Looking for the magic in conflict? Collaborative communication connects us and communication without curiosity divides us.
“...all human beings use language to establish a sense of self and other, to define a boundary, and to create some sort of orientation toward others." Pearce & Littlejohn, Moral Conflict: When social worlds collide (1997)
Ever sit down at the holiday dinner table, your stomach in a knot, dread heavy in your chest, struggling to enjoy the feast because you know you are going to end up having "that" conversation with a relative? You may need another approach to that discussion, one that may open up the possibility for a more gracious conversation.
Real communication is a collaborative act. We must cooperate with one another—speaker with listener—to create a shared understanding of what we are discussing. Many of us forget this when we are speaking, focusing on getting our thoughts "out there" rather than on creating shared meaning with the other person. This ability, to take the other person’s mind and experience into account while we speak, is rare, and requires a set of skills I call Collaborative Communication. (More on that in another newsletter.)
When we find ourselves in persistent conflict, whether discussing politics (a popular pastime these days!) or who should do the dishes, these intractable tangles frustrate and alienate us from one another.
For example, one partner does most of the family planning and feels burdened by it. The other partner brings in most of the income and believes that contribution is sufficient. You can see where this conversation is going. Or, on a larger stage, one person believes human life begins at conception, while another believes a fetus becomes viable at 24–26 weeks, when it can survive outside the womb. You can see where this conversation is going, too. We aren’t starting these conversations with the same fundamental definitions, values, logics, or ways of dividing the world into useful categories.
When we are unable to create a sufficiently shared reality, normal methods of discussion or persuasion only increase the conflict. We bring different resources and ways of understanding the world to the table, including:
Values: what we believe is good, right, and true.
Deontic logics: our internal rules of “oughtness” i.e., how we think human relations are supposed to work.
Categorization: how we divide up the world into useful pieces (for instance, what constitutes the proper roles in a couple, or what defines the start of human life).
Epistemic rules: even what counts as evidence or a valid argument differs depending on our assumptions about truth and reality.
When we encounter a conflict in which attempts at resolution make things worse, it’s likely that a moral conflict lies at the root. This produces an uncomfortable tension, one that is familiar to many of us who’ve argued over the holiday dinner with a relative who holds a politically opposite view. When we encounter such a conflict, we can either:
Remain silent or speak and risk escalation,
Agree to let differences coexist without seeking resolution (which requires mutual consent), or
Attempt dialogue aimed at increased understanding.
Or get into that old familiar shouting match that ruined last year's dinner!
Alas, humans have a strong tribal tendency. We need to belong. That deep-seated evolutionary drive leads us to divide the world into “us” (good, true and virtuous, of course!) and “them” (evil, ignorant, and perhaps less than human). The more we try to prove our truth, the more our uncle, aunt, or partner resists, even with our most artful arguments. Because we haven’t agreed on what counts as valid evidence or logical reasoning, our arguments make sense in our world, not theirs.
So what can we do? With the holidays approaching and those family gatherings looming, how can we have conversations that bring peace rather than polarization?
If you want a conversation that might actually ease tension, seek to understand rather than to persuade. That other person is living in an alien world. (Perhaps you already suspected Cousin Lotty was an alien!)
If you can surrender the need for everyone to belong to the same tribe, and tolerate the discomfort of exploring another worldview, you are far more likely to (a) learn what truly matters to that person and how they arrived at their point of view, and (b) reveal flaws in their reasoning (or your own!) without having to point those out. The key is to approach these conversations with inquiry, not argument, as David McRaney, in his excellent book, How Minds Change points out. Ask open-ended, sincere questions. Try to understand how they put together their worldview and what experiences shaped it. That curiosity will create a different kind of conversation.
Remember, whether it’s your spouse who’s tired of planning the family vacation or a relative from across the political divide, the other person is a feeling being. We need to feel valued and safe before we can listen. Releasing the urge to persuade and shifting toward seeking understanding helps create that safety. You may assume that you already know why they think the way they do, and you most likely only have a superficial understanding of their world.
My students and clients have often heard me say: Feelings precede content, and understanding precedes problem-solving. Approach these conversations as explorations of another life world. Even ordinary words can hold different meanings. What does life mean, for instance, and whose life are we discussing, mother or baby? If these differing starting points aren’t identified, unpacked, and understood, our conversations will not go well.
Bring genuine curiosity and care to your next conversation. Those are the best dishes you can offer at the holiday dinner table. And who knows, you might find a little magic in your conversations this holiday season.
