Archive for December, 2008

Transforming Conflict Attitudes

Published
by
Deborah
on December 31, 2008
in Developing Conflict Competence
. 1 Comment

On Sunday, a group of 25 senior citizens gathered to watch a 1934 movie about a family torn apart by conflict between a mother we’ll call M and her daughter-in-law we can call S. Over 15 years of the story, the rift got deeper and uglier, until the 13 year old grandson reached out to his grandmother and brought her together with his mother and father we’ll call Y, at his birthday party. My role at the gathering was to facilitate the post-movie discussion.

We began by asking who in the audience blamed the mother M, who blamed the daughter-in-law S, who blamed the son Y, who blamed S’s mother CD, who blamed S’s father J. Once the votes were in, we began the conflict analysis of reasons underlying the characters’ motivations. 

The defenders of M pointed out that she was a single mother who loved her son Y, and wanted S to be a good wife to him. M gave Y a secure life and S was ungrateful. Defenders of S argued that M was overbearing and would not allow S to be mistress of her own home. Defenders of CD contended that she was just trying to stand up for her daughter S when M was trying to control everyone’s life. Defenders of Y explained he was not weak, but was simply torn between his love for his wife S and his mother M. Defenders of J said he was just goofy but did not mean any harm.

As we discussed the characters’ inner lives and reasons for acting as they did, we saw the parallels to our own lives and how we assume others’ intentions are good or bad according to our own beliefs. When we worked to understand each characters’ intentions, motives, reasoning and emotions, we became less blaming and judgmental, and became more tolerant and compassionate. By the end of the discussion, we agreed there was more than enough blame to go around, but each character was simply trying to do the best he or she could under the circumstances.

After that, the audience had no accusations left for the character they had once voted was the villain of the movie. Now, can we apply this exercise of compassionate listening to our own lives and conflicts? 2009 will be more peaceful if we can.

University versus its students need not be adversarial

Published
by
Deborah
on December 8, 2008
in Competence in Policy Conflicts
. 0 Comments

Abortion is a deeply divisive social conflict. Conversations about social conflicts tend to follow a pattern that is typified this week by the exchange between the University of Calgary administration and Campus Pro-Life.

Interactions around social conflicts tend to follow this script: First, a group raises an issue about which they feel passion and energy.  Second, another group states it is offended, or irate, or an equally passionate and energetic response that is oppositional to the first group. Third, someone in authority becomes concerned enough to take a stand, which usually supports the original status quo that existed before the first group raised the issue. Finally, the media gets interested because it’s now a public conflict. 

This script almost inevitably becomes a standoff where no one can back down without losing face or feeling that some higher principal has been betrayed. Where the ‘rule of law’ prevails the standoff will eventually end either peacefully or with minimal use of force, albeit with bad feelings on all sides. In less fortunate examples, or more extreme cases of social conflict, the standoff culminates with someone in authority calling in men and women in uniforms to end it. 

Recognizing the pattern means it should be possible to change the script. Pattern recognition is an initial step to improving conflict interactions. So, that next questions are: how to change the pattern, and to what new script?

How to change the pattern: Since 1992, dialogue groups comprised of pro-life and pro-choice activists have been meeting to find common ground. They begin with one-day workshops and, in some cases, have continued meeting to jointly work on the systemic societal problems that create unwanted pregnancies. 

The new script: Facilitated dialogue groups change the polarized rhetoric. Dialogue groups exchange narratives, among other exercises, as trust-building conversations. As former adversaries become acquainted they rarely change their opinions about abortion. However, through dialogue they expose the stereotypes about their opponents and change their opinions about each other. This creates the conditions for finding common ground. 

Breaking down the barriers through dialogue and shared knowledge rather than legal action and threats, does not make the social conflict go away. People will still disagree about abortion. What does go away is the typical pattern of standoff, which is a lose/lose proposition for everyone. In dialogue they find principles they can agree upon, which is a win/win.

 It’s a script revision worth trying.