论文部分内容阅读
There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals， or they might be large people groups like countries. However， the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation？ A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand， he may choose to be empathetic， and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.
When engaged in a conflicting situation， some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach， however， because things can easily run out of control.
An example of such a situation is when group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen， without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case， because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management， however， feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees' grievances. The employees， on the other hand， ought not to be greatly aggrieved， seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be， and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However， things ought to be done differently， because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore， instead of their faith being a source of respite， it fuels the flames of conflict foursome people. Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands， hence being fair. In the case study above， for example， the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally， not all demands from each side shall be met， but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Liken the previous case， the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit， by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being firewood also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.
Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart， disagreements are inevitable. However， such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above， conflict might have arisen out of one employee's obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.
Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with， as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees， or it might be in favor of the management. However， what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do？ Through discussion with both parties， people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect， they do not undermine the goals of each other. There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place， a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end， this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.
Since its stand is neither here nor there， it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group， but rather， they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe， therefore， one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end， then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people， even though they might be transgressed against.
A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other's way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future， they will not fear conflicting situations， but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.
The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case， no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus， the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer， with all the employee's demands being met. The employer’s demands， on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise， the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such situation， the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination. （注：首届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉英文原文）
译文：
题目：化解冲突和可能产生的结果
人们可以通过多种方法解决交战各方的冲突问题。这些交战派少则两人互相敌对，多则可能会形成国与国这样的大团体之间的敌对。化解冲突的方式很多，但是对于一个既定的冲突案例，这些方法不见得都有效吧？无论是个人还是群体都应该针对当前的冲突问题选择最佳的解决方法。可以假设一个双重关切模式：无论是对他人的关切还是对自身的问切，人们会试图在二者之间取得平衡。一方面，他可能会固执己见，继续按照自己的方式去做。另一方面，他也会感同身受，考虑按照他人应以为常的方式去做。
当冲突发生的时候 ，一些人可能选择置身事外化解冲突。对这些人而言，回避即是解决冲突的最佳办法。他们宁愿冲突不解决，也不愿主动参与其中。他们并不关心冲突事件中其他人的感受。对于自身亦是如此。但是，这样的解决方法在冲突严重的情况下算不得最佳方式，因为事情很容易失控。
冲突严重情况下的一个典型案例：当一群员工举行罢工的时候，管理层并没有采取任何积极的措施干预正在发生的罢工事件，只是坐下来看看可能会发生什么。罢工局面变得更为糟糕，心怀不满的员工烧毁公司资产甚至殴打雇主。此类情况下，糟糕的局面只会愈演愈烈，因为员工觉得管理层过于冷漠，根本不会解决他们的问题。然而，管理层却认为是时候该好好消磨消磨员工们高傲的气焰。如果冲突双方达成了共识，一方面必是管理层在解决员工不满方面起到了积极作用。而另一方面，员工们也无需感到愤愤不平，因为他们至少知道领导们会关切他们，倾听他们内心的呼喊。十分不幸的是，许多人落入这个陷阱却是因为所谓的对神的忠贞。他们选择顺其自然，并对自己和他人说，事情就应该通过神的干预来解决。然而，我们还需因事而异。因为并不是每个人都有相同的信仰或宗教倾向。许多人都信不同的神，而有些人也只信一個神，神告诉人们在祂给予帮助之前，人们应该自助。因此，对神的信仰非但不会缓解冲突，反而会推波助澜，加剧四方冲突。
采取妥协的态度也是解决冲突的方式之一。于自身和他人而言，冲突双方均采取妥协的态度是很公平的。这些人愿意听取双方的观点，并根据对方提出的要求作出一些让步。他们还希望对方对于他们自身提出的要求也作出退让，因此这么做是公平的。例如，在上面的案例研究中，管理层希望员工对于一些要求作出让步，同时员工也希望管理层对他们提出的某些要求作出妥协。理想的情况下，并不是所有的要求都能得到满足，但是如果冲突双方各自的某些所需得到了解决，这样平衡还是可以实现的。例如此前的案例，通过持续调解，让两组成员中更加强势的一方作出一点让步。根据员工的行为表现决定谁有望执掌管理层。一旦实现了公平，便不会看到员工们陷入情感困惑，爆发烧杀抢掠的事件。火苗被熄灭也见证了管理层在解决冲突方面起到了积极作用，而不只是坐在后方看着形势越变越糟。
冲突不一定就是坏事或令人生厌的经历。如果有两个或两个以上的人站在不同的利益方，分歧是不可避免的。然而，这种分歧可能是为了让冲突双方加深对彼此的了解，以实现更强的凝聚力。在上述提到的工作场所中的情况，一些员工一直想让管理层知道员工们在没有被监视情况下的状态，可是这些事并未受到关注，冲突由此而生。而其他员工则一直反对密切监督，所以二者之间出现了利益冲突。这种利益冲突进一步加剧，因为其中一名同事为了给自己创造好名声抬高自己而在上级面前贬低他人。
解决这种冲突可能需要高度自信和对他人的同情。具备了这些特点，便可以很容易与竞争者达成合作，友好地解决冲突。不仅关心自身福利，也会对竞争对手的利益高度重视。会与别人合作，找到一个彼此都能满意的解决方法。可能倾向于与支持自己的同事合作，也可能与管理层合作。然而，什么样的人会陷入这种冲突呢？双方通过争论，开始明白对方的观点。实际上，他们并不会减损彼此的目标利益。
任何冲突的努力解决可能会产生三个结果。这些结果取决于冲突解决方法在实践中的应用。首先，解决方案可能有利于双方的利益。最终双方都获胜，这就是所谓的“双赢”局面。本文提到的第一种冲突解决方案决不会达到双赢的局面。最终没有实现双赢。是因为其中一方没有按照解决方案走。
由于冲突双方的立场很分明，这群人很难分辨他们是否真的应该遵循方案走。这群人关心的不是最后谁胜谁败的问题，而是最终能否得到安宁。他们想要安宁，却不付诸行动，也不为之争取。也许，人们想的是对的：最终安宁了，对那些不想为自己的信仰而站起来的人来说，他们最终也是赢了。可以理所当然地认为这些人是懦夫，因为即便他们可能遭到侵犯也没有足够的骨气面对他人。
“双赢”当然是最好的结果。群体成员之间的凝聚力比冲突发生前更强了。他们更加了解彼此的思维方式，懂得什么样的事情会分离他们。未来，他们不再害怕冲突的出现，但他们宁愿努力远离那些分裂他们的东西。他们会努力争取那些使他们更紧密地联系在一起成为一个整体的东西。
另一种一种结果就是一方胜，另一方败。这种情况下，双方未能达成共识。其中一方过于气势汹汹，而另一方则一味迁就。气势强的一方必然让气势弱的一方遵循自己的方式。因此，前者胜而后者输。这种情况的例子就被称为“输赢”局面，因为一方赢，另一方输。这就好比雇主和雇员之间的冲突，一方面员工轻易地就让老板满足了他所有的需求。而另一方面老板的要求就被忽略了。否则，就显得老板对员工过于专横。以此下去，老板最终只能以员工不服从上级为由解雇员工。
When engaged in a conflicting situation， some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach， however， because things can easily run out of control.
An example of such a situation is when group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen， without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case， because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management， however， feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees' grievances. The employees， on the other hand， ought not to be greatly aggrieved， seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be， and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However， things ought to be done differently， because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore， instead of their faith being a source of respite， it fuels the flames of conflict foursome people. Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands， hence being fair. In the case study above， for example， the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally， not all demands from each side shall be met， but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Liken the previous case， the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit， by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being firewood also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.
Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart， disagreements are inevitable. However， such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above， conflict might have arisen out of one employee's obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.
Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with， as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees， or it might be in favor of the management. However， what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do？ Through discussion with both parties， people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect， they do not undermine the goals of each other. There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place， a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end， this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.
Since its stand is neither here nor there， it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group， but rather， they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe， therefore， one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end， then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people， even though they might be transgressed against.
A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other's way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future， they will not fear conflicting situations， but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.
The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case， no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus， the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer， with all the employee's demands being met. The employer’s demands， on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise， the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such situation， the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination. （注：首届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉英文原文）
译文：
题目：化解冲突和可能产生的结果
人们可以通过多种方法解决交战各方的冲突问题。这些交战派少则两人互相敌对，多则可能会形成国与国这样的大团体之间的敌对。化解冲突的方式很多，但是对于一个既定的冲突案例，这些方法不见得都有效吧？无论是个人还是群体都应该针对当前的冲突问题选择最佳的解决方法。可以假设一个双重关切模式：无论是对他人的关切还是对自身的问切，人们会试图在二者之间取得平衡。一方面，他可能会固执己见，继续按照自己的方式去做。另一方面，他也会感同身受，考虑按照他人应以为常的方式去做。
当冲突发生的时候 ，一些人可能选择置身事外化解冲突。对这些人而言，回避即是解决冲突的最佳办法。他们宁愿冲突不解决，也不愿主动参与其中。他们并不关心冲突事件中其他人的感受。对于自身亦是如此。但是，这样的解决方法在冲突严重的情况下算不得最佳方式，因为事情很容易失控。
冲突严重情况下的一个典型案例：当一群员工举行罢工的时候，管理层并没有采取任何积极的措施干预正在发生的罢工事件，只是坐下来看看可能会发生什么。罢工局面变得更为糟糕，心怀不满的员工烧毁公司资产甚至殴打雇主。此类情况下，糟糕的局面只会愈演愈烈，因为员工觉得管理层过于冷漠，根本不会解决他们的问题。然而，管理层却认为是时候该好好消磨消磨员工们高傲的气焰。如果冲突双方达成了共识，一方面必是管理层在解决员工不满方面起到了积极作用。而另一方面，员工们也无需感到愤愤不平，因为他们至少知道领导们会关切他们，倾听他们内心的呼喊。十分不幸的是，许多人落入这个陷阱却是因为所谓的对神的忠贞。他们选择顺其自然，并对自己和他人说，事情就应该通过神的干预来解决。然而，我们还需因事而异。因为并不是每个人都有相同的信仰或宗教倾向。许多人都信不同的神，而有些人也只信一個神，神告诉人们在祂给予帮助之前，人们应该自助。因此，对神的信仰非但不会缓解冲突，反而会推波助澜，加剧四方冲突。
采取妥协的态度也是解决冲突的方式之一。于自身和他人而言，冲突双方均采取妥协的态度是很公平的。这些人愿意听取双方的观点，并根据对方提出的要求作出一些让步。他们还希望对方对于他们自身提出的要求也作出退让，因此这么做是公平的。例如，在上面的案例研究中，管理层希望员工对于一些要求作出让步，同时员工也希望管理层对他们提出的某些要求作出妥协。理想的情况下，并不是所有的要求都能得到满足，但是如果冲突双方各自的某些所需得到了解决，这样平衡还是可以实现的。例如此前的案例，通过持续调解，让两组成员中更加强势的一方作出一点让步。根据员工的行为表现决定谁有望执掌管理层。一旦实现了公平，便不会看到员工们陷入情感困惑，爆发烧杀抢掠的事件。火苗被熄灭也见证了管理层在解决冲突方面起到了积极作用，而不只是坐在后方看着形势越变越糟。
冲突不一定就是坏事或令人生厌的经历。如果有两个或两个以上的人站在不同的利益方，分歧是不可避免的。然而，这种分歧可能是为了让冲突双方加深对彼此的了解，以实现更强的凝聚力。在上述提到的工作场所中的情况，一些员工一直想让管理层知道员工们在没有被监视情况下的状态，可是这些事并未受到关注，冲突由此而生。而其他员工则一直反对密切监督，所以二者之间出现了利益冲突。这种利益冲突进一步加剧，因为其中一名同事为了给自己创造好名声抬高自己而在上级面前贬低他人。
解决这种冲突可能需要高度自信和对他人的同情。具备了这些特点，便可以很容易与竞争者达成合作，友好地解决冲突。不仅关心自身福利，也会对竞争对手的利益高度重视。会与别人合作，找到一个彼此都能满意的解决方法。可能倾向于与支持自己的同事合作，也可能与管理层合作。然而，什么样的人会陷入这种冲突呢？双方通过争论，开始明白对方的观点。实际上，他们并不会减损彼此的目标利益。
任何冲突的努力解决可能会产生三个结果。这些结果取决于冲突解决方法在实践中的应用。首先，解决方案可能有利于双方的利益。最终双方都获胜，这就是所谓的“双赢”局面。本文提到的第一种冲突解决方案决不会达到双赢的局面。最终没有实现双赢。是因为其中一方没有按照解决方案走。
由于冲突双方的立场很分明，这群人很难分辨他们是否真的应该遵循方案走。这群人关心的不是最后谁胜谁败的问题，而是最终能否得到安宁。他们想要安宁，却不付诸行动，也不为之争取。也许，人们想的是对的：最终安宁了，对那些不想为自己的信仰而站起来的人来说，他们最终也是赢了。可以理所当然地认为这些人是懦夫，因为即便他们可能遭到侵犯也没有足够的骨气面对他人。
“双赢”当然是最好的结果。群体成员之间的凝聚力比冲突发生前更强了。他们更加了解彼此的思维方式，懂得什么样的事情会分离他们。未来，他们不再害怕冲突的出现，但他们宁愿努力远离那些分裂他们的东西。他们会努力争取那些使他们更紧密地联系在一起成为一个整体的东西。
另一种一种结果就是一方胜，另一方败。这种情况下，双方未能达成共识。其中一方过于气势汹汹，而另一方则一味迁就。气势强的一方必然让气势弱的一方遵循自己的方式。因此，前者胜而后者输。这种情况的例子就被称为“输赢”局面，因为一方赢，另一方输。这就好比雇主和雇员之间的冲突，一方面员工轻易地就让老板满足了他所有的需求。而另一方面老板的要求就被忽略了。否则，就显得老板对员工过于专横。以此下去，老板最终只能以员工不服从上级为由解雇员工。