"Conflicts are part of life"

Addressing conflicts in a way that leads to understanding takes practice class, and sometimes also external support. Professor Dr Martina Ritter is Vice-President for Research and Transfer at Fulda University of Applied Sciences. She has investigated how we can better manage conflicts and negotiate interests in a diverse society. In this interview, she provides food for thought for more democratic behaviour in everyday life.

Professor Ritter, many people think of democracy in terms of political parties and elections. You say that doesn't go far enough. Why is that?

Democracy is often understood very narrowly. But democracy also plays a role in everyday life: how am I involved in decisions that precede concrete political activity? Who is listened to? Which issues make it into the political debate? We need spaces in which we can negotiate fundamental social issues with each other: What kind of coexistence do we want? How important is respect to us, how do we deal with the question of belonging? We are researching this at Fulda University of Applied Sciences, among other places.

The university's specialisation is quality of life and health. How does that fit together?

Quality of life is more than just the fulfilment of basic needs. It also depends on how people are socially integrated: whether they feel a sense of belonging in their place, whether they can participate and have a say. And these issues also directly affect health. It is well vouched that poverty makes people ill. In addition, people who are affected by poverty or social exclusion are often less able to exercise their democratic laws, either because they actually have fewer opportunities or because they have the impression that their voice does not count. So it's all connected.

At the end of project, you investigated how conflicts in the migration society can be dealt with. Why are there so many conflicts?

Conflicts don't just arise as a result of migration. They are a fundamental part of social life because people are different. Even people with similar backgrounds have different experiences, values and interests. When people come from other social worlds, the differences are even more visible: how you understand the world, how you speak, sit, greet, what is considered respectful. This does not always lead to conflicts, but differences do. And these can become conflicts when fears arise of losing something or when people feel misunderstood. Democratic societies must therefore find ways to negotiate differences in such a way that conflicts do not escalate. If this is successful, then conflicts can even help people to broaden their own horizons, understand other perspectives and develop. The key is therefore not to avoid conflicts, but to deal with them well. Imagine a world in which everyone thinks the same way. That would not only be boring, but also problematic: we need the other person, the other, in order to be an "I" at all.

We are currently experiencing that many people are withdrawing into their "bubble". What happens there?

We all need a bit of a bubble. People need a social environment in which they feel safe and feel affirmed and that they belong. It becomes problematic when your own filter bubble acts as if it is the whole world, i.e. when you can no longer see that there are other worlds outside your own perspective that are no less entitled or valuable.

Social library items harbour a particular risk here: they attract rudeness. Anyone sitting opposite a person often has greater inhibitions about saying humiliating or derogatory sentences because shame and immediate re-enrolment have an effect. On a mobile phone, on the other hand, an insult is quickly typed. Anonymity and distance eliminate all inhibitions. This distorts the way we deal with conflicts.

Rude or offensive language is often defended as freedom of expression.

If I verbally humiliate another person, that is not freedom of expression. Freedom of expression means that I can express my interests, but always in such a way that I treat another person with respect because he or she is a human being. If this is lost, then we are travelling down a dangerous path.

How can conflict resolution succeed?

Many people are not trained to address conflicts early and openly or even to formulate what they want. I'm sure many people are familiar with this: When living conditions change, unspoken expectations often arise. In couple relationships, for example, this becomes clear after the birth of a child. The division of responsibilities is perceived as unfair, but in most cases there has been no prior discussion about how responsibilities are to be shared. We only talk about it when the anger is already there.

From my research, I know that escalation often begins where no form of dialogue is found to negotiate differences. Example: A large house for refugees was built in a quiet street. Different rhythms of life clashed - night-time Ramadan celebrations here, getting up early there. Instead of formulating their respective needs in good time, both sides complained about each other and shouted at each other. At some point, the situation could no longer be remedied.

In secure relationships, you can try speaking more openly. It is important to explicitly state this as a joint endeavour. In other words, to say: I want to do this differently, I want to practise speaking more openly. Do we want to try this together?

And how can people start talking to each other again at a social level?

Sometimes the people involved can't do it alone. Then you need people from the municipality or city to accompany the process and build a bridge, i.e. create a framework in which you can ask questions and discuss uncertainties without the situation escalating immediately. Because without clarification, mistrust or even racism quickly grows. You have to try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. In sociology, this is called "taking the attitude of the other". This is a competence that we all have. After all, we learn language by empathising with others.

How did you do this in your projects?

We spoke with people who had fled; then with committed people who supervise refugees; and also with those who have a rejecting attitude towards migration. It was difficult to even get into dialogue with this group.

We heard from the refugees that they would like to get to know more Germans, but didn't know how. Committed people reported that they were hostile because of their work and no longer spoke openly about it. As a team, we tried to organise the topics: Some conflicts centred on customs, others on norms or values. If you differentiate between them, it becomes easier to reach agreements. Everyone was then invited together to continue the discussions.

Are we still capable of resolving conflicts peacefully in times when authoritarian ideas are gaining traction?

Democracy is complex and extends recognition and participation. When people are insecure, authoritarian structures can become attractive. But we should realise that they don't just affect others. Your own life would also lose freedom. And those who think they are safe today may be affected themselves tomorrow: through illness, disability or job loss. Then you need precisely those safeguards of solidarity that quickly come under pressure in authoritarian politics. I hope that people are no longer afraid of conflict and learn to work through differences and resolve conflicts. And that communities create resources to support such processes.

The interview was first published on the regional knowledge page of the Fulda University of Applied Sciences in the "Marktkorb" advertising journal on 2 May 2026.

Download as PDF