Difficult Conversations- Complicating interpersonal/ face-to-face conversations and mediated/ larger meta-conversations

Stone, Patton & Heen (2010), in their book Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most provide a section titled "What if the other person really does have bad intentions--lying, bullying, or intentionally derailing the conversation to get what they want?". In this section they give advice if they encounter people in situations who, whether intentionally or not, "manipulate, threaten, delay, obfuscate, bully, or derail in an attempt to get their way". They give us three suggestions for how to handle such behavior: don't reward bad behavior, don't react in kind and "play their games", and seek to understand why they think their intentions and actions are justified (p. 244-5).

I believe that what they provide is some good advice, especially in interpersonal  and face-to-face conversations. However, I do think that these suggestions have potential limitations when thinking about applying them to larger meta-conversations and mediated conversations- such as those that happen through political campaign ads. For example, say an ad is aired on television that is clearly manipulative, threatening, delaying, obfuscating, bullying, or derailing in an attempt to send a particular message- how should those against this ad, its sponsors, and/or its message(s) respond? How do these authors pose responses to such behaviors in such a larger meta and mediated conversation? How should the counter messages "focus on their [own] objective" and move toward it (p. 245) without falling victim to the potential claims and attacks made previously?

Difficult Conversations and the HNP

I'm rather enjoying this book. The guiding principles of Difficult Conversations have carried my interest as I move through it. Principles like understanding the other person in a difficult conversation (or any conversation for that matter) underlie each step of this process. For example, the key to the 'what happened' conversation is knowing that each party has his/her own way of describing the events that led up to the conversation, and that neither view is completely accurate. One of the ways to mitigate the problems this can cause, is by trying to see how the other party viewed it and then comparing their narrative to one's own. The same is true with when trying to untangle intent. It's imperative to be able to relate to the other party in a difficult conversation. If an action has a negative affect on someone, it's unlikely that the offending party purposefully set out to hurt them. That being the case, it's key for the offender's intent to be explicitly stated to clear the air. It's also key for the offending party to understand why his/her words had the impact on the other person. Either way, if one is unable to relate, sympathize, put oneself in someone else's shoes, difficult conversations are unavoidable. It's true with the 'feelings conversation' and the 'identity conversation' as well.
This must have something to do with argumentation (and Rhetoric and Dialectic). Perhaps the most effective way to be persuasive to someone is by fully understanding that person. What do they need? What do they relate to? How can you identify with them? It seems like a straightforward way of thinking about persuasion, but it seems like contemporary argumentation is more about asserting ones own will over another party, heedless of the realities of a situation.

In the introduction to my version (newly published for the 10th anniversary, thanks for that Penguin), the authors mention that this work came from the Harvard Negotiation Project. Curious to see just what Harvard negotiation might entail, I went to the HNP Website. It seems like this group of scholars are doing interesting things with argumentation, dialogue, and negotiation. I was quite interested in their focus on negotiation in Middle East peace talks. A worthy endeavor to be sure. Like Difficult Conversations, the HNP seems to focus on business and personal situations for negotiation, which isn't all that interesting to me. However, I'm glad to see that this type of work is going on.

If you get a chance, check out the website. If you find anything interesting, leave a comment and let me know :)

The Contentiousness of Dialogue

Dialogue as presented by Bohm, Factor, & Garrett is an interesting proposal, especially when compared to other people's ideas of what dialogue is (ex: Peters - as noted by Cathy), and it seems that dialogue is itself contentious because there seems to be many interpretations of what dialogue is and isn't. First, I found Peter's interpretation of dialogue to be privileged, to embrace and perform white paternalism, and without compassion. So, with that said I am not really a fan of Peter's ideas of dialogue. Mostly because I believe privilege, white paternalism, and lack of compassion to not be qualities of dialogue. And, as I am being reminded of Peter's interpretation of dialogue I am more inclined to appreciate what Bohm, factor, & Garrett are trying to present. Now,I must say that I think they try to set too many boundaries of what is and isn't dialogue (which is inherently problematic), but at the same time they highlight some really important points that I believe do service to conceptualizing what dialogue is, and can be.

A great starting point to conceptualize what dialogue is would be the concept of listening and it being just as important as speaking. Although listening is supposed to be a general component of communication and not necessarily anything special, it seems that daily communication practices may not appreciate listening as much as dialogue does.To focus on listening, and with an empathetic and compassionate ear, may be a place where people can start to really conceptualize dialogue. This may also be an interesting site to explore arguing differently. Although again, listening is something that should be a core component to arguing and even debate, it may not be practiced as much as it should or could be.

Dialogue vs. Debate

I loved this book. P&O.T found some great ways to explain things. I really like their distinction between dialogue and debate. " Dialogue as we consider it, is not suppose to be a debate, in which the partisans of opposed settled convictions defend their perspective views, but rather discussion interlocutors search honestly and with out bias for the best solution to a controversial problem" (p. 37). If we turn to Tannen's Argument Culture most of the cases she mentioned were debates, not discussions or dialogues. People were just there to defeat each other.
The P & O.T also makes a great discussion of types of objectives of argument. I haven't finishes that chapter yet, but so far I believe they highlight very important components of argument: facts and truths, presumptions, values... I believe these are very important to have a great discussion and come to a solution as mentioned in the description above.

Rhetoric- Mans Art of Persuasion

As I slowly have begun reading Aristotle's rhetoric I can't help but think about Aristotle himself and what he is suggesting. Yes, he is supposed to be "the reference" for rhetoric, but it is hard for me to get past a few things. Before I get on my soap box, I would like to first mention a few constructive things that I am noticing that have inherent value in understanding "the art" of rhetoric.
As Karyal aptly summarized- rhetoric, according to Aristotle and as interpreted by Aristotle, has uses. The most important of these, which I think hints at some of the dialogic qualities admired by Cathy, and myself, is the idea that when we engage the art of persuasion it is important to acknowledge and understand opposing, or in my mind- other sides. Aristotle specifically states that "We must be able to employ persuasion...on opposite sides of a question...in order that we may see clearly what the facts are" (Aristotle, para 7). Now if I understand Aristotle correctly it is important to understand the other side in order to better our advancement of what is good and true, and so that we may be able to call out an adversary that is arguing unfairly or for what is not good or untrue. Although, this has its merits, especially during forensic oratory, I would rather spin this idea by Aristotle into a dialogic use of rhetoric. One that is concerned not just for what is being said in refutation, but also being open to what is said and having respect for the one, or others, that are speaking in refutation. Within the process of understanding the "other side", or in my perspective all the other sides, there is room for one to embrace the principles of dialogue that I cherish, such as: empathy for the other speaker(s), and compassion toward the speakers involved and the subject(s) at hand.

With this said, I am having trouble getting behind his framing of rhetoric (note, I am not that far in the readings) because of its grounding in forensic oratory, his elitist perspective ("there are people whom one cannot instruct" (Aristotle, para 7)), and his positioning and use of MAN. Although there is value in understanding forensic oratory, I don't believe in his rhetorical values of "arriving at truth" and what is just. Truth, with a capital T, is a myth in my humble opinion as well as what is "just". To arrive at what is "just" is inherently grounded in a penal structure with discipline and punishment as tools to check those who are unjust. The flaw here, is that in many instances of justice, and things that are systematically found to be just- I personally have found to be unjust. Thus, to ground rhetoric within the framework of seeking Truth and Justice, or what is Just, is a framework that I am uninterested in, mostly because of its inherently flawed and oppressive natures.

Next, his elitist perspective shows inherent problems with his ideas of rhetoric. Although, this highlights the importance of the audience in rhetoric, I find that to suggest that there are those that are unable to be instructed is problematic. It suggests a privileged position which arguably can inhibit communication, place class value on speech, and can ultimately leave people out of important conversation. In fact, I would like to go so far as to say, that it is such people as he describes as uninstructable, that should be included in conversations and rhetoric (whether political or forensic).

Finally, although his referencing of men as the agents of rhetoric is subject to the times that Aristotle was alive, I still have a hard time excusing it and getting on board. Anytime that people reference people with the terms MAN all I can think of is how historically that term was used to include a very specific group of people (White men with certain class positions- and more recently heterosexual) and exclude most others (Women, persons of color (note: i understand the contentiousness of this term- can you suggest another- it is hard with out limited language), the disabled/handicapped, and many others).

So, as I continue reading Aristotle's rhetoric I will try to put my soap box aside and employ the qualities that I seek in rhetoric, argument, and communication. I will openly try to understand what he is saying, why he is saying it, and respect him as a speaker. I just hope there aren't too many more references of Man- because as someone who isn't his intended audience, as someone who he literally was excluding from the conversation of rhetoric, it kind of hurts since I enjoy rhetoric so much.

Dialogue or Arguing?

Last year in Communication Theory class we read Speaking Into the Air by John Durham Peters, who takes his readers on a sweeping yet in-depth journey through the philosophy of communication. In the opening chapter, he outlines a contrast he will follow throughout the book - a contrast between communication as dissemination and communication as dialogue. For Peter, communication as dialogue is exemplified by Plato's Socrates, who in Phaedrus puts forward a vision of communication that "must be soul-to-soul, among embodied live people, in an intimate interaction that is uniquely fit for each participant" (Peters, p. 47). It was interesting to come to Aristotle's Rhetoric with echoes of JDP and Plato still in my head, and to see his more practical consideration of the "available means of persuasion." Why do we teach Aristotle and Cicero in Introduction to Public Speaking, and not Plato? Why has the Western tradition rewarded those who can persuade and win arguments rather than those who develop skills in the area of intimate, dialogic, soul-to-soul communication?

I am still hesitating to begin my bibliographic network, because I realize I have NO grounding, no background, no training in argumentation. What I have learned of ethos, logos, and pathos, I have learned since starting to teach at MU. What I know about forensics I have learned at the feet of fellow graduate students (thank you Hayley!). I realize that, instead, my training has been in dialogue, in listening, in speaking the truth in love, in speaking truth to power (but realizing that often means "losing" in the world's eyes), in searching for that which can most powerfully convey truth that is forged in community, and which honors the multiple voices that contribute to the process. Even though I am intensely interested in political communication, and worked on my first campaign at the age of seven, I do not think I could hold my own in a political debate! So it is with real curiosity and more than a little hunger that I come to Aristotle. As I am beginning this reading, I see the familiar outlines of what we teach in Comm 1200, but I am looking forward to going deeper. More in another blog post once I get to that depth...