IN CONFLICTS, LISTEN TO THE WORDS PEOPLE USE
During some conflicts, the words people choose to use can tell us alot about how they view and understand the disagreement, and how they might begin to see ways to resolve it. Consider this exaggerated example to make the point: Two neighbors are in a dispute over damage done to a fence by a downed tree. In describing the conflict, one of the neighbors talks about how it had been a real “battle” to get his neighbor’s attention. When they did talk, it was like “lobbing grenades over the fence at each other” until his neighbor “dropped the bomb” that he did not intend to pay the costs of repairing the fence. In this case, the neighbor describes the conflict as warfare.
The way we talk about a conflict shapes the way we perceive and react to it. The words and language used to describe a conflict do, in fact, construct an image in our minds of the clash itself. We actually construct our perception of a conflict from our narrative description of events. As the neighbor continues to react to the rivalry as war, he may begin to think less about repairing the damage to the fence and more about defeating his neighbor.
When we understand how the party in conflict is perceiving the encounter we can begin to enter into his perception by our choice of words. For example, we might ask how we can get “a ceasefire” so “talks can begin.” Another approach is to encourage the development of a “counterstory” that could lead to cooperative collaboration. For example, a counterstory to the tree-damaged fence could be a “weather disaster” that requires the parties to work together to “clean up the damage” and “get people’s lives back to normal.”
Some studies of workplace bullying have shown how victims talk about their victimization. Some compare the bullying they experienced to a game or competition that was unfairly weighted in the bully’s favor, in which they were wounded or hurt. Others compare such bullying to a nightmare or torture and to being forced to accept a noxious substance. The perpetrators were characterized as dictators, royalty or evil demons. The victims described themselves as prisoners, children or heartbroken lovers who had lost a beloved job as a result of the tormenter.
On a societal level, think about our language to describe how we select political leaders—candidates who will “fight” for us in the “campaign” are “points” ahead and will be “victorious.” Thus, there can be counterstories even to the political process.