IMPLICATIONS
The social constructionist view recognizes that there are many influences that shape how we make sense of our social worlds and our relationships with others. Among these influences are historical relationships and current social, political, economic, and relational realities.
Further, the communication perspective asserts that we are continuously producing meaning in the ongoing processes of our engagements with one another through actions, words, policies, and practices. Viewed as such, we continuously have before us opportunities to choose and consider our position, what we choose to value and how we make meaning with each other.Taking a communication perspective on moral conflict shifts the place of analysis from content to process. This approach from a systemic perspective creates new possibilities in what might formerly have been perceived as hopeless. Being mindful of what we are making together illuminates our responsibility and agency in the process of how we are relating to make something different. Patterns of thoughts and feelings, old deeply embedded stories, when made explicit, even mapped, can create new relationships and new and more constructive patterns of exchange.
The capacity to see our own view alongside another’s, the articulation of which may negate our own view, requires a level of thinking that we are not prepared for by the curriculum of our daily life (Kegan, 1994). Kegan calls this trans-systems thinking, or the capacity to incorporate or synthesize other incommensurate worldviews with our own.
The communication perspective extends the notion of trans-systems thinking to suggest that we must find grammars or logics that enable us to join and coordinate with others (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997).
Learnings from the Field
We have learned from our work as well as from others who work with groups of people who are involved in deeply entrenched moral conflicts, that getting people to the table to engage with each other is often the biggest hurdle.
Once they have crossed that hurdle, the second challenge is to create a context in which people can meet. Regardless of the issue, incompatible ways of thinking cannot be addressed within the same system in which they were created (Bernstein, 1985). Pearce and Littlejohn (1997) use transcendent eloquence to describe the process of creating a context where people operating from incompatible ways of thinking can meet. In this section, we outline some important steps to consider to bring people together and to set the stage and context for a shared reflection process.An important consideration is who should participate. People who are not in a leadership position are often the most promising participants in that they are less personally identified with their group’s position.
People who are attached to their position need to be assured that they and their position will not be annihilated in the process. Facilitated reflection creates the sense of a mediated space where they will not be threatened because of the position they hold. The facilitator can promote this sense of safekeeping by meeting with and developing a rapport with each group separately and listening deeply to their stories. In so doing they, in effect, become a placeholder for each position. The facilitator then can probe for underlying needs and reframe the demands each side is making.
A second step is to give people an opportunity to reflect on their own stories while teaching them the CMM model and its applications. This opportunity gives people some experience and familiarity with the reflection process, and helps them move from the notion that their story is THE story to their story being A story. In this process, it is helpful to elevate differences and uncertainties and questions that exist among people on the “same side.” This is critical to ensure group safety even if everyone does not share the same beliefs. It reduces the possibility of some voices being silenced in the process or when expressed, being viewed as betrayal.
A third step is known as role reversal. It is a process similar to a role-play, except people within their own group are asked to explore the position and needs of the other group as if they were their own. In this situation people are asked to reflect on the dimensions of the narratives of the other side. It is an exercise in expanding points of view and developing empathy.
The fourth step is to bring members of the two groups together. It is helpful to begin with an activity or discussion that is neutral. For example, when the Public Conversations Project brought together people on opposing sides of the debate about abortion (Chasin and others, 1996), they gathered for a welcome dinner and were encouraged to get to know each other by discussing anything other than their views on abortion. Such meetings could also begin with people creating a list of ground rules for how they will engage with one another and guidelines for managing themselves in the process such as the process described by LionPac.
Once there has been some rapport built, people can begin to share their stories. The positioning of the storytelling as a shared reflective process, as noted in the groups we worked with, helps to foster empathy in the engagement of differences. The sharing of stories shifts their relationships with their own stories, with each other and how they view the situation.
Conflict in any context is challenging. Moral conflicts are even more so in that they touch the heart of how we define ourselves, our core values, and our identities. This chapter provides tools that seed hope and promise for engaging moral conflict in such a way that the issue itself is redefined, and, in the process, relationships are transformed.