Designing Future Systems: Antagonism, Agonism, and Conflict

From a systems-thinking perspective, the coexistence of multiple realities is a prerequisite for sustaining democratic values. In a democratic system, individuals must be able to freely express their choices and actively participate in decision-making processes. However, such participation can sometimes generate disruptive forms of relations among social classes, often described as antagonistic tensions. Antagonistic relationships require constructive engagement in order to transform conflict into a source of productive power—power to rather than power over. When managed productively, antagonism can evolve into agonistic pluralism: a form of social relation that embraces pluralism and channels disagreement into a medium for dialogue.

In this sense, conflict becomes a resource rather than a problem, shaping individuals’ thoughts and deep culture. The American philosopher John Dewey argued that conflict is inherent in socio-technical transformation. He criticized the state’s attempts to eliminate or prematurely resolve conflicts, or to suppress conflicting actors. Instead, he advocated recognizing conflict as a productive and necessary force for social continuity and democratic action.

Conflict, therefore, is not always a problem; it can also be a positive force. The main issue is how conflict is understood, managed, and shaped. As John Dewey stated, “the genuine problem is that of adjusting groups and individuals to one another” when conflict arises. This idea later contributed to the development of a classification of conflict: (a) national-level conflict, (b) intergroup conflict, (c) interpersonal conflict, and (d) cross-sectoral conflict. With the exception of the first category, toward which Dewey was more critical, he argued that the latter three (b, c, and d) should be understood as opportunities to readjust relationships and encourage communities to question the status quo. From this perspective, the constructive engagement of conflict can help create a more cohesive society, especially when individuals, groups, and sectors—both horizontally and vertically—are able to unite around shared concerns.

Looking at the present situation in Iran, the uprisings that began in universities can be understood as legitimate efforts to channel social dissonance. This requires building coalitions and using collective power wisely. Managing internal disagreements and transforming them into constructive force is essential to strengthening their ability to challenge the status quo.

Therefore, to fully use conflict as a catalyst, it is important to create the right conditions—spaces for empowerment, communities, and networks of like-minded actors that are connected and organized both horizontally and vertically.

Horizontally, this happens through cross-sector connections; vertically, through shared commitment to a common future. This call for building networks of allies emphasizes the need to carefully frame the present uprisings and to plan what comes next for Iranian students within their broader ecosystem of change. Such an approach requires more than simple self-organization; it also requires the use of intuitive logic that allows groups to rethink disagreement and to see one another (wishes) not as sources of hostility, but as shareholders. Turning this potential into real outcomes requires strong commitment to collective sensemaking and leadership capacities that gain their strength through connecting diverse aspirations.

 

"The moment of confrontation, which may evoke in us disquiet, bewilderment, uncertainty, and confusion, is the moment of real change in the moral, ethical, and political aspects of life—if our imagination can show what comes next after.” — Ch. Mattingly

 

 

Reference: The Public and Its Problems- 1927 by John Dewey

Image: The Battle of Kay Khosrow and Afrasiyab, from the Baysunghur Shahnameh (15th century), Timurid period