Language and Symbols
Overview
This module is the first point in the class where the perspectives we are studying reflect a significant paradigm shift. Up until now, the perspectives we have examined look at conflict from an “individualist” perspective – that is, by looking at individual conflict actors, whether through the lens of their bodies (the physical organism), their non-conscious (“non-rational”) mind, or their conscious (“strategic”) mind. And even though behavioral perspectives include also focus on interpersonal conflict, the primary purpose for doing so is to understand how individuals use their observations of others to form their own strategies to achieve their own goals – typically by influencing, or “getting,” the other party to change their behavior.
This module shifts our focus and insights from the individual, to the nature and quality of their interactions – the “space between” people. Said differently, this module shifts our focus from action, to a focus on interaction (a shift from a metaphor of mosaic tiles to a metaphor of a rushing river as described in chapter one of the primary text).
One way to illustrate this difference is to show a short video clip of one single tennis point (even a two or three minute clip of a single point is sufficient). There are many on You Tube from which to choose.
When you show the clip, invite students to notice that in order to follow what is happening, they need to focus on the moving tennis ball and not merely the tennis players. What students are doing when they follow the tennis ball is they are shifting their focus away from the individual tennis players (individualistic focus) and to the movement of the ball itself (the “interaction between individuals” — a “relational” focus). The ball represents the dynamic and emergent flow of the game. Only by understanding the flow of the ball can students then also understand what each player is doing and why in their moves and countermoves. In the same way, from a communication perspective (as described in chapter seven of the primary reading), only by understanding the flow of communication through interaction can you then also understand what each conflict party is doing and why in their moves and counter-moves – now, that is conflict interaction.
In terms of conflict practice, this marks a shift from “reflection on action” to “reflection in action” as described in chapter three of the primary text. It also brings to the surface the important distinction between “reflective” practice and “reflexive” practice, also described in chapter three of the primary text.
Rogers
A discussion of Carl Rogers is not in the primary text. However, it is an important additional dimension of insight into the importance of language and symbols, and the nature of interaction (in our case, between the parties and the conflict practitioner).
As a preliminary matter, Carl Rogers was a psychologist. He was not a conflict professional. So, in one sense, perhaps we should have studied Rogers in earlier modules when we were examining the non-conscious and the strategic mind. However, Rogers is known for articulating a philosophy of clinical practice (called “person-centered” therapy) that is applicable to conflict practice and is profoundly different than what we have studied so far. His philosophy — in my view at least – marks a departure from “individualist” thinking and moves decidedly toward “relational” and “interactive” thinking, which is a logical bridge to the current and upcoming sets of theories we are studying in class. It is also the first significant example of a different ideological standpoint.
Rogers’ shift in thinking is relevant not only in psychology, but also for conflict professionals as well. Instead of developing strategies of how to “get” others to change their behavior to comply with what we want or need for them, Rogers introduces a different standpoint, suggesting (among other things) two very different and important beliefs:
- A belief that humans have the capacity for their own inner awareness, learning and growth. Said differently, humans know – or given the right environment, can learn for themselves – what they actually need for themselves. And
- The belief stated above fundamentally changes the purpose why an intervener works with parties (the intervener’s “job”), and how an intervener should relate to parties in order to be helpful. Instead of acting as a specialist who parachutes in to rescue people and “fix” problems, the intervenor works to provide a safe environment where the person is freer to reflect within themselves and discover their own internal resources the person has always had (but has not had the opportunity to tap into).
Said differently, Rogers believed it is possible for the helping person to create the conditions and environment where barriers to self-awareness have the opportunity to naturally melt away. This marks an important shift from “getting” others to comply, toward “letting” another person more openly and genuinely be themselves and reflect naturally on their own inner experience and knowledge. In turn, the person’s own inner awareness can emerge and inform their own decision-making as to what they need or want to do in a given situation. What matters here is not whether the person comes to the same or a different result than if the intervener had suggested (or imposed) a solution. What matters here is that the person is being supported in their process to experience their own capacity to make clear decisions and to learn and grow for themselves. And, what matters here is that Rogers’ theory illustrates the relational dynamic of interaction – the way the helping person (or conflict intervener) interacts with the person being supported does have a direct effect on the ability of person being helped to be able to relax into, open up, and genuinely explore their own capacity and choices.
How this relates to the study of conflict
This shift – from “getting” to “letting” – is at the heart of the listening exercise that students undertake in this module. In order to create the supportive environment Rogers describes, the listener needs to interact in a way that might be completely different than what they are used to doing. The exercise calls on our students to experience this difference.
While some students reported feeling relatively comfortable in this supportive role, others reported finding it very disorienting. Perhaps you yourself thought (rhetorically), “what is the use of being a potted plant? I’m there to give them new ideas or new ways to think about their situation.” – The key point of recognition here is that the more the “listener” offers or interjects their own direction, ideas and solutions, the less “space” they allow within the interaction for the speaker to actually explore for themselves what they need to do.
As instructors, we should not be concerned about which approach students prefer or which is “right.” Instead, we are much more interested in seeing whether students understand this difference and, hopefully will be able to articulate it in class debriefings and reflections.
Readings and supplemental resources
Primary readings:
Perspectives on Conflict, chapter 7 – Language and Symbols
Supplemental resources:
Carl Rogers
- Rogers, C. R. (1995). Some Hypotheses Regarding the Facilitation of Personal Growth. In On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (pp. 31-38). Boston: Hougthon Mifflin.
- Rogers, C. R. (1995). The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship. In On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (pp. 39-58). Boston: Hougthon Mifflin.
- Rogers, C. R. (1989). What it Means to Become a Person. In On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy (pp. 108-124). Boston: Hougthon Mifflin.
Discourse Analytic theory
Conley, J.M. and O’Barr, W.M (1998) The Language of Mediation, In Just Words: Law Language and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conley, J.M. and O’Barr, W.M (1998) A Natural History of Disputing, In Just Words: Law Language and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Classroom Handouts
Relationships of Reciprocity Compared with Relationships of Response (PDF)
Conceptions of Self and Morality in Relation to Moral Choice (PDF)
Classroom Activities, Discussion Prompts, and Assignments
Listening Exercise – Carl Rogers (PDF)
In Class Activities
Demonstrating the Connection between Conflict Theory and Conflict Practice (PDF)
Della Noce Tables 1 and 2
Readings for In-class Mediation Comparison Activity
As preparation for the in-class mediation video comparison activity, I recommend assigning the following readings:
- James Coben, Kenneth Fox, and Lela P. Love, A conversation about facts, stories, and truth in mediation, Winter 2018, Dispute Resolution Magazine, 14.
- Joseph P. Folger and Robert A. Baruch Bush, Ideology, orientations to conflict, and mediation discourse, 1994, New Directions in Mediation: Communication Research and Perspectives, 3.
Videos