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 :)

Intentions

I loved Stone et al.’s comments on “Commenting on other people’s intentions”. This is such a similar scene for me. I want to also add Stone’s comment that we usually benefit from our old experiences to support our ideas on another person’s current intentions. “You did this… before, you said ….before” so “I am sure now you are trying to hurt me because of….”. I had opportunities to reflect back my comments also. He was right in that that we get mad when someone corrects us while we are together with other people, but when we do it we always do it with good intentions. Balzac says in Old Pere that “Consciousness is a stick with which we hit others, we never use it for ourselves”. When I first read this sentence, I was really impressed. Stone et al.’s comments also influenced me very much in that especially when we are very mad and convinced ourselves with the bad intentions of the other side, we do not really think clearly.
One of the other impressive ideas in the book so far was that “Accusing them of bad intentions creates defensiveness”. I was at one of my friends’ house with my husband. My friend was discussing something with her husband and the discussion got worse. Feeling very uncomfortable and not knowing what to do we just sat down and tried to figure out the best moment to excuse ourselves. I observed that the husband was starting all of the sentences with “but…”. He was trying to defend himself all the time. The blaming and not listening to each other made the argument got worse and both sides got very defensive.
I really loved Difficult conversations. I agree with Cathy that the beginning and the ending readings for this course were similar in that they were for a popular audience. I believe I will get a lot of insights about my relationships from this book. I understand better why Max really wanted us to read this book!

Speech Pedagogy: A Focus on Dialectical Argumentation

In an introduction to speech course it may at first glance seem as though argumentation practice may not be a core piece of the curriculum since a large chunk of the time is spent on teaching students how to present standardized speeches, such as: to inform, to mark a special occasion, impromptu speaking, and persuasive speaking. However, I believe that intro to speech teachers can incorporate some components of dialectical argumentation into their lesson plans.

For example, every intro to speech class should have a lesson on listening, and listening is a key component to dialectical interplay (Kastely, 1999). Listening can, at times, be difficult in explaining and teaching because it can be viewed as so basic and such a normalized practice that we don’t need to learn anything else about it because we always do it. But, if we can break our bad listening habits and teach it as well as its importance it can serve a variety of functions.

First, with a focus on listening the listener is required to submit oneself to the discourse of another and “putting oneself in situations marked by real listening means giving  up exclusive authorship over one’s own account” (Kastely, 1999, p. 236). This is the antithesis of traditional notions of argumentative listening which supposes that the listener is only listening to things that will fuel their Toulman style of argumentation. Therefore, instead of listening only to strengthen ones preconceived notions/facts, one is listening with “the possibility that what we hear will require change from us” (Bickford, 1996, p. 149).

Next, instructing students about this type of listening encourages students to think outside the box, to be vulnerable to changes, and can potentially produce educational opportunities for students in the classroom and outside of the classroom. Additionally, for the lovers of democracy and active citizenship, it also produces a more critical thinker who is willing to engage in more open deliberation versus a form of argumentation that seeks only to reinforce ones one argument and eliminate others for the purposes of power, control, and winning.

Using listening as a core component in which to approach the introduction of speech communication will open a dialectical space and may allow for unique approach(s) to different rhetorical purposes to communication. For example, using listening as a key component to informative speaking could provide students a critical way to approach information and knowledge production. Additionally, using listening as a key component to persuasive speaking may allow for differing types of persuasive speaking that go beyond the basic Toulmin model of claim- evidence- and warrant, or traditional Problem-Cause-Solution. To add, in my classroom I like to make time for debate after each persuasive speech and a space where dialectical argumentation and listening is encouraged I suggest may be a more beneficial exercise than argumentation and debate which is practiced in order to defeat the opponent.

Bickford, S. (1996). The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict and Citizenship. Ithica, NY: Cornell UP.   

Kastely, J. L. (1999). From formalism to inquiry: A model of argument in Antigone. College English, 62(2). Pp. 222-241).  

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.

Rhetoric and Statis

Rhetoric and Statis
Crowley’s book was interesting to underline the importance of statis. I do not remember reading about it before (if it was in Touliman’s book, probably I did not understand it). This comment stood out for me not just because it was new information for me, but it is a very common problem today’s arguments. People having different ideas on subjects just state their ideas and try to prove the legitimacy of theirs but their argument, claim does not have any relationship between the other side’s ideas or claims. So they are arguing together for different things.
I believe the most recent sample for this is Libya sample. Protestors and people in Libya want a change in the country because they think their country is not a democracy and they are not happy with the current government. They want the president resign. On the other hand, the president claims that there is no reason for him to resign, some people governed other countries more than him, and it is not Libyan people who started these rebels but other people. They do talk about the same problem but they “do not agree on the point which they disagree…” (p. 29).
This is the same with some of the political discussions. I do not remember how many times I though “What are you talking about, he did not ask you this” while watching discussions on TV.
Hayley, his comment “I use the masculine pronoun here because the liberal subject is coded as masculine” (p. 35) reminded me of you:))