The Jah and Kay session is one to remember. It is a conflict simulation in which two groups are pitted to work together, but have been given conflicting information. I felt confused going in as it was a little rushed, but eventually found my footing and worked with what I had. It was a fun activity. Overall the goal of the simulation was achieved, to demonstrate quite simply how two groups can end up disagreeing. I don’t know if it went as planned, although I think their plan is to facilitate our learning so it may have. I think other students didn’t expect anyone to get into the role playing aspect, but I was quite… energised during the activity, fiercely defending my team/’country’.
The session began with all of us meeting in the main room as usual. Then they quickly split us up and we moved to separate rooms. One group got the Kay briefing and another, the one I was assigned, got the Jah briefing. The Jahs were a proud and old country, just now getting independence, the state of the country was poor, but Jahs were proud to finally have independence and happy with the state of things so long as it was their own doing, wary of outside help and wanting to earn their place by themselves. After some time of planning (Jahs were building a monument to celebrate their independence), the Kays arrived to assist in the project. At this point my defensive mentality kicked in and I immediately attacked and critiqued the Kayen delegates. At the end of the negotiation and simulation we debriefed and discussed the events that had transpired.
In the beginning, we worked together by natural leaders taking charge of the monument’s construction. There was a slight fragmentation of our group, some had other ideas for the monument, but in the end, we worked together enough that the monument design was enhanced by the multi-pronged approach to design. When the Kays finally arrived though things changed. On one side I was attacking the foreigners and their intent and on the other, some wanted to just give in. Eventually, we agreed to at least sit down at negotiations and discuss proposed ideas.
In the end, neither side achieved a satisfactory conclusion and furthermore, it was seen that the Jah delegates weren’t government representatives but simple construction workers, ill-equipped to handle a negotiation of this kind. This perhaps negatively reflected on the Kayens who were unable to discern who it was they were talking to.
What I’ve taken away is how easy it is for people to just attack one another. How a simple scenario can devolve into conflict. I think this has changed how I see interactions everyday. How beliefs, prejudice and attitudes can shape an interaction and how important communication and language is. I think I either made people realise how obnoxious and difficult people can be when their views and state of being are challenged. On the other hand some will see me as a student who perhaps got too into the simulation. This has changed how I think I will behave in simulations and perhaps a change in attitude is required.
LO1
Improvisation activities such as MUN and DnD have helped me in engaging in role-play situations, requiring the mindset and attitude appropriate for the setting of the activity.
I am good at leading and taking a strong, stubborn stance on issues. My strength can be in taking the initiative and confronting anyone that may oppose my side in a debate or scenario.
I would like to improve my sense of control over how I engage with others, especially in tense situations. My reaction can sometimes be quite heated and intense, implying I perhaps take the situation a bit too seriously.
Through this activity I have been able to experience rigorous debate and negotiation over situations that reflect international conflicts. It had been almost a year since I last participated in an MUN conference so it reminded me of my strength as a public speaker and ability to improvise, but highlighted my need for greater vocabulary as well as team work and effective communication and strategy.
I have improved in my ability to adapt to imaginative scenarios. Usually I might point out the flaws or refuse to participate, but I believe given the opportunity and right scenario I engage energetically in the activity. I know this because many were surprised at the ferocity I attacked the other side during the negotiations.
The areas I struggled were in effective team strategy and communication. I believe I struggled in this area, especially during this activity, because the energy and seriousness I applied to this scenario did not match that of my teammates. Furthermore, I believe the information received and the way in which it was interpreted was different for me compared to the others.
LO4
I demonstrated perseverance in maintaining the imaginative setting of the activity as well as engaging confidently and stubbornly, refusing to merely ‘play the game’ and move on as quickly as possible from the activity. My resilience to the other student’s lack of energy and commitment was clearly demonstrated when many were visibily confused and frustrated with my attitude.
I helped others by maintaining the stance of my side during the activity. I provided constant reminders of the facts presented in the beginning and the reasons for my stance and the stance I believe should be adopted in the present situations by the group.
I believe my commitment impacted everyone as they were engaged and challenged by the situation I had created. Although many may have found the experience unpleasant, I believe they walked away understanding more about the fundamentals of conflict and how difficult these kinds of situations can be, even in simplified scenarios.
My understanding of the activity, the freedom provided by the staff facilitators and my mood that afternoon impacted the amount of effort and energy I used in participating in the activity.
LO5
I collaborated with around 10 other people. In the activity there was also another group of around 10 students who we were intended to collaborate with dependant on the outcome of negotiations and interactions during the activity.
The clear instructions and scene setting provided at the beginning as well as our shared interest at IFP assisted in making our shared goal clear and collaboration more effective and easy.
We overcame many challenges in working together including the attitude we were to take during negotiations, what kind of monument we were to build and how to approach and conclude the negotiations. We resolved this through rigorous discussion and debate as well as yielding to different leaders throughout. We were unable to conclude the negotiations due to time constraints for the activity.
Collaboration was vital to understanding how conflict can be created and also how it can be avoided. It was both important to collaborate well to achieve the desired goal of collaboration or construction of the monument, but also to fail in some aspects and challenge ourselves so as to have more to reflect on and learn from.
I could yield to the ideas and attitudes of the majority of the team and allow someone else to take charge. Not having a single focused mindset would make collaboration much smoother for everyone and perhaps make the activity more enjoyable.