Skip to main content

Tips for Communicating Inside Conflicts

While developing a handout for my conflict resolution/mediation class I came across a number of communication tips that I thought worth sharing. They are good for communication in general… although I will note I find them easier to say than do!

  • Focus on behaviour not the person
  • Base feedback on direct observations rather than inferences
  • Use concrete behavioural descriptions not judgements to describe both positives and negatives.
  • Avoid words of negation: ‘no’, ‘but’, ‘however’—they invoke a defensive response
  • Use gradations — not “all”, “none”, “never”
  • Watch body language: boredom, aggressive eyes, leaning forward—instead sit in relaxed way, leaning back as if on a sofa for a chat.
  • Concentrate on what someone is feeling.
  • Do not get defensive if they attack—think about why they are angry and what their needs are. Show understanding and empathy.
  • Task is to elicit, suggest, propose don’t impose.
  • Sentences end with question-mark not exclamation mark
  • Respond rather than react
  • Share ideas rather than giving advice
  • Give feedback that is useful to the receiver and about things they can change, rather than getting everything off your own chest
  • Give the amount of information that can be used not the amount that can be given [ie avoid information overload]

Empathy killers

  • threatening – do it or else
  • ordering – because i said so
  • criticising – you
  • name calling – stupid idiot!
  • should/ought – you ought to…
  • withholding relevant info
  • interrogating
  • praising to manipulate
  • diagnosing motives – you are always…
  • untimely advice – if you…
  • changing the topic
  • persuading with logic
  • topping – when I…
  • refusing to address the issue – I can’t see a problem
  • reassuring – ‘you’ll be fine’

Instead

  • open body language, warm vocal tone
  • encourage further elaboration and clarification
  • display interest in what others communicate
  • affirming statements
  • support self-knowledge
  • uncover complex needs and improve relationships
  • use appropriate assertiveness
  • make ‘I’ statements
  • give appropriate feedback
  • reduce blaming language
  • share responsibility and decision making
  • communicate your willingness to resolve
  • giving appropriate acknowledgement and feedback
  • recognise it is valuable to explore my part of the problem

Understand your emotions

  • anger – shows need to change/communicate
  • resentment – is immobilised anger – need to take responsibility for how you feel and change the situation
  • hurt – tells us our needs are not being met, or self-esteem wounded
  • fear – warns us to proceed with caution, seek help and separate fantasy from reality
  • guilt – need to make amends/do things differently next time
  • regret – of unfulfilled potential – need to accept it without denial

Manage emotions

  1. Acknowledge
  2. Breath
  3. Centre
  4. Decide (appropriate ways to express emotions)
  5. Engage

Designing options

  • brainstorming
  • range of creative alternatives
  • see perspectives as part of a bigger picture
  • analysis or mapping
  • want what is fair for everyone
  • define issues
  • express needs and concerns
  • ask questions
  • reframe responses

Many tips to consider… and slowly incorporate into the way we communicate, in time…

References:

Quadan, A & Dan, K (2011) Community Mediation: Theory and PracticeCourse Manual. Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney

Galtung, J & Tschudi, F (2001) “Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of the TRANSCEND Approach” in Christie, D.J. Sagner, R.V & Winter D.D. (eds) Peace, Conflict and Violence Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Galtung, J (2007) “Peace by Peaceful Conflict Transformaiton – the TRANSCEND approach” Galtung, J & Webel C (eds) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, New York: Routledge

Horowitz D & Laksin J Conflict Resolution Skills Workshop

Conflict Resolution Techniques

Today I’m teaching my class some conflict resolution techniques & tips… so I thought I’d share with you.

The aim of Galtung’s method is to transcend, to go beyond, the original conflicting interests, to achieve more than each party’s stated goals. Not either/or, but BOTH/AND…

Mediation is usually done with both parties present. For deep conflicts, the Transcend method recommends the mediator meet with one party at a time. Conducted in a conversation style setting – the hope is to join both parties together in a creative search for a new reality.

There are two psychological processes that this involves: (1) cognitive expansion and reframing; (2) an emotive shift in cathexis.

Conflict Iceberg from Quadan (2011).

We are aiming to identify the hidden motivations, needs and fears… these can then be divided into interests, values and needs… Burton’s Human Needs Theory (below) helps us to consider the differences and how to deal with what we identify:

Quadan’s Golden Rule of Mediation:  The mediator owns the process and the parties own the content. The mediator doesn’t determine the outcome, parties do.

The point of departure is usually dualistic discourse reflecting a polarized conflict formation: the Other and his/her position are viewed negatively, and the Self and own position glorified. [Note that the following steps and communication tips are a culmination of the sources referenced at the bottom of this page.]

First round:

1. DIAGNOSIS: One of the parties, usually the one who initiated the mediation, is asked to briefly state his/her negative goals (fears/concerns) and his/her positive goals (hopes/expected outcomes). When did this go wrong and what could /should have been done at the time? The past is less threatening than what is unfolding before one’s eyes.

2. PROGNOSIS: Mediator reads back the parties’ stories as told by the parties. In no way try to dissuade the party from their goals, but probe more deeply into the nature of the goals. The broader the vision, the more likely new perspectives can be developed. And how do you think this is going to develop further? – all now anchored in what happened and what could have been done.

3. DEEPER DIAGNOSIS: Need to come to the party’s own diagnosis of the ‘situation’ and what he thinks the other parties’ diagnoses look like. What is underlying all of this?’ Take your time, be sure each theme has more or less been exhausted before moving on to the next.

4. NEW COGNITIVE SPACE: Party and conflict worker together construct a new cognitive space, framing the old goals as suboptimal, simplistic, and formulating broader goals. Don’t be so modest, go in for something better than what you used to demand! Explore whether all parties embrace the same points in the new cognitive space

5. THERAPY: What can be done about it? Then we come to the creative element: how can the needs of both parties be transcended?

E.g. for thinking outside the square: sexual infidelity looks different when four other ways of being unfaithful are considered: of the mind (secret love), of the spirit (no concern for partner’s life project), socially (no social support), and economically (secret account)

Question of what each party thinks is going to happen, and what he thinks the other parties are expecting.

Imagine things turns out the way you think they will: you win. How will the others react? Recognising the possibility of endless revenge cycles may spell disaster to Self. ie What would happen if we proceed along the following lines? How would life be for your children, grand children?

Second round:

6. Hand back to the parties, probe for sustainability together with the parties. What could make outcomes of these types stick? What are the vulnerabilities, the weak points?

7. Identify concrete steps for all parties.

If both parties reach conclusion that transcendence is preferable to other possibilities (continued struggle, withdrawal, compromise) then that is good, but even better if the transcendence withers away the other outcomes.

Ideally the solution comes from an inner conviction or inner acceptance. Often realists limit themselves to two forms of power: punishment and reward. Power from within individuals is far more effective than power over them. A good agreement is reversible. Only do what you can undo.

References:

Quadan, A & Dan, K (2011) Community Mediation: Theory and PracticeCourse Manual. Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney

Galtung, J & Tschudi, F (2001) “Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of the TRANSCEND Approach” in Christie, D.J. Sagner, R.V & Winter D.D. (eds) Peace, Conflict and Violence Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Galtung, J (2007) “Peace by Peaceful Conflict Transformaiton – the TRANSCEND approach” Galtung, J & Webel C (eds) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, New York: Routledge

Horowitz D & Laksin J Conflict Resolution Skills Workshop

A Critical Perspective of the Media: Reading between the lines

Johan Galtung says that it’s not so much what is being said, but what is not being said. Today my class will be reflecting on the use of language and stories in the media.

Discussion questions:

  • how do stories in the media impact our understanding of the world?
  • how can we learn to “read between the lines”?
  • how can awareness of narrative help us be more critical of media and politics?
  • what is the story’s raison detre? ie why was a story told, what is the narrator is getting at?

Julia Bacha – One Story, One Film, Many Changes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40Aht_9cxY[/youtube]

Chomsky – Manufacturing Consent (students to watch at home…)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44[/youtube]

Reading between the lines

Checklist for careful thinking:

  1. What is the source?
  2. What is the basic message?
  3. What is presented in support of the view?
  4. How is the message being conveyed?
  5. Who stands to gain? p. 28

Shaky foundations:

  1. Bold assertions
  2. Untrustworthy authorities
  3. Reasoning with the wrong facts
  4. Rationalisation
  5. Downright lying
  6. Faulty premise for an argument
  7. Hasty generalization
  8. Mistaking the cause
  9. False analogy
  10. Ignoring the question
  11. Begging the question
  12. Attacking the person not the argument
  13. Pointing to an enemy
  14. Misusing statistics
  15. Meshing fact with opinion
  16. Misusing terms whose meanings have changed p. 32-35

Formula for Propaganda: Scapegoat term = Groundless accusation in future + glittering generality. Eg Terrorists/Socialists threaten/plan to attack the political system/supermarket/middle class p. 58

Monitoring the media: prominence/space; use of photographs; sources; angle of the story; information provided; viewpoint of the reporter; reoccurring words p. 59

Propaganda techniques:

  1. Twisting and distortion; depicting black and white
  2. Selective omission
  3. Incomplete quotation
  4. Persuasive devices eg doctored/clipped photos , testimonials, generalities eg “He has American support because Americans always choose the wrong side”; name calling; innuendo eg. he had been promised a good job; baseless speculation

Between The Lines – Eleanor MacLean, 1981, Black Rose Books, Quebec

For further reading see my blog entry on Critical Discourse Analysis – click here

 

Psychology of Violence and Peace

Posting for convenience for a class I’m teaching… I’ll add more later.

Stanley Milgram Experiment and Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkmQZjZSjk4[/youtube]

Zeitgeist Moving Forward (2011) part 1 – Human Nature

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w[/youtube]

From 9min-40min.

Social Construction of the “Self”

Alan Watts’

‘Briefly, the thesis is that the prevalent sensation of oneself as a separate ego enclosed in a bag of sin is a hallucination which accords neither with Western science nor with the experimental philosophy-religions of the East – in particular the central and germinal Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism. This hallucination underlies the misuse of technology for the violent subjugation of man’s natural environment and, consequently, its eventual destruction.’ Preface to The Book : On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are (1966).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVM_Xk_o9E[/youtube]

Education, Work and the Social Distribution of Knowledge

How do you know anything? What is the role of society in that knowledge?

‘Men always love what is good or what they find good; it is in judging of the good that they go wrong.’ Rousseau.

‘If you think you can do a thing or think you can’t do a thing, you’re right.’ Henry Ford

‘Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.’ Mark Twain

‘Our separate fictions add up to joint reality.’ Stanislaw Lec

‘A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.’ Justice Jackson.

‘The education of moral sensibility with regard to the question of how we should treat others is only part of the story. The other part of the story is the quality of an individual’s own life as he experiences it. Here too the narrative arts have an enormous amount to offer. The idea of making one’s life worthwhile by choosing goals and striving towards them, sometimes deferring present satisfactions in the hope of greater rewards later, demands the imposition of a narrative structure upon it, as if one were the author of one’s own story.’ (Grayling 2003:14)

‘Only by being aware of a rich array of possible narratives and goals to choose from can one’s choices and actions be truly informed and maximally free… exposure to stories – which in part represent possible lives – is a vital ingredient in the ethical construction of an individual’s personal future history.’ (Grayling 2003:14)

‘Liberal education is disappearing in the English-speaking West, as expectations decline and schooling narrows into training focused mainly on participation in the life of the economy. It is worth iterating what a loss this is; for the aim of liberal education is to help people continue learning all their lives long, and to think, and to question. New and challenging moral dilemmas are always likely to arise, so we need to try to make ourselves the kind of people who can respond thoughtfully.’ (Grayling 2003:9-10)

Sir Ken Robinson on Changing Education Paradigms:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]

Some career advice from Alan Watts:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY50vvMjX_o[/youtube]

“What would you like to do if money were no object? How would you really enjoy spending your life?”

People answer poets, writers, ride horses … but you can’ t money that way…

Alan Watts advises to “forget the money”. “Because if you say that getting the money is the most important thing, you will spend your life completely wasting your time: you will do things you don’t like in order to go on living that is to go on doing things you don’t like doing. Which is stupid!”

Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life that spent in a miserable way. And after all, if you do really like doing what you’re doing, it doesn’t matter what it is,  you can eventually … become a master of it … and then you’ll be able to get a good fee for whatever it is … somebody is interested in everything. Anything can be interested you can find others who are… So it’s an important question: what do I desire?

To finish, little quote from one of my favourites: ‘Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains.’ Alfred North Whitehead

Social Construction of Wealth and Happiness

Wealth isn’t only socially constructed. Neither is poverty. Are wealth and poverty only about stuff? How about being wealthy or poor in time? Or in spirit? Pleasure? Love? Friendship? Does the pursuit of wealth in purely monetary terms cause us more problems than the benefits it brings?

George Carlin on Stuff to start it off:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac[/youtube]

There are many ways to view the world, each built up by a one’s social environment and upbringing. The social construction of childhood:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01xYdGsisf8[/youtube]

‘The world’s most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain, small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status.’ [2]

What do you think of this statement? Is poverty only relational, or are there some absolutes in an availability of resources sense?

The intro to The Gods Must Be Crazy demonstrates colossally different worldviews:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pTPWg_wUw[/youtube]

‘We are inclined to think of hunters and gatherers as poor because they don’t have anything; perhaps better to think of them for that reason as free.’[4]

Sidelining the danger of falling into “Noble Savage” idealizations/criticisms (ie recognizing that hunger & gatherer lifestyles have their problems too, and moving on), let us talk briefly about the contrast between common Western lifestyles (40-hour work weeks, sitting on computers) and a couple of alternative lifeways.

‘Hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society.’[4]

So… what is affluence/wealth?

According to Sahlins, an  ‘affluent society is one in which all the people’s material wants are easily satisfied.’

It is interesting to contrast our “Galbraithean” way of life (‘wants are great’ + ‘means are limited’) with the “Zen road to affluence” whereby people can enjoy an ‘unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living.’ [1]

Today’s growth/market/consumer-based economy is based on a ‘perpetual disparity’ with ‘unlimited wants’ and ‘insufficient means’. No matter how much “stuff” we accumulate, we always want more. Do you think even the most “wealthy” people in our world today are affluent? How many hours do they work? Are they happy?

In some cultures, value is about ‘freedom of movement.’ [3]

Social construction of wealth and happiness: does wealth make us happy?

This order of happiness ‘is not a result to be attained through action, but a fact to be realized through knowledge. The sphere of action is to express it, not to gain it.’ [5] More on happiness: https://julietbennett.com/2011/11/06/life-is-a-game-alan-watts-happiness/

I guess there are many different ways to be in the world, and different paths to wealth, health, love and happiness… kinda like there are many ways of interpreting the dots below…

[6]



 

[1] Marshall David Sahlins, ‘Chapter One: The Original Affluent Society’, Stone Age Economics (New York: Aldine, 1972). p, 2.

[2] Ibid. p. 35.

[3] Ibid. p. 12.

[4] Ibid. p. 14.

[5] Alan Watts, The Meaning of Happiness: The Quest for Freedom of the Spirit in Modern Psychology and the Wisdom of the East (London: Village Press, 1968). p. iv.

[6] Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews : An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Social Constructions of Beauty

Anata wa chisai atama!” You have a small head! — a compliment in Japan. So much to the extent that some Japanese wear a five-pound Small-Face-Make-Belt around the head while sleeping. Apparently it helps your head shrink over time. A good example of the role of society in constructing one’s idea of beauty.

Behind “beauty”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAnRQncZ_uk[/youtube]

Ok, so beauty isn’t only an idea constructed by society. It’s hard to dispute that Victoria’s Secret models are beautiful.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3oQP61aUIA[/youtube]

But… would they have been beautiful in the 50s?

A (very) brief, limited and generalized history of beauty:

  • 16th Century – flat chest, 13-inch waist
  • 17th Century – large bust and hips, white complexion
  • 19th century – tiny waist, full hips and bust
  • 1920s – slender legs and hips, small bust
  • 1940s & 50s – hourglass shape
  • 1960s – lean, youthful body with long hair
  • 1970s – thin, tan
  • 1980s – slim but muscular, toned
  • 1990s – heroin chic
  • 2000s – thin bodies with large breasts

What are some of the differences between a Marilyn Monroe & a Kate Moss?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZRs__rmYMc[/youtube]

Following that song, it is interesting to consider how society constructs our ideas about wealth? And love, which I will post on soon…

How do our stories about beauty, wealth and love impact our experience of happiness?

 

 

Poking Fun at Society’s Stories

Today I’m looking at the Social Construction of Reality. How does society construct our reality? Comedians do a good job at pointing it out…

George Carlin: The American Dream

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q[/youtube]

Chris Rock: Can White People Say Nigger?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0[/youtube]

Eddie Izzard: Do you have a flag?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k[/youtube]