Recasting System Theory

Early scholars also criticized the linear views of communication employed in conflict studies (Hawes & Smith, 1973; Miller, 1974; Ruben, 1978). Linear models situated communica­tion as the archer’s arrow shot directly into a target that would instantly impact the state of a conflict (Bowers, 1974b; Ruben 1978).

Moreover, they reacted negatively to the assumptions of early systems theorists that conflict deviated from harmony and normality (Gamson, 1968). At this time, the dominant view was that conflict created an imbalance in the equilibrium of a system and, thus, needed to be resolved or prevented. Conference par­ticipants were uniformly dismayed with these anticonflict biases and challenged scholars to explore the benefits of conflict and to question conflict’s role in changing rather than preserv­ing extant systems (Miller, 1974).

Efforts to develop new models of com­munication and conflict grew out of these critiques. Specifically, Ruben (1978) advocated a living systems model that linked conflict to growth and change. In his view, conflict oper­ated at the level of action, and paraconflict functioned at the level of symbol to evoke a self-reflexive nature between the two constructs. This approach combined conflict action with sensemaking (labeling and abstracting experi­ences); thus, conflict emerged as a cyclical, reflexive process in which action and sensemak­ing crossed individual and societal levels.

Drawing from the philosophy of pragma­tism, Mortensen (1974) proposed a transac­tional model that favored a developmental view of conflict aimed at capturing the whole process as well as the unfolding and con­tingent aspects of it. This approach rejected environmental determinism, severe reduction- ism, and obtrusive structural models. Instead, it centered on both the “knowing” and the “known” of personal reality and emphasized three conflict dimensions: (1) orientation, (2) intensity, and (3) affect. Thus, this approach purported that the existence of a struggle was in itself not necessarily a conflict until some­one labeled it as such. The best predictors of conflict, then, were the content, interpreta­tions, and behaviors that emerged as transac­tions developed over time.

To test this model, Mortensen (1974) compared interactions from high- and low- intensity conflicts. His study revealed that parties in highly intense conflicts enacted self-fulfilling cycles through their use of com­parative evaluations, accusatory statements, and polarized claims. In contrast, partici­pants in low-intensity conflicts talked more deliberately for longer periods of time and used fewer interruptions, more qualifiers, and fewer commitment statements than did those in high-intensity disputes. By tracking the development of conflict intensity over time, the transaction model revealed how parties cocreated conflict communicatively.

This effort to recast systems theory laid the groundwork for the systems interaction views of communication that became so domi­nant in the 1980s. Building on small group and interpersonal communication research (Fisher, 1970; Rogers & Farace, 1975), schol­ars began to code interactions and track the evolution of conflict over time. This approach began with scholars who applied Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis to media­tion (Landsberger, 1955) and to negotiation (Theye & Seiler, 1979) and was solidified through the development of coding proce­dures, measurement instruments, and statisti­cal tools that paved the way for a major shift in communication and conflict studies (Ellis & Fisher, 1975).

Definitions and Assumptions: Ideological Differences

Definitions of conflict were also proposed at this 1972 conference. Most scholars adopted some variation of Mortensen’s (1974) definition: “Conflict is an expressed struggle over incom­patible interests in the distribution of limited resources” (p. 93). An examination of Table 1.1 indicates considerable agreement between early and recent scholars on the definition of conflict, particularly its scope, nature of action, and rela­tionship among parties.