The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Raider, E. A Guide to International Negotiation. Brooklyn, NY: Ellen Raider International, 1987.

  Raider, E. “Conflict Resolution Training in Schools: Translating Theory into Applied Skills.” In B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

  Situation Management Systems. Positive Negotiation Program (4th ed.). Hanover, MA: Situation Management Systems, 1991.

  Ting-Toomey, S. “Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively.” In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.

  Ting-Toomey, S. Communicating across Cultures. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.

  Ting-Toomey, S. “Translating Conflict Face-Negotiation Theory into Practice.” In D. Landis, J. Bennett, and M. Bennett (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.

  Ury, W. Getting Past No. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.

  Weiss, S. E., and Stripp, W. “Negotiating with Foreign Businesspersons: An Introduction for Americans with Propositions on Six Cultures.” Unpublished manuscript, International Business Department, Graduate School of Business Management, New York University, 1985.

  Wurzel, J. (Producer). The Multicultural Workplace. Saint Louis, MO: Phoenix Learning Resources/MTI Films, 1990.

  Wurzel, J. (Producer). Cross-Cultural Conference Room. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2002.

  aWe express special thanks to Marc Roennau for preparing the figures for this chapter, which is based on the original article by Ellen Raider, Susan Coleman, and Janet Gerson.

  CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX

  CREATING CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION THROUGH DIALOGUE

  Beth Fisher-Yoshida

  Communication is the most important means of interaction between people. It is a critical component of our relationships with others. The quality of our communication is important to our relationships, and this is what creates our social worlds. In destructive conflict situations, the quality of our communication is poor; it destroys our relationships and escalates and spreads conflict, perpetuating this destructive cycle. In order to improve our relationships and change our social worlds from destructive conflict to constructive interactions, we need to transform the nature of the communication we have with others.

  This chapter discusses transforming communication to create and sustain peaceful social worlds through better-quality relationships. We will look at the communication we use, specifically the content and process of the communication itself, rather than through communication as a means to an end. The focus is on a dialogic approach to communication, which shifts the direction from unilateral to bilateral and will be addressed at a variety of levels: interpersonal, intergroup, societal, and global. We will look at factors affecting communication, our roles and the dynamics we create, the types of messages being communicated, and the influence of context and culture on our communication. Conflict has an impact on those factors, and these problems will be identified with suggestions for shifting the tone of the communication from destructive conflict to constructive interactions. The chapter concludes with ideas for sustaining the transformed communication necessary in an environment of constructive communication.

  Communication is the process by which we exchange information with others for the purpose of making meaning in our interactions. Making meaning leads to understanding, and as humans we seek to understand because it is a primal instinct that lets us know if we are safe. This understanding derived from making meaning also shapes our subsequent course of action and determines the behaviors we select in response to the other in a particular context. Several elements affect the quality of our communication and influence our meaning making (figure 36.1):

  Figure 36.1 Elements of Communication Process

  Self and the level of awareness we have about the influences in our lives that shape and frame how we understand the messages of others and how we communicate and interact with others, including the wording, tone, and timing of our messages. It includes how well we know the values we hold and what is important to us. This also reflects on how well we recognize and manage our emotions. Emotions provide information, and the more self-aware we are, the better we are able to channel the energy from our emotions toward constructive outcomes. This is referred to as emotional intelligence.

  Other and how aware we are of what is important to them, how our messages may affect them, and whether this aligns with the intention of our communication. Included here is how we interpret and understand their communication to us to frame it in a way that best aligns with assuming good intentions. There is also connection on an emotional level and more awareness of other means that we are able to use to respond to their expression of emotions in a way that channels their emotional energy toward constructive outcomes. This is referred to as showing empathy.

  Context and the role the environment has in affecting our communication with others. This includes what took place before in the relationship and about the topic, the current climate, and other factors that may be affecting the nature and quality of the communication. Levels of safety, trust, comfort, neutrality, and power shape the space of the context and influence the self in interaction with the other. This has an impact on the quality of the relationship in communication and the ability to coconstruct meaning making.

  Culture, in which all of this is embedded, influences how we create frames that shape how we interpret the world around us. This includes the lessons we have learned about right and wrong, good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and how we should lead socially acceptable lives. There are customs and rituals we have embodied, which lead us to have expectations and make assumptions about the other and the way we think things should be.

  Meaning making takes place in relationships and the quality of the relationship that is affected by the interaction of self, other, context, and cultural influences. The more self and other aware we are, the more conducive the context is for constructive interaction, the deeper our understanding of the role of culture, the more receptive we will be to cooperative means of coconstructing meaning in relationship with the other, and the better able we will be to develop the mind-set and skills to do so.

  In the next section, we explore the dialogic approach to communication that affects the elements of the communication process and enables us to transform destructive patterns of communication that lead to conflict to constructive patterns of communication that lead to better relationships.

  DIALOGIC APPROACH TO COMMUNICATION

  Conflict transformation as a process involves changing the nature of the communication between parties in conflict as they engage in dialogue. This in turn alters the nature of their relationships as they find ways to identify common ground through mutual meaning making. Communication is made and transformed in relationship, and relationship is made and transformed in communication. The term dialogue has been used in a number of ways by a number of people, and this naming does not imply shared understanding or process (Pearce and Pearce, 2000). Some of the common themes of the many scholars and practitioners who comment on dialogue and use a form of it in their practice are that it is about deeply listening to each other, joint inquiry in a shared exploration to cocreate understanding, temporary suspension of assumptions, deepening of connection and relationship about our humanity, and a space or container in which all of these can take place (Cissna and Anderson, 1994; Ellinor and Gerard, 1998; Isaacs, 1999; Pearce and Pearce, 2000).

  We can think of dialogue as the means to an end or the end in itself (Pearce and Pearce, 2000). Dialogue can focus on the relationship, it can be framed as an event, or it can be thought of as a context. If we think of dialogue as being about relationship, then it is the process through which better-quality communication is made using certain defined criteria, such as moving from hostility, blame, and antagonism to one of listening, respect, and understan
ding, being fully present, and entering into I-Thou relationships on a mutual level (Buber, 1996).

  Buberian dialogue refers to having dialogic communication. In an I-It relationship, the other person is treated as an object, and there is no regard to that person’s humanity, which is more typical in conflict situations. An I-Thou relationship implies a mutual respect for each other’s humanity, and with this comes the attributes of respectful and effective communication. To explore this further, Buber believes it is a shift from the I-It communication to an I-Thou relation, and that dialogue is a primary form of relationship. While much of Buber’s work centers on the interpersonal dynamics of communication between people, he also comments on the broader context and implications of these interpersonal relationships: “True community does not come into being because people have feelings for each other (though that is required, too), but rather on two accounts: all of them have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to a single living center, and they have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to one another” (Buber, 1996, p. 94).

  This is profound in the sense that it reinforces the interdependent relationships we have with each other as social beings. This interdependence can evolve in many ways: where our goals are mutually satisfied, none are met, or a mixed bag with some being met and others not (Deutsch, 1982). Each step along the way influences what will next transpire as we build our relationships through this interdependence. We therefore need to foster a certain quality relationship among us and toward a common, overarching goal that is central to our existence. In the case of shifting from a relationship riddled with destructive conflict, the overarching goal is to create a peaceful existence through better-quality interpersonal relationships that is done through better-quality communication. This happens as we increase our awareness of self, other, and context in the process of making meaning that leads to more constructive communication.

  A second form of dialogue, such as that noted by Ellinor and Gerard (1998), refers to having a dialogue: it is a transformational conversation in which a shift in thinking and action takes place. Here it is viewed as an event. People come together with a specific start and end time to hold this dialogue, and this can be a sequence of dialogues to achieve particular goals. These events can be considered rites of passage in which the old form of communication and relationship comes to an end and a new way of communication and relationship begins. There is an implication here that the quality of the communication has the characteristics of what is implied in Buber’s I-Thou relationship, yet the focus is on the event of the interaction as being a dialogue rather than on the relationship. Here is where it is important to recognize the critical role that holding dialogue as an event can have on interrupting patterns of destructive, negative, or otherwise unbeneficial patterns of communication. The dialogue can be a pivotal turning point in breaking these old patterns to experience a different type of communication. There are turning points in the flow of the conversation and the way the parties interact with one another that make a notable difference and create a new pattern toward more mutually beneficial and respectful communication.

  Isaacs (1999) refers to a third type of dialogue as techniques used to create the field or space for the co-inquiry to occur. Here we focus on the conditions creating the atmosphere that allows the event of dialogue to take place with the qualities of an I-Thou relationship. In this view of dialogue, participants, facilitators, and organizers identify the qualities needed to change the dynamics to those of openness, trust, and safety with no fear of retribution, so that those involved can feel more inclined to want to change their communication style and tone. This is a significant shift for those in conflict in which the qualities of trust and safety that lead to openness in communication have been eroded. It requires a deliberate, conscious, and skilled effort to rebuild these relationships through improved lines of communication.

  In considering the context as a critical factor in dialogue through the involvement of the community and surrounding environment, we are distributing the responsibility across a broader field. If we focus only on the actual communication, the relationship between self and other, there is potentially a great deal of pressure on the involved parties to make a change. These parties grew up in and were developed in their communities, and it was these very social systems or cultures in which they are embedded that influenced and shaped their points of view, how they communicated with others, and the nature of the relationships they had with those within and outside their communities. In addition, there is fluidity between people—the context they are in and the broader cultural system in which they live—so that one influences the other. In order to have more respectful and peaceful communication and better-quality relationships, the environment has to be conducive to fostering these qualities and receptive to this change. Sharing the burden of transforming communication through creating a context receptive to this change must also consider the cultural norms that have guided behaviors thus far and will continue to do so.

  These three ways of considering dialogue—as a relationship, an event, or a context—overlap with each other in practice. The importance of noting the differences is that this awareness influences how we think about and prepare for dialogues to take place. Do we want to improve the quality of our communication through increased awareness of self and other for our ongoing relationship as the focus with no specific beginning or end in sight? Do we want to target a specific time frame in which to hold a dialogue as a rite of passage to create a new form of relationship with healthy patterns of communication? Or do we want to focus on the context, social conditions, and cultural norms and values that allow this new form of communication and relationship building to occur?

  DIALOGUE PROCESSES

  To put this into the realm of practice, I provide some examples of cases in which dialogue as a form of communication was used and discuss the impact this had on the relationships of the involved parties and their communities. They will demonstrate how dialogue can act as an agent to transform the quality of the communication so that parties can transform out-of-conflict communication to that of dialogic communication. In this way, they shift the qualities of their relationships and engage in mutual meaning making, which transforms the meaning they made in their communication when they were in conflict. These examples of different dialogue practices are not meant to represent a comprehensive overview of the field, and they do not claim to be the only or best methods to use. Instead, they can be thought of as good examples of effective practice in the hope that reading about them will foster a better understanding of how they work and why they are effective, so we can apply these approaches to our own work in this area going forward.

  Sustained Dialogue

  The International Institute for Sustained Dialogue (IISD) was formed in collaboration with the Kettering Foundation. It defines sustained dialogue as “a systematic, open-ended political process to transform relationships over time” (www.sustaineddialogue.org). The sustained dialogue (SD) approach focuses on transforming relationships through a five-stage process over a period of several meetings. The process has a specifically defined concept of relationship that includes notions about identity, interests, power, perceptions, and patterns of interaction that plays a critical role in organizing and facilitating how a dialogue process will begin and unfold. The five stages are

  Deciding to engage to change their relationships

  Mapping and naming their problems and relationships

  Probing problems and relationships to identify the underlying dynamics

  Scenario building to begin the process of envisioning different relationships

  Acting together to carry out these newly envisioned scenarios and integrate these notions about relationship in their design and process

  SD is referred to as a political process, and the IISD is clear in noting that while governments may broker peace agreements, the citizenry holds the power to transform the political climate through human relat
ionships and this is the arena within which they work. Between relationship, event, and context, the focus is on relationship.

  Case Study.

  In the early 1990s, Tajikistan gained independence from the Soviet Union. The infrastructure in place was weak, and civil war broke out, causing thousands of deaths and resulting in the installation of an authoritarian regime led by former Communist Party members. In early 1993, two Russian members of the Regional Conflicts Task Force (RCTF, which later evolved into SD) approached about one hundred members of the warring factions to see if they would like to participate in a dialogue created by the task force. Over the course of the following ten years, the group held more than thirty-five dialogue sessions, created two of its own nongovernmental organizations for dialogue and democratic collaboration—Inter-Tajik Dialogue (ITD) and Public Committee for Democratic Processes (PCDP), which grew out of the ITD—and participated in UN-run mediated sessions between 1994 and 1997.

  In 2000, the PCDP established a multitrack initiative in Tajikistan to rebuild the broken relationships among the people who had previously been embroiled in civil war and to facilitate the post-UN-mediated peace. It did this by establishing regional dialogues so that the people within each community could live in harmony and stability by rebuilding relationships with one another. For the first two years of these dialogue sessions, they focused on creating a shared understanding of the relationship of religion, state, and society in Tajikistan. This was important because the voice of the people was heard, healing was allowed to take place, and they had an opportunity to take an active role in shaping how the government in their communities would be run. In addition, these dialogue sessions led to establishing an undergraduate curriculum in conflict resolution and peace building in collaboration with the Ministry of Education. This educational initiative would instill in young adults the mind-set and skills to resolve issues constructively and avoid another outbreak of destructive civil war. They also developed a procedure for holding public dialogues on issues of national importance to involve the citizenry at large.