The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

  Brown, R. Social Psychology. New York: Free Press, 1965.

  Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. “Grounding in Communication.” In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991.

  Krauss, R. M. “The Role of the Listener: Addressee Influences on Message Formulation.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1987, 6, 81–97.

  Krauss, R. M., and Chiu, C. Y. “Language and Social Behavior.” In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

  Krauss, R. M., and Deutsch, M. “Communication in Interpersonal Bargaining.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 572–577.

  Krauss, R. M., and Fussell, S. R. “Social Psychological Models of Interpersonal Communication.” In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press, 1996.

  Maass, A., and Arcuri, L. “The Role of Language in the Persistence of Stereotypes.” In G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds.), Language, Interaction, and Social Cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992.

  Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., and Semin, G. R. “Language Use in Intergroup Contexts: The Linguistic Intergroup Bias.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, 57, 981–993.

  CHAPTER EIGHT

  LANGUAGE, PEACE, AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

  Francisco Gomes de Matos

  This chapter aims at contributing to the understanding of the interrelationship of language, peace, and conflict resolution by drawing on approaches, insights, and practices from interdisciplinary sources. It is organized in three sections, beginning with a discussion of the key concepts in the title and an updated, expanded definition of language. The second section summarizes the implications, for applied peace linguistics, of four communication-based approaches to conflict resolution, selected from the literature in English and Portuguese. In the third section, implications are drawn for the preparation of peaceful language users; examples are given for a mnemonically based technique designed to help language users communicate peacefully in sociopolitical contexts. The chapter concludes with a call for the integration of language, peace, and conflict as a new type of communicative right and responsibility to be considered in the peace education of language users.

  CONCEPTS OF LANGUAGE, PEACE, AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

  To examine the interconnectedness of language, peace, and conflict resolution would call for probing each core concept in the perspective of each of the three fields and then relationally. Instead, I provide a brief description of how linguists, peace educators and psychologists, and conflict resolution researchers view those fundamental processes for human interaction, growth, and development.

  What is language? is the first question posed by scientists called linguists, whose goals may be broad and deep. Thus, a look at the table of contents of a reference work by Crystal and Crystal (2000) shows that linguists’ interests can range from the nature of language—analysis of its structure, diversity, functions, meanings, forms—through its uses and effects (friendly or unfriendly). How do linguists define or characterize language? In that source we find these statements: “Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols” (Sapir, 2000), and, “Language is a social fact” (de Saussure, 2000). Definitions of language reflect the theoretical or applicational views of definers; thus, cognitively oriented linguists might regard language as “a cognitive system which is part of a human being’s mental or psychological structure” (Atkinson and others, 1999, p. 1).

  The most recurring defining element in these lists of traits of language is that of systematicity. In my surveys of the literature for distinguishing features of language (Gomes de Matos, 1973, 1994), the view of language as a system occurred more frequently than descriptions: “Language is social,” for example, or, “Language varies/changes.” Although lists of traits of language have been enriched with the cognitive dimension, an important feature has been conspicuously missing: that of humanization. To fill that conceptual gap, I suggested that “the humanizing nature of language” be added to the linguistics literature (Gomes de Matos, 1994, p. 106). In merely stating that language is human, we do not do full justice to another distinguishing trait of that system: its humanizing power. Such a trait would subsume both making language human (the traditional sense) and making language humane (the newer sense). Realistically, such characterization of language would be worded so as to cover both its humanizing and dehumanizing power, because, as linguists Bolinger (1980) and Crystal and Crystal (2000) have emphasized, language can also be used as a weapon.

  That such a (de)humanizing trait of language is still invisible in works for a general audience can be seen from looking through dictionaries. Thus, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997, p. 737) carries on the tradition of defining language as “communication using a system of arbitrary vocal sounds, written symbols, signs, or gestures in conventional ways with conventional meanings,” but it does not make the dehumanizing trait explicit, despite offering its readers a useful section on avoiding insensitive and offensive language, with examples of linguistic sexism and ageism. If I were to update definitions of language within the perspective adopted for this chapter, I would sum it up in this way: language is a mental marvel for peaceful meaning making and problem solving. Such formulation reflects the fact that we are cognitive, communicative, creative, and (potentially) peaceful language users.

  Another critical question is: Have the concepts of peace and conflict been dealt with in the linguistics literature? The answer is in the affirmative, but minimally so, with possible increasing attention as peace linguistics gains momentum. This emerging branch of linguistics is the study of the interaction of language and peace for improving human communicative life. Interestingly, the expression linguistics of conflict appears in a sociolinguistics book (Downes, 1998) and “Discourse and Conflict” is the title of a chapter in a comprehensive handbook (Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton, 2001). Precursorily, dehumanization (through vocabulary and syntax) is discussed in Van Dijk’s Handbook for Discourse Analysis (1985). What about peace? How do linguists define or characterize it? A suggested definition is given by Hungarian scholars Szepe and Horanyi in a publication sponsored by the World Federation of Modern Language Teachers Association (1995, p. 66): “Peace is a dynamic process of cooperation for the resolution of conflicts.” Significantly, in that book, we are told that in UNESCO’s Linguapax Program, “Language can be viewed in a broader sense, as the merger of two global fields: language and peace” (p. 65).

  Given this chapter’s threefold conceptual focus—language, peace, and conflict resolution—two exemplary definitions of peace by scholars of conflict resolution seem appropriate: one by Yarn, author of the Dictionary of Conflict Resolution (1999)—“Peace: state or condition of quiet, security, justice, and tranquility” (Yarn, personal communication, September 15, 2001)—and the other from Deutsch: “Peace—whether intrapsychic, interpersonal, intragroup, or international—is a state of harmonious cooperation among the entities involved” (personal communication, October 6, 2003).

  Before looking at the third concept in this chapter’s title, conflict resolution, let’s see how pervasive the underlying concept of conflict is in a recent lexicographic volume of interest to researchers in conflict resolution and in peace linguistics: Sharp’s Dictionary of Power and Struggle (Sharp, 2012). In its 997 entries, there are 102 in which the concept-term conflict occurs. Thus, we are led to agree with Sharp, a political scientist, that “we live in a world filled with conflicts” (p. 1). Here is the alphabetically arranged list of entries in that pioneering lexicon in which use is made of the noun conflict. Note that eight
entries refer to specific types of conflict, but many other forms of conflict are discussed or mentioned in the dictionary: accommodation, ambush, arbitration, authority backlash, battle, case history, casualty, civilian, civilian struggle, civil resistance, civil war, class struggle, coercion, collaboration, combat, commercial resistance, commercial war, compromise, conciliation, conflict, conflict resolution, conflict studies, contingency plans, conversion, decollaboration, defeat, defiance of blockade, demolition, domestic conflict, dynamics of violent action, economic nonintercourse, escalation, Fabian tactics, fearless, fight, front, general administrative noncooperation, grand strategy, guerrilla warfare, indirect strategy, industrial conflict, institutionalized violence, intergroup conflict, intersocietal conflict, intrasocietal conflict, irregular warfare, just war, leadership, logistics, maneuver, Marxism, mechanism of change, mediation, militancy, militant, military, military war, negotiation, neutrality, nonviolent struggle, occupation forces, open conflict, opponents, pacifism, peace, peacekeeper, peacekeeping, peace research, political ambush, political warfare, politics, professional strike, protracted struggle, provisional government, public opinion, realism, reconciliation, repression, sabotage, seizure of assets, selective patronage, social conflict, social distance, solidarity, strategic advance, strategy, strike, struggle group, struggle technique, subversion, success, tactic, terror, third parties, truce, ultimatum, unconventional warfare, violent action, war, war resistance.

  Sharp defines conflict resolution as “the diverse ways in which conflicts are settled without violence.” Such ways “include arbitration, conciliation, judicial or legislative action, negotiation and other approaches” (p. 96). How would peace researchers define conflict resolution? A renowned peace educator says, “Conflict is a part of all our lives: yet few of us have the skills to transform conflict from a painful destructive process to one of significant learning and constructive change” (Reardon, 2001, p. 103). She cogently argues that “conflict resolution is one function of non-violence” (p. 106).

  Mention of violence is a good reminder of the major goal of this chapter: helping to integrate language, peace, and conflict resolution as an approach to understanding, preventing, monitoring, overcoming, and, if possible, eliminating forms of communicative violence in our personal lives, our communities, and the world. Alas, that human beings can be communicatively violent is easy to demonstrate through a list of thirty verbs in English expressing violent communicative acts: abuse, antagonize, attack, belittle, blow off steam, browbeat, bully, coerce, calumniate, debase, defame, deprecate, discriminate, disparage, disrespect, degrade, force, fustigate, humiliate, intimidate, insult, irritate, mock, offend, oppress, ridicule, scorn, slander, stigmatize, and vilify.

  As an instructive and revealing exercise, readers are urged to produce a corresponding list of verbs representing peaceful communicative acts. Would these lexical items outnumber those in the list of verbally destructive actions? Here are some peace-enhancing verbs (contextualization would provide the necessary positiveness): affirm, agree, acknowledge, applaud, approve, assist, benefit, bless, build, celebrate, commend, compliment, congratulate, console, construct, dignify, encourage, enhance, exalt, hail, help, honor, improve, like, love, praise, promote, recommend, reconcile, and respect. That human beings need to be educated as peaceful language users is one of the chief motivations for writing this chapter. Another reason is the powerful and pervasive role that metaphors play in the uses of languages, especially with representations of conflict, war, and peace.

  To illustrate how much language users activate metaphors based on war, here is a list of verbs Ellison (2002) used: attack, be vulnerable, camouflage, counterattack, deface, disarm, entrap, fight, fight back, retaliate, sabotage, and supply with ammunition. Given this chapter’s focus on the interplay of language, peace, and conflict resolution, a strategy for enhancing language users’ awareness of the pervasiveness of war-based metaphors is what I call the use of contrastive metaphors. It consists of presenting sets of three verbs, displayed as a continuum from war based to peace based: “X attacked/strongly criticized/questioned Y’s views. X’s views conflict/differ from/are not the same as mine. Of Y’s argument, X demolished it/showed that it was wrong/showed that it was questionable.”

  This practice of using contrastive metaphors in continuums of human attitudes, emotions, and feelings could have its place in the educational sun all over the world. After having characterized language, here is a brief definition of the science that is exclusively focused on language, both theoretically and applicationally: linguistics.

  Linguistics is the scientific study of language, that is, of the universal human faculty of communication and expression as realized through specific systems called languages. Applied linguistics (AL) is an interdisciplinary field that addresses an increasing variety of language-based problems in areas such as language learning and teaching, literacy, language contact, language policy and planning, language pathology, and language use. (For details, see Grabe, 2002.) Given the diversity of research approaches in AL (Duff, 2002) and the increasing importance of peace and conflict in the social and political sciences, it is natural to expect a growing interest among applied linguists in peaceful and conflictive aspects of language use.

  I started to explore the connection between language and peace in the early 1990s through workshops and seminars on constructive communication in Portuguese, the outcome of which was a book advocating a pedagogy of positiveness (Gomes de Matos, 1996). I had presented the core concept underlying that approach—communicative peace—in a sociolinguistics publication three years earlier (Gomes de Matos, 1993) and revisited it in a brief discussion for a journal that was new in the field of peace education at the time (Gomes de Matos, 2005a). Peace linguistics is an emerging approach with a focus on peaceful/nonviolent uses of languages and an emphasis on “attitudes which respect the dignity of individual language users and communities” (Crystal, 1999, p. 255). Its complementary side, applied peace linguistics (APL), could be defined as an interdisciplinary approach aimed at helping educational systems create conditions for the preparation of human beings as peaceful language users. My commitment to APL reflects the conviction that every citizen should have the right to learn to communicate peacefully for the good of humankind (Gomes de Matos, 2005b).

  IMPLICATIONS FOR AN APPLIED PEACE LINGUISTICS

  After briefly characterizing linguistics, applied linguistics, peace linguistics, and applied peace linguistics—an Internet search for such terms can be instructive—attention in this section focuses on possible implications of four language-based approaches to conflict resolution. The key question is, “What implications can we draw that would inspire work in APL?” Because limitations of space prevent the exploration of different kinds of implications, I have opted to examine educational implications as a means of translating some key concepts and insights from each conflict resolution approach (CRA) into an applied peace linguistics perspective.

  Nonviolent Communication

  The first CRA, known as nonviolent communication, is grounded on a broadly based conceptual repertoire: appreciation, compassion, conflict, feeling(s)/nonfeelings, judgments, needs, positive action, responsibility, and vocabulary (for feelings).

  Because our focus here is on applications of CRA by human beings as language users, Rosenberg, the author of Nonviolent Communication (2003), included a chapter in that book titled “Applying NVC in Our Lives and World.” The finding of such applicational sense in a conflict resolution (CR) work helps bring together its author—in this case, a psychologist—and applied linguists engaged in peaceful communication.

  How can the key concepts in NVC be translated into APL? A simple way of bringing the two approaches closer is to add the adjective communicative to each of the concepts in the NVC system, thus: communicative appreciation, communicative compassion, communicative conflict, communicative responsibility, and so forth. The addition of communicative gives each NVC concept greater specific
ity and serves as a reminder to language users that peace in and through language is a varied and vast territory inhabited by interrelated dimensions.

  Another educationally relevant contribution of the NCV to APL is its two lists of vocabulary for feelings (Rosenberg, 2003). The first list, of adjectives representing positive feelings (needs being met), can serve as a checklist of communicative responsibilities. In such spirit, language users would be challenged to be communicatively affectionate, appreciative, cheerful, free, friendly, good humored, loving, optimistic, peaceful, pleasant, tender, and warm. That same enumeration could become a list of nouns, representing communicatively desirable actions: communicative affection, appreciation, and so forth. The second list Rosenberg provided is focused on negative feelings (needs not being met). Accordingly, language users could use them as reminders of what to avoid in interacting with other human beings. Such a preventive or self-monitoring checklist would include, for example, communicative anger, bitterness, despair, exasperation, hostility, impatience, irritation, pessimism, resentment, shock, and wretchedness. A third inspiring insight from NVC could be borrowed by applied peace linguists: the translation of judgmental vocabulary and phraseology into nonjudgmental, peace-promoting equivalents. Provocatively, Rosenberg makes a case against the objectionable use of should when it creates shame or guilt. He argues that “this violent word, which we commonly use to evaluate ourselves, is so deeply ingrained in our consciousness that many of us would have trouble imagining how to live without it,” and he counsels, “Avoid shoulding yourself!” (Rosenberg, 2003, p. 131).

  Rosenberg’s mention of violent words provides food for thought and action by applied peace linguists. What violent vocabulary do we use not only about other human beings but about ourselves, and how can that be self-monitored? How can our condition of peaceful communicative creatures be improved in that respect? The seemingly unconscious use of negative verbs, which may reflect imposed authority or oppression, would be another area for collaborative investigation by CR experts and applied peace linguists. An example would be a teacher’s use of the verb force in a classroom context: “I don’t force my students to read texts aloud in front of the class.” In this case, the humanizing verb expected of a peaceful-language-aware educator would be ask. Two other authoritarian verbs that may be found in teacher discourse are have and let, as in these remarks heard during a teacher education workshop: “Do you have your students share their notes with their peers?” (alternate humanizing verbs: ask, encourage), and, “I let/allow my students to use a bilingual dictionary, during essay writing in English” (alternate humanizing equivalents: “I assure my students their right . . .” or, more empathically, “My students have the right . . .”). The very use of should in classroom instructions can also be questioned. Thus, saying, “One student should assume the role of minigroup leader,” instead of could may reflect the fact that teachers and teacher educators are unaware of the humanizing nature of language use, a trait of language that is new in the linguistics and communication literature.