Conceptualizing the Discourse of Conflict

We have organized forms of conflict com­munication in several ways over the years (e.g., W. B. Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997), but we now prefer to think in terms of three types of discourse, each responding to a particular challenge (Littlejohn, 2004).

The Discourse of Advocacy. The discourse of advocacy is a response to the challenge of confrontation. Recognizing the radical mean­ing of the term, we are using confrontation more broadly to mean any form of direct pressure for resistance or change. The most typical means of advocacy in democratic societies involve persuasion, which aims to influence the thoughts and behavior of others. Indeed, the art of persuasion is the oldest and the most studied communication form (Foss, Foss, & Trapp, 2002). On matters of public policy, persuasion and debate are the chief instruments by which differences are settled (Gouinlock, 1986). Traditional debate is espe­cially effective and appropriate when parties agree to the standards of good argument and the means by which decisions should be made. For example, legislation and election usually work in democracies, because the stakehold­ers agree that decisions will be made by vote or by fiat. The process may seem to take for­ever, but the issue will eventually get settled, or at least the mythology teaches us that this is the case.

Too often, advocacy falters when differ­ences are moral. What seems to happen is that the failure to persuade leads to frustra­tion, diatribe, or even violence (W. B. Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997). Moral principle and the will to prevail can make confrontation harsh, as advocates “hit the streets” to force results.

The Discourse of Negotiation. Peacemaking can take many forms. In international affairs, the term diplomacy best captures this genre of action. Bargaining, mediation, and even collaboration among conflicting parties are typical. We are using the term n egotiation generically to capture many discursive forms associated with the challenge of peacemaking (Folger & Jones, 1994; Putnam & Roloff, 1992). In general, the goal of these types of communication is to work out compromises or consensual solutions that will settle the dis­pute (e.g., Fisher & Ury, 1991). The discourse of negotiation is vital. It can help reduce ten­sions and even resolve conflicts in many cases. It can stimulate creative thinking and collab­orative problem solving. Erstwhile enemies can even find a common ground in working through a difficult situation, which can in turn create a basis for future collaboration. And negotiation, once it actually gets going, can return a feeling of civility into an otherwise hostile environment.

The discourses of advocacy and negotiation aim to achieve first-order change, or move­ment, on the issue of contention (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). In the discourse of advocacy, the aim is to achieve a goal by having others move toward the desired end; in the discourse of negotiation, the goal is to achieve resolution by having one or more par­ties move toward an acceptable solution. The point of contention does not change though positions can.

For this reason, both the discourses of advocacy and negotiation encapsulate the conflict. By arguing, forcing, bargaining, and even collaborating, communicators participate in the mutual construction of their respective identities as conflicting parties.

The Discourse of Redefinition. The discourse of redefinition is a search for ways to trans­form the conversation from encapsulating contradiction to productive dialogue (Putnam, 2010). This discourse is a kind of “negation of the negation” (Rawlins, 1988), a new set of organizing principles that lead participants to think differently about what they are doing as they work through their differences and to help them achieve unimagined outcomes. The discourse of redefinition is akin to what Lederach (2005) calls m oral imagination, a key to peacemaking. It is “the capacity to imagine something rooted in the challenges of the real world yet capable of giving birth to that which does not yet exist” (p. ix). Highlighting the process of transformation, Putnam (2010) describes this as a situation in which “disputants gain new understandings or fundamentally different views of what is happening than when they entered the situa­tion” (p. 325).

In the Cupertino Community Project, which was sponsored by the Public Dialogue Consortium, the undiscussable issue of racial tension was transformed by reframing the issue in citywide dialogue groups from “racial dif­ference” to “cultural richness” (K. A. Pearce, Spano, & Pearce, 2009; Spano, 2001). The Cupertino Community Project is a decade­long dialogue project with many facets within the city of Cupertino, California. Cupertino has afforded us and our colleagues the oppor­tunity to develop a number of dialogue tools and to learn a great deal about what can hap­pen when care is taken about how to frame issues and structure conversations.