, A. (2021). High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. Simon & Schuster.
Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (3rd ed.). PuddleDancer Press.
