Frames to Understand Conflict
People operate from their own frames of reference. We expect the people with whom we interact to share these frames because we think they are universal. This may cause conflict, and to transform it, we need to transform the contradictory frames of reference to create a shared frame.
This would make the common ground explicit and would lend itself for cooperative processes and outcomes (Deutsch, 2006).It is easier to conceptually transform these frames than actually put them into practice. To make this attitudinal and behavioral shift, it is useful to develop empathy for the person with whom we are in conflict. Empathy is a complex phenomenon, and one way to define it is “the ability ‘imaginatively’ to enter into and participate in the world of Other cognitively, affectively, and behavior- ally” (Calloway-Thomas, 2010, p. 8). The act of reframing our views of this person based on the terms of reference we currently hold is one way of addressing this relational dynamic.
Another way is to introduce new information to our already established set of criteria, so that we modify the frames of reference we hold, creating new filters from which to interpret and make meaning of this other person.
Martin Buber (1970) distinguished between “I/It” relationships and “I/Thou” relationships. In I/It relationships, the other is treated as object, it is indirect, and there is no mutuality in the relationship, whereas in the I/Thou dynamic, there is mutuality, openness, and understanding. Buber describes how we are made in relation to others. It is in the openness and being present to the other that allows us to confirm the other person, requiring empathy to be able to reframe how we understand ourselves, the other, and the situation, away from a conflict frame to that of mutuality. Gergen (2009) talks about this mutuality as reciprocity in relationships.
The act of affirming someone can lead to reciprocation, and when both parties reciprocate, caring is generated.As mentioned earlier, communication is complex, and one of the reasons for this complexity is that we communicate on different levels simultaneously, even if we are not aware of it. There are many contextual frames from which we can view, interpret, and make meaning of our interactions with others. Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, and Rinderle (2006) discuss the value of multilevel research because it provides information from different perspectives that add richness to observations and findings. They framed these levels as macro, exo, meso, and micro. In identifying the contexts within which these levels exist, they framed intercul- tural, institutional, community/organizational, and interpersonal. Each of these levels and contexts add another dimension of data that we can use in our interpretation and understanding of conflict general and conflict specific.
The challenge of addressing data from so many different perspectives can also be daunting. It begs us to address the hierarchy of information, influence, and meaning in order to derive useful information to act on. Each participant may frame the conflict differently, and there may not be agreement on the hierarchy of relevance. Their framing reveals information about their worldviews.