i do not believe that ‘finding the third space’ can be a complete technique and practice within itself. i find its structure inherently hierarchical and i cannot agree that a conflict can be fully resolved with a hierarchy intact.

take for example two parties arguing, subject a and subject b. subject a believes that subject b is lying to them, subject b strongly refutes this. the two continue to argue, subject a citing subject b’s previous behaviours while subject b is convinced that they have changed. the two cannot progress from here. by using the ‘third space’ strategy, as described by dr jessica benjamin, the resolution relies on a shared, mutual shift into this observer perspective and by taking this perspective it is assumed this will help them resolve their conflict. however, in practice, what often happens is that one of the parties moves into the third space alone, enforcing a hierarchy into the conflict and possibly the relationship as a whole.

if subject b moved into the third space alone, they could harbour resentment against subject a for forcing them to become the ‘manager’ of a situation that they do not believe is of their making or fault. if subject a moves into the third space, they may feel virtuous, almost smug, in taking the ‘high road’. these are two of many possible outcomes, both of which can create longer term interpersonal tension if left unaddressed. when you look at subject a and subject b long term, their tension could also face drastic exacerbation if they default to one party constantly moving into the third space while the other does consistently does not.

with the two parties ascending into a square formation, this hierarchy ceases to exist. i will credit the triangular formation as a good starting point, but for true conflict resolution both parties must enter into this new space. my disdain of an uneven field does not equate to a belief that one party cannot ascend first. in my model this is allowed, encouraged even. the difference is that in the square, the second party is able to also move up into the space created, creating a level field for subject a and subject b to talk as equals. by both subjects being equal in this formation, i believe this increases the likelihood of a healthy conflict resolution.

one may slip back into the original formation. for example, subject b could become frustrated and feel that subject a does not trust them and fall back into their conflict position. however, subject a can bring them back into the shared space while they remain there. as long as subject b is able to meet them there again, they can resume discussion.

some may argue that one party ‘picking up’ the other still reinforces hierarchy within a relationship. i disagree; hierarchy is not defined by who moves first, but by whether the position they move into can be equally occupied by the other. with that being said, it would be beneficial if they do not default to one party consistently moving into the square formation first.

i accept that there will be occasions where there is an inherent power imbalance during conflict, for example between a manager and their direct report. the manager may be expected to lead the discussion and the employee expected to follow within reason. even here, i would argue the square formation can still apply. both individuals can reach the same emotional level and work towards a resolution, while maintaining their professional boundaries.

i view and credit dr benjamin’s theory of finding the ‘third space’ as a stepping stone to resolution, but one that is liable to collapse into hierarchy in practice, even if that is not the intention. for true resolution to happen, both parties must be able to engage at the same level. what i am calling the square formation is an attempt to preserve that equality in practice, rather than only in theory.