In strategic studies, there is a recurring model that I find very useful in many ways. Just off the top of my head, I have seen these concepts in some form in the writings of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, John Boyd, as well as the works by Frans Osinga, Ian Brown, and the USMC’s publication MCDP-1 Warfighting.
We will be exploring this idea in greater detail as we go along, but I wanted to include a definition of terms here so you can understand what I am saying when I reference the idea of 3Spheres of conflict (competition).
First, we begin with an assumption that we live in a competitive environment. This is not always negative, but it can at times be hostile. This idea of the 3 Spheres applies at any scale, whether it is international (competition between nation states) or individual (competition between individual people). Application of these ideas will differ by scale, but I still find the model useful.
We can view the conflict / competition through this lens as an interaction between physical, mental, and moral forces (the “3 Spheres”).
The first Sphere is Physical. This is the most easily recognized and is most often the focus of training, teaching, or study, whether the student is studying strategy or personal protection. In war, this Sphere is concerned with soldiers killed or captured, equipment capabilities, objectives seized or destroyed, etc. In personal protection situations, the physical Sphere is also exactly what it sounds like. Concerns like physical attributes (strength, speed, size), tools / weapons, damage avoided or delivered to your opponent (physical incapacitation) etc.
The second Sphere is Mental. The way this term is used in this model, the Mental Sphere is primarily intellectual. It has to do with the understanding of important concepts, strategy, the ability to make effective plans or decisions, the ability to accurately interpret information. This is true at any level of application.
The third Sphere is Moral. The term as used in this model is not simply concerned with ethics (good / evil etc.), though that is included in this broader definition. The Moral Sphere is concerned with intangibles. Psychology, fear, courage, willpower… pretty much anything that is difficult or impossible to quantify.
Since much of my personal study and application is concerned with personal protection, let’s use an example of individual applications to illustrate this idea.
To show how all of the aspects of our training are interrelated, in our studies of Awareness we will also talk about “biases to action”. Biases for action are responses to our observations based on the conditions in which our skills are likely to be used and may change under various conditions in our environment. Example: On duty law enforcement vs the same person off duty or retired would have different biases for action based on the same observations due to the differing conditions and responsibilities under which force would potentially be applied.
A common self-protection bias to action list for individuals to observations of a potential threat could look like this:
- Avoidance
- Deterrence – De-escalation
- Physical Conflict Resolution (fight)
On with our example…
Imagine a shopping mall near closing at night. A couple of the overhead lights are out in the parking lot. There are two potentially violent criminal actors (VCA’s) taking advantage of the situation and screening potential victims looking for easy resources.
You are leaving the mall. In the first example, you have training and experience that have developed your situational awareness. You know that parking lots are “transitional areas” and therefore more attractive to those inclined to criminal activity for a variety of reasons (more on this in another article). Through your increased awareness and your familiarity with the terrain, you identify indicators of the potential threat before you are near enough to be targeted by the VCA’s. You choose to avoid the potentially violent situation and notify security of your observations. As they sweep the area, the VCA’s move on to look for opportunities elsewhere. Though many would not recognize this as “winning a fight”, using the 3 Spheres model, this could be interpreted as a victory in the Mental Sphere. It was your understanding (developed through your study, training, and experience) that led to the capacity to make an effective decision which prevented a potentially violent attack before it had a chance to develop. This victory in the Mental Sphere also demonstrates the Avoidance action we mentioned above related to our Awareness training.
In the second example (same scenario), the VCA’s conceal their position more effectively and you notice them as they come from their hidden position and begin the “interview” process (more on this in another article). As they approach, your training and experience has placed you in good position to prevent being placed at a position of disadvantage. You naturally keep good position and awareness of your environment. You have confidence in your skills and ability to handle this situation. Your practiced assessment of your potential assailants allows you to gain an advantageous position and you are, through many years of training and experience, confident in your ability to use the tools you have within the framework of the law to deliver whatever level of violence is necessary to prevent harm to yourself. When the VCA’s attempt to use a verbal gambit to close the distance, you easily and firmly prevent that from happening and they perceive that you are a hard target. VCA’s, as a rule, are looking for easy resources. They are not looking for a “fair fight” or a challenge. It doesn’t hurt them to let a potential victim go when they could wait for someone who will present a more attractive target (distracted, weaker, etc.). The VCA’s back off and pretend disinterest. They allow you to pass safely to your vehicle and leave the area. Again, with no overt violence, many might not see this as winning a fight. This would be an example of victory in the Moral Sphere. The VCA’s did not possess the will to enter a violent confrontation with someone who presented a clearly higher risk than they were willing to take when compared with what they thought they might gain. This also shows an example of the second bias to action, deterrence / de-escalation. You presented enough of a threatening profile that you were deselected during the interview process.
In the final example, the VCA’s are more skilled and you are close when they come from their concealed position in an ambush, attempting to use surprise and violence of action to quickly overwhelm any opposition. You, however, are very aware and have the necessary training and experience to respond rapidly and effectively through the adaptability you have built. With a swift response and effective violent action, you quickly incapacitate the first attacker. The second is still engaged, and within seconds, you have caused him a non-trivial injury. The second VCA, in fear due to the rapid turn of events, panics and flees the scene, leaving his friend. This example is interesting because it shows two Spheres. Can you see them using our definitions? The first is the obvious Physical Sphere victory. This is demonstrated through the incapacitation of the first VCA and the partial disabling of the second VCA. When the second VCA flees the scene in fear, you also see victory in the Moral Sphere. Remember, all parts of a system (including this model) affect the others. These are not hard definitions set in an either / or format. This is also an example of the third bias to action (physical conflict resolution), and again we see it combined with deterrence / de-escalation in the flight of the second assailant.
My intent with these examples is to show how I use these terms (Physical / Mental / Moral), as well as demonstrating the importance of adaptable models that avoid rigidity in thinking and therefore in the available choices. I hope this helps.