Blaming or Learning?

What a pleasure to have the opportunity to end the semester as we began, with a book for a popular audience! Difficult Conversations has been a timely read for me, and I have found much to use in my personal life, at the same time that I have recognized the ways that it connects to themes from our other readings and conversations in this class. I found this quote to be a microcosm of one of the central themes (argument as inquiry) we have addressed: "Focusing on blame is a bad idea because it inhibits our ability to learn what's really causing the problem and to do anything meaningful to correct it" (p. 59).

Having a difficult conversation means engaging in a dialogue, rather than delivering a monologue of blame. It means being open to the other person - their views, their feelings, and their identity. It means being open to the self, which takes some digging to get at what we really think, feel, and own up to. We engage in a process of inquiry, genuinely wanting to explore together how we each contributed to see what went wrong and how it might be addressed in the future. It means learning rather than blaming.

I found myself reviewing conversations I have had with my significant other, and seeing how the process they outline is so attractive and helpful when you really care about the other person and genuinely want to address the issues that might arise between you. I can also see how this process would be important in situations where you will continue to engage with the person (such as a workplace, or with a neighbor). I wonder, though, how it would translate to the situations where the communication is more public. In the political context, mapping your part of the contribution system could be used as an opening for an attack! But I live in hope that there remain those in the public/rhetorical/political realm who do want to engage in genuine dialogue/argument/inquiry. It seems to me that what is needed is a willingness to recognize the real people, rather than seeing them as representatives of an issue. But is that giving in to American individualism? Is that mistaking public communication for interpersonal comm? We miss something if we do not see the organizational communication issues that are often at stake in these difficult conversations. See how I'm putting in a good word for our entire field over in Comm? :-)

I will continue to think on these things, and hope we will have time for a little conversation about the book on Thursday before our presentations.