Reacting to Aggression: How to Avoid and De-Escalate Conflict
In light of the Vancouver-area women’s self defense class I’m running this weekend, I was thinking about the different reactions to aggression in day-to-day life and how the vast majority of physical fights can be prevented with assertive conflict avoidance and de-escalation strategies.
There are 3 main ways people react to conflict. The first two I’ll discuss below are the ones most people use. They are the reactions people have when they give in to their conditioned fear-based adrenal responses in the face of aggression. The third type of response is self-aware, allowing a person to keep their head and stay in control of the situation.
1. Passive Response: This is when a person under-reacts to aggressive behaviour. The person avoids eye contact, turns the shoulders away and/or hunches over. In a woman’s case they might allow aggressor to get close and make physical advances. Verbally, the person would be saying ‘No’ to the advances or saying that they don’t want any trouble, but they do so without confidence or in an unconvincing manner. When you take on a “scared rabbit” victim-like demeanour, it confirms to the aggressor that you’re an easy victim and can bring on further physical aggression and assault.
2. Aggressive Response: This is when a person over-reacts to a situation. They display a defiant attitude. The non-verbal communication that is usually displayed is hands on hips and/or puffed chest, firmly set jaw and direct, menacing eye contact. The person might also point their finger at the aggressor in a menacing fashion. Verbally, the person would talk back to them defiantly, oftentimes swearing. Basically, the person puts on a show that they’re unwilling to back down, which fuels the fire to the point where aggressor loses face and has no choice in his or her mind but to escalate things with a violent response.
3. Assertive mode: Responding assertively means assessing a situation and responding appropriately. Every aspect of the person’s response exudes non-threatening assertiveness. They stand in what we call the “interview stance,” both knees bent with the strong leg back and the hands up with palms open for protection in a way that looks non-threatening. The person has confident body language, which includes a straight back and firm but non-menacing eye contact and tone of voice. The person keeps a safe distance while talking. The verbal response is also assertive. A woman might say to a man’s unwanted advances, “Look I’ve already told you once that I’m not interested. Go away now!” Here is an example of what a man could say to an aggressor who is accusing him of hitting on his girlfriend: “Stay back now. We can talk things over just fine from there. I was just asking her where the washroom was. I didn’t mean anything by it. Let’s just all go back to having a good night, ok?” When it comes to verbal responses, a person should modify their intensity appropriately until the person backs off, whatever the situation.
Physical defense should only be used as a last resort when avoidance and de-escalation tactics have failed. By being assertive, not passive or aggressive, you can usually keep yourself physical fights.
Superb post. Thanks for the inspiration.
'interview stance' – I've also heard this referred to as 'the fence'. Either way I think it's a great idea and actively integrate it into my own martial arts study and teaching.
One thing I personally believe is that the concepts and techniques explored in self defense seminars should be an active part of traditional training.
This is a great write-up and I think you hit the different reactions right on the head.
The problem with your de-escalation strategy is it don't work if the other person doesn't want to de-escalate the situation. In both your examples, you assume the other person is willing to listen. I've seen a lot of people get hurt making that assumption.
Rob,
They may not respond, but it does buy you some time to set yourself up for self-defense if that is the case. If they attack you regardless, then you should have a better position from which to defend if you played it smart. It's almost always worth it to try and get out of a situation without resorting to violence if you have the option to do so. You never know what could happen when violence occurs. Plus if it's in a public place, it allows you to gather witnesses and demonstrate that you didn't enter the fight willingly should you ever end up in court over the matter.
Lori,
Sorry but I disagree, de-escalation either works or it doesn't. When someone is threatening you they're trying to talk themselves into it. It's like sexual arousal, they need some stimulus. If they let you de-escalate they wanted to, if they don't whatever you say will be just helping them to get to that point.
Also when you're de-escalating you're mentally distracted, and that's what gets people hurt. You might think that it's not but your thought processes are engaged in the conversation and it also takes a few seconds to go from talk mode to fight mode. When boxers warm up for a fight, they take light punches and sometimes punch themselves in the face to prepare. It's easier to get KO'd off a lucky punch in round one than round two.
De-escalation is widely accepted but hugely overrated. It's a high risk strategy that often goes horribly wrong. Lots of rape victims use that strategy.
De-escalation is not intended for high-risk situations in which physical attack is imminent. It's intended for lower risk situations like some jerk at a bar who is coming on to you uninvited or some guy who verbally takes issue with you about talking to his girlfriend, stuff like that. It's not intended for when someone is coming in to attack you. That kind of scenario you would just defend yourself. De-escalation makes sense in context. I never said to use it when someone is moving in for an attack. It is only in the talking phase that this is appropriate. Every cop I know has told me about how they use de-escalation far more than they use physical violence.
Context is everything.
Lori,
"De-escalation is not intended for high-risk situations in which physical attack is imminent."
Which is why it's a high risk strategy because you can know when a potentially violent situation is going to flare up but you can't know when it isn't. If you start trying to de-escalate, it's a gamble, which will sometimes pay off and sometimes won't. The problem is, it won't work if the other person really is going to attack you. Talking somebody out of doing something they don't want to do isn't that hard.
The situation you described a geezer coming on to some other geezer girlfriend is high risk. In Canada, men might react differently — I don't know, I've never been there — but quite recently, I got in a knife fight in Brindisi with a bloke who was trying to hit on my little sister. Sometimes your in argument and someone pulls out a knife and you've got to react. If you're in de-escalation mode, you're mentally distracted and not psychologically prepared. You talk about combat stress in one of your other posts. To make the transition from de-escalation to lethal combat is difficult. You can't just trip a switch in your head.
BTW coppers say a lot of things but most of them have very limited combat experience. If they are exposed to high risk of violence on a regular basis, they're not going to use de-escalation tactics.
It's not a gamble to use de-escalation tactics if you're doing so in a position that has you ready to attack should something happen.
We teach people that when they're talking that they keep their distance and keep their hands up, palms facing their attacker in a way that allows them to fight back should the rush in.
Legally, you cannot simply attack someone who is mouthing off at you without actually physically attacking you unless they have already spoken their intention to attack.
De-escalation doesn't mean that you "peace out". De-escalation requires that you be assertive and establish boundaries appropriately, escalating your verbal approach as necessary. It's hardly a relaxed mentality.
As for the cops I have spoken with, they're not the types that you describing, all talk, lots of ego. It's not really fair to judge them without knowing them, their background or their experience. I know it's easy for me to say, and you have no opportunity to really judge them for yourself, but one of them I've been teaching for 2.5 years and another I've been training under for nearly 5 years and is one of the head guys in my style of Jiu-jitsu in addition to being the man who trains the trainers who train our national police.
I do appreciate your points however, and see what you're getting it. It is important that everyone understands the proper mentality one should have in engagement. One should always be switched on and ready to react physically when in an aggressive situation, no matter what tactic you start off using.
Thanks for commenting!
Lori,
Most Canadian cops have very limited combat experience, I'm sorry if that offends but it is true. Statically most of them haven't shot anyone in line of duty. A lot of them might think they have been in a lot of violent situations but most of them won't have KO'd anyone with a punch, kick, headbutt or with their baton, or been knifed or bottled. And even the cops that have been in serious fights, they won't do it on a regular basis. I'm not accusing any one of having an ego, I just saying that coppers don't have much combat experience.
Lori
"Legally, you cannot simply attack someone who is mouthing off at you without actually physically attacking you unless they have already spoken their intention to attack"
Not where I live. There is a difference between being arrested and being convicted of a crime. When you're defending yourself, worrying about what's legal and what's not is dangerous.
Lori,
I know what you mean by de-escalation, I know you're not being passive or in a relaxed state but as you point out in another post combat stress blurs the mind making gross motor skills easier than fine motor skills. When you're de-escalating you're mentally distracted even if you think you're alert. When I train bodyguards I show them how distracted they are when they're engaged in a conversation. When you de-escalate you're trying to end a conflict before it starts, which means you are not in the emotional state to start fighting, which is why it's a poor tactic for citizen self-defence. The conversation in your head with yourself in the couple of seconds before you're attacked will be crucial to your reaction.
Rob,
Actually, one of the cops I mentioned has a lot of combat experience. He works in a really dodgy area in the Vancouver area with a lot of drug addiction, biker gangs and prostitution. Not all areas in Canada are like it's portrayed on TV. He sees action all the time and has told me of a wide variety of incidents in which he had to react violently and non-violently to violent circumstances.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying the difference in your laws. Obviously people should all take in their areas laws into account when devising their self-defense strategy.
Thanks again for posting!
Rob,
Btw, the case of bodyguards is a whole different context too. In that context it makes a lot more sense to devise a different strategy more like you describe because the threats are more likely to be higher level threats.
Good posts by Rob and Lori. There is some middle ground here. Verbal Judo with a good stance is an appropriate approach in some circumstances. When faced with a situation that could result in death or grievous bodily harm, an appropriate level of force needs be used to preserve your well-being. Even a pre-emptive strike is legit as long as you can articulate your actions. The use of force, from mere presence all the way up to lethal force, is dependant on the totality of circumstances.