Some of the news items in recent weeks made me think of something I had read about acceptance (“Getting Together – Building Relationships As We Negotiate” by Fisher and Brown, 1988). These days we talk much about “tolerance”, but there seems to be a fine difference. Acceptance comes first: First we need to recognize the other party, only then can there be a question of how we deal with them.

Why does this need to be pointed out? Well, when we are in a conflict with somebody, rejecting (i.e. not accepting) them is tantamount to pretending that there is no interdependency between the parties. But when in conflict, such an interdependency is a fact and a reality.

An understanding that acceptance does not imply an approval of values, perceptions or conduct can do much to facilitate a relationship and atmosphere that is conducive to managing conflict.

We need to keep reminding ourselves that everybody has the right to have interests. Accepting a conflict partner and their interests as a matter of principle does not mean we agree with them. It cannot confer any status either (for example: The U.S. policy to recognize all governments that have control of their countries does not make it anything special when any one government is being recognized). But it does allow us to learn more about our conflict partner and how to resolve the conflict.

On the other hand, using acceptance as a reward may backfire: Acceptance might be forced on us through an escalation of the conflict and could feel like making a concession. If we “successfully” reject the other party we gain virtually nothing, but handicap ourselves for the future.

So when I look at some of the recent developments in the U.S. it makes me wonder: Are these questions of tolerance – or of acceptance? Are some realities of life being ignored and people and their right to have interests being rejected? Acceptance does not imply approval – but it is essential to working things out.