Mediating Conflict & Working Through Difficult Conversations

Stone, Patton, & Heen (2010) in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most  provide some suggestions for problem solving, which can also be understood within this particular context as mediating conversations and moving them forward, as well as working through difficult conversation.

One of the strategies talked about is Re-Framing. Reframing in this book is understood as "taking the essence of what the other person says and "translating it" into concepts that are more helpful" (p. 202). As someone who studies frames, framing, and reframing I find this to be an excellent suggestion that can be applicable to many different conversations: interpersonal and face-to-face, as well as larger meta-conversations that may occur through different media. Framing alone is to make some issues more or less salient, and so reframing can be understood as reinterpreting, or in fact changing the initial frames to be understood differently.

Another suggestion that they provide is to listen. For example, "when the other person becomes highly emotional, listen and acknowledge" (p. 206) and "whenever you feel overwhelmed or unsure how to proceed, remember that it is always a good time to listen" (p. 207). The advice to listen is important and useful in these contexts. How many times have you either witnesses or participated in a heated conversation that became problematic in nature to the point where people were getting upset and/or people were feeling unheard? I know I have. And, listening seems to be one of those no-brainer things that gets lost. So, as a reminder- when in doubt- LISTEN. When getting upset, take a step back and LISTEN. And when feeling unheard- LISTEN. And when you notice the other getting upset- LISTEN.

The last one which I will mention is to "name the dynamic" (209). The authors suggest that "when nothing else has worked" you may want to name the dynamic: "You put on the table as a topic for discussion what you see happening in the conversation itself" (p. 209). Although they say to do this when nothing else has worked because it is a blunt move that can escalate tensions, and can potentially take the conversation off topic, I feel that even this may be appropriate even before nothing else has worked. Naming the dynamic is a blunt and straightforward maneuver, that if we did more often, I believe we could have more "real" and down to earth conversations. The fact that we have to wait until nothing else has worked before we can show all of our cards and be blunt I believe says a lot about our culture. The authors are correct when they say that this could escalate tensions, because as we know- "being real" in conversation, being blunt, isn't always well received and can make the speaker anxious. Have you ever avoided putting things on the table in fear of how it will be received? Or have you had someone put something on the table in front of you and you weren't a welcome receiver? These conversations can be tense and uncomfortable, but I think there is something to be said about the person who "names the dynamic" during conflict and in difficult conversations, as well as in regular speaking practice. I know, as hard as those conversations can be, I would rather someone just go ahead and name the dynamic instead of having to jump through a million hoops, dancing around the bush, and slowly taking off the bandaid. Just say it already- "be real"- and lets move forward :)

Kroll and strep throat

I believe after Tannen, my favorite author on argument is Kroll. I like reading his papers. It may be because he relates his writings directly with teaching. Kroll’s aikido samples connected to rhetoric were very unique and explanatory.
The idea of stopping the aggressive behavior but not fighting back is the secret for “arguing differently”. As Kroll stated, when we do not fight back we use the other sites energy against them. I believe Tannen was making the same comment in that when people fight at television programs it does not reach any solution, but if you choose not to fight back then you do not leave any room for them to argue with you in an aggressive way.
One of my professors at MU told one of her anecdotes. She was the manager of a bank and she needed to take care of upset and angry customers all the time. This was not an easy job for her with constant yelling and blaming. One day when she had some throat problems a very angry customer popped up . The man was yelling at her but as soon as she opened her month with her weak voice the man calmed down and started to listen. They could arrange a common solution.
The conclusion she made was: After that day whenever I had an angry customer, I had a bad throat.
So she was not fighting back but she was stopping his fight.

Aikido & Argument

There are many reasons why the theory and practice of Aikido are excellent vehicles for studying and approaching argument. One of the things that stands out to me most is that it is an alternative to assertive & aggressive argumentation. A disadvantage or consequence to assertive and aggressive argumentation is that when  one attempts to "fight back" against the conflict this may "drive the opposition into more deeply entrenched positions" (Kroll, 2008).

Instead, Aikido offers an alternative to "fighting back".  In the practice and theory of Aikido one uses the other persons energy against them (Kroll, 2008). Related to argumentation Kroll suggests that this is "when you accept their points as true, but then reach beyond them and express how even through these truths there is not enough to go on, the person has no argument left" (Kroll, 2008).

Not only is this a strategic move to prevent a stalemate and to keep argument and communication going, it is also harmonious, it is respectful of the other and the others position, it shows its commitment to the topic or issue with which people are arguing about, and it helps to facilitate a space for learning.

As is noted by Kroll, one does NOT need to be skilled in the physical practice of Aikido to practice the theory of Aikido as applied to argumentation, or to teach it- which makes this idea and potential practice accessible.

Kroll, B. (2008). Arguing with adversaries: Aikido, rhetoric, and the art of peace. College, Composition, and Communication, 59(3).

Implications: Research and Beyond

Since I've been walking (in grad school anyway) I've always been affronted with the same question: "ok but what are you arguing?" My work never has seemed to be quite certain as to what it was trying to say, what it was supporting, what it was trying to put down. This inability to effectively describe, in a succinct way, what I was specifically arguing, has always made me a bit self-conscious about my scholarly work. I never knew what to make of it. I felt like I was saying something. I felt like there was a logical progression. I felt like there was a payoff at the end. But no. Time and time again I received the same feedback.
Reading the piece by Kastley makes me less anxious about my writing.
To me, the idea of inquiry is an inherent one. I've always been curious (to the annoyance of my parents to be sure) and I've always wanted to know more about how others make sense of things. These characteristics helped shape my writing style, and led me to producing pieces of work that elicited that familiar comment. All along I felt like my education had done me a disservice. How could it be that my expensive, private, liberal arts college could have let me down so badly? How could it be that the type of writing I was most comfortable with and most adept at, didn't mesh with what was expected of me in graduate school. Curses on you Gustavus!!!
Slowly, my mind is being (re)changed. I'm starting to see how my education ( a good one to be sure) has led my mind to work the way it does, and that it's not a bad thing that it works the way it does. My scholarship (if you don't mind me calling it that) asks more questions than it answers. My 'argument' is often lost because it never looks like the kind of argument that some academic types are used to seeing. I usually employ a strong narrative in my academic writing, something that can help my readers (and my potential arguers) recognize the difference in me. For the past few years I was starting to wonder if I would ever figure out how to write good academically.
My challenge now is how to understand and push the limits of those power structures that govern academic discourse. I agree wholeheartedly with Haleysrundown, when she talks about the conservatism of academic discourse. It's expected that a 'good' article will rely heavily on research, an act that reaffirms the ideas, the methods, and the arguments of those before us. This act is itself a conservative act. For me (and Hayley and others) testing the limits of what we can do with our academic prose, while still playing by those conservative rules, is the greatest implication for an inquiry-based construct of argumentation.

Symbolism- A way to think about arguing differently

In my personal blog this week I talk about symbolism. Crowley said "symbols represent belief, but they also produce it" (65). I am exploring this further to see if this could be a way to think about arguing differently. For example, if we think of symbols, and even bodies as symbols, we can possibly expand how we think about argument and rhetoric. Typically and traditionally rhetoric is though of as the art of persuasion, as the art of public speaking, as an art typically tied to a speech act.

In the communication discipline performance theory suggests that performance is also communication, and arguably can be rhetorical.

With this, I believe we can think of arguing, of rhetoric, of debate- as different.

If we explore symbols, and even bodies as symbolic, we can possibly entertain rhetoric in a different way that has been traditionally taught and thought of.

For example, if we were to think of major topics for debate and argument through traditional rhetorical and argumentation lenses, we could potentially look past symbols, and the symbolic and rhetorical nature of bodies. Thus, I propose as an individual exercise to think about your own topic of exploration in this class, and ask: Would it, could it be thought of differently if you were to focus on symbolism and even bodies? 

Susan Bordo

Monday's snowy weather didn't prevent a renowned scholar from giving a talk on campus. Susan Bordo holds an endowed chair position at the University of Kentucky, where she is a member of the Women's and Gender Studies and English departments. Affiliations aside, she is one of the foremost Feminist philosophers and is credited with pioneering Body Studies as a discipline. Considering Professor Strickland's research interests, it was no surprise to see her there as well. The talk was called "Beyond Eating Disorders" and explored the intricacies of the relationships between bodies, culture, capitalism, and the historical implications of all of these. It was fascinating, and I'd be happy to talk with you if you want to know more.
The reason I went to this particular talk (besides the catered reception and free wine) was because of the connection between contemporary eating disorders and my interest in the cultural implications of food. I've been working with my students to see the myriad of different ways food impacts their daily lives on all levels of the food chain (production, distribution, consumption, etc). Thinking about eating disorders as a result of the preceding moments on the chain, gives me a much different understanding of those disorders. Part of Bordo's talk was addressing the social stigma that eating disorders are wholly psychological or defects of character, which coalesced nicely with my understanding of the food chain as impacting more than just what's on our plates.
On a side note, I was lucky enough to have attended the 'meet and greet' for students prior to the talk. I say lucky because I was the only person who showed up (besides LuAnn Roth, an English professor who has been coordinating the entire year-long Food & Society series), and had over an hour to talk with Bordo. It was a great opportunity, not only to be able to talk to one of the most distinguished contemporary American feminist philosophers, but to get to hear her take on academics, conferences, and her life as a professor. Her take on academic writing was different than others I have heard, in that she strives to bring her academic prose, her challenging concepts, and her overall message to a level that most (if not all) audiences can appreciate. She told me that one of the most gratifying things that happens to her is when a non-academic, non-college-aged person tells her how much impact her work has had on his/her life. She also teaches a graduate-level course on 'popularizing' esoteric, academic prose to be read by a more general audience. This idea was contrary to what I assumed of academic work, especially that of Philosophers.
Lots of ideas here that play into our discussions of Arguing Differently. Care to comment?

Embodying Argument

Ever since Nilu's interesting post about protesters and the arguments they make, I've been thinking about different ways people argue with their bodies. Protest is an interesting test-case of argumentation because it combines the use of the body with the more familiar use of words/speech. Add some witty signs to this mix and there's a lot to consider.
Another example of this that's been in the news lately, is the Democrat walkout of the state Senators from Wisconsin. Having a controversial legislation forced upon the State Assembly without the expected political process, the dissenting Senators left the state, leaving the Republicans without the quorum necessary to enact law. At first I was skeptical of this move, but after a very interesting conversation in a coffee shop today, perhaps this rhetorical act by the Senators is more justified than I originally thought. With no other recourse for action, these lawmakers used their bodies to make very loud arguments about the legislation, about the state of democratic politics in Wisconsin, and about their role in the lawmaking process. Utilizing their silence as a rhetorical move is different than my understanding of protest, and leads to some very interesting questions.
This might be an example of a Performance, but that's a post for another day. Can you help me think of other ways to argue with your body?

Warrants- Returning to Toulmin as a path to arguing differently

I wanted to take a moment to focus on warrants since they are important parts of arguments, but also seem to be a topic of discussion on the blog. First, it seems important to distinguish what a warrant is. According to Toulmin warrants are appealed to implicitly, while data is what is appealed to explicitly (1). Also, data depend on warrants we operate within and therefore qualifiers  are necessary to discuss explicitly the extent to which the degree of force in which the data confers the claim (2). However, with this said qualifiers must be understood as distinct from warrants (2).

From Toulmins framework it seems as though the implicit nature of a warrant would then seem to be a reason why it may be hard to explicitly identify in a source, and even harder to articulate. I could imagine this being a problem not just for undergraduates, but for us (academics) as well as politicians. For example, it seems as though some of the political debates that the public are privy to watch or listen to may miss the mark when it comes to identifying the warrants and engaging arguments on their basis. Additionally, when thinking about arguing differently we may come to see that this could be just including the step of identifying warrants, engaging debate through warrants, and thus returning to a Toulmin model. Thoughts?
 
 
(1)- Toulman, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. NY:Cambridge University Press.- p. 92
(2)- Toulman- p. 93

Toulmin's skeleton for analyzing argument & arguing differently

I am currently taking a moment to reflect upon Toulmin's "first skeleton of a pattern for analyzing arguments" (1). This skeleton proposes that D (since W)- so C; or as an example Harry was born in Bermuda (since a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject)- So, Harry is a British subject (2). In this skeleton we can identify some core components to an argument. For example we have data, warrant, and claim. Claim is C, or Harry is a British Subject. The warrant is since W, or since a man born in Bermuda will be a British subject (that which is implicit). And the data is D, or Harry was born in Bermuda (that which is explicit).

Now when thinking of what is traditional argument or normal argument, in order to think about arguing differently, I am first interested in exploring this normal or traditional argument as presented by Toulmin. It seems just from this most basic skeleton that there may not be reason to change this structure- to create an alternative. However, maybe there is. Maybe this simplistic model is too simplistic. For example, it may in fact be inherently exclusionary because to rely on implicit messages may not be understood by all. What if this formula is used with people from different cultures, would that which is implicit be understood? Or would this skeleton for argument prove to have limitations? Also, what about the grounds that this skeleton may rest on? For instance, the warrant in the example above is based within law or legal grounds, and it may be possible that this law, or its legal framework, may be structurally or institutionally violent in some way or another, and thus to have ones argument based within a violent framework could prove to be problematic.

Now, lets suppose that we don't want to adjust this structure, but we are still interested in arguing differently. It seems as though we could use a cultural studies lens (as just 1 example) to examine what are some hegemonic and dominant ways of arguing in our culture? Tannen presents a nice starting point here. Additionally, I think Maxwells previous post which explores rhetoric and policy could also provide some rich grounds. But, once we can grasp some of the more dominant arguments, or modes of argument, we could then possibly not necessarily stray from Toulmins model, but we could offer alternatives to the dominant. For example, by understanding how our political process traditionally, normally, or hegemonically argues- we could then offer alternative types of argument. Or find ways to shift, reframe, play with inclusion and exclusion, or argue differently.

These are just some immediate ideas floating around as I think about arguing differently & Toulmins first skeleton of a pattern for analyzing argument.



1- P. 9 from Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. NY: Cambridge University Press.
2- P. 9 (same source as #1).

Purposeful Avoidance of Toulmin

I'm working on a book report right now, and I'm reading David Zarefsky's President Johnson's War on Poverty. It's an interesting case study for a few different reasons, especially in relation to the work we're doing in the Arguing Differently.

First off, the title itself plays into our Argument Culture discussions. The book unpacks the 'War on Poverty' language, and shows how the policies of this program forward this structural metaphor into the popular subconscious of the nation. Johnson's use of this metaphor is expansive, making popular speeches that include 'waging the war', 'full-frontal attack', and 'weapons and tactics'. Zarefsky even extends his analysis to examine the impact it had on the military at this time. I haven't gotten too far into it, but I hope to see how a Rhetorical scholar approaches these issues.
Not only that, but I've never given much thought to how Rhetoric plays into public policy debates, how Rhetoric can influence the policy decisions of America, and how Presidential language impacts all of those things as well. For example, even though this was a Congressional program to be deliberated by members of the legislature, the president enacted the legislation, led a program of popular appeals to get it passed, and then celebrated the success of his program. These rhetorical acts impacted public policy, and I hope to see how those arguments are connected.

It's a new form of argument for me, a form of arguing differently. I'll keep you updated on how it's going, heck, I may even do a presentation on it one of these days :)

In other news: Toulmin. More on that later.

Videos for a Snowy Day...

Tannen, in short, ...

... was enjoyable. Each chapter was clear and insightful, and the topics on which she focused her chapters were all things I find very interesting. I'll admit, I did skim some of the middle chapters, but her discussion of the press and politics convinced me of their centrality of creating the argument culture.
Some minor criticism:

• The research in this book was mostly good, but at times I felt her sources didn't exactly support her claims or were shaky to begin with. This book straddles the popular/academic divide, so I'm not 100% sure I can hold this against her.
  
• She used her synonyms for the argument culture interchangeably. Do argument culture, culture of argument, culture of aggression, and the others all mean the same thing?
• the printing of my book got screwed up, and on three separate even-numbered pages, the text on the far right of each line got cut off. Talk about annoying (Note: I know this has nothing to do with Tannen, but I have half a mind to write those jokers over at Ballantine and give them a piece of my mind :)

These things were minor, and of course, I look forward to discussing her examples (especially her own 'war' metaphor describing Grad School as bootcamp) in class on Thursday.

For you Comp-Rhet people out there (and everyone who has taught writing to beginning writers): What did you think of Tannen's slight digression into the memory of her teaching in the FYC classroom? On page 95 she gives an example of how journalists could change their professional methods to mitigate the 'Argument Culture.' Tannen realized she had more to offer her students than simple copy-editing when '[she] figured out there was a lot [she] could still offer the students, but [she] had to step back and regard their papers from a more holistic perspective, thinking about what they were trying to do in the paper and how well they succeeded in doing it.' Journalism would improve because journalists would be 'freed of the task of looking for errors, not only readers but writers and commentators could step back and take a more holisitc view, which would, in the end, be a more accurate one' (94).
I played the believing game on this one, and since I approach my role as an instructor the same way, I think she's onto something here. Holistic thinking, analysis, and critique may well be the key to unlocking a non-argument culture.

Us vs Them

I wanted to hold off on commenting on the Tannen book until I had gotten all the way through it to make sure I understood her text as a whole. However, I'm seeing a lot of what she's talking about in my daily life, and I think that's worth noting.

First of all, there is a section in chapter 2 about sports announcers. The argument Tannen was making here is not only that sports are inherently (excessively so) violent, but that the way the announcers interpret the events helps create the argument culture by emphasizing violence and creating metaphors and images for the viewers that create undue tension. The idea of sport being mediated by one or more particular media is something that's made me stop and ponder (think about the people you see at the ballpark with radios; think about watching/listening to the radio broadcast of the game over the internet; think about how much more there is to baseball than can be shown in a tiny, electrical box), but the fact that announcers could make hockey more violent (50-51) was too much. With baseball season just around the corner, let me know if you ever want to listen to some mediated sports fun this Spring.

Another way Tannen's argument became crystal clear to me, was after watching the State of the Union Address on Tuesday (early apologies to those of you who have already heard all this, or maybe it will help you digest your ideas). In my Presidential Rhetoric seminar, we closely examined Obama's speech: how it conformed to the generic expectations, the tone of his policy recommendations, etc. We also examined the context surrounding the speech: the media spectacle, how the first lady's choice to wear or not wear sleeves factored into the whole show, and most germane to Arguing Differently, was the Republican Response to the President's speech. The minority party has only been responding for a few decades now (never mind the Bachmann response now), but the fact that this response sets up a dichotomous, Us vs. Them, two sides and only two sides, shows us Tannen's analysis embodied in a real-life rhetorical moment.

I like the way this book takes television to task. The last good bashing of TV I read was Niel Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, and that was a year ago. Tannen is subtle though. She doesn't come right out and deplore TV, but I have a feeling that one of her major claims will ultimately revolve around media, the mediation of public discourse, and instead of thinking outside the box, exploding the box.

Reflecting...

Since we've got some time before our next session, I decided to put the Kroll readings on the backburner for a few days. This post is going to try and make some sense out of the wonderful conversation we had on the first day of class.

For those who haven't read Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors we Live By, I would certainly recommend it. Some of the other metaphors these two theorists examine include: Love as war, Social Organizations as Plants, and Love and Life as a Journey. Lakoff and Johnson trace cultural roots of these metaphors, and indeed examine them in an American context. Since class on Thursday I've been thinking a lot about why this particular cultural context leads to so many metaphors that stem from violence, aggressiveness, and war. What do you think? Do conceptual metaphors in Japan revolve around Peace? Do the ideas for this course stem from non-western traditions? Will we learn more about this from Kroll?

I also looked into the Climate Study that Donna mentioned as part of the Difficult Dialogues program here at Mizzou. There was no mention of the study on the website, so I emailed them asking for a copy of the study that concluded the two contradictory statements about Christians on campus. Hopefully something comes back, and I'll certainly post it here if it does. However, this portion of our conversation got me thinking about how practical our inquiry throughout the semester could be. Yes, there are Peace Studies programs, there are Conflict Mediation programs, there are non-violent rhetoric courses out there. But only a small percentage of students wind up in courses like that. If Arguing Differently leads our small group of (soon to be) faculty members to adapt more non-aggressive argumentation styles, and Difficult Dialogues is actively promoting faculty development programs that train teachers how to incorporate this type of mediation in their classrooms, that is many, many students who will be exposed to this kind of pedagogy and philosophy. To me, this course can lead to important changes in the way our collective conscious sees argumentation.

Wow. Way over 250 words. I hope these ramblings didn't 'set the bar too high' :)