Theoretical and Methodological Influences

Since the first studies of moral conflict (Freeman, Littlejohn, & Pearce, 1992; W. B. Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997), our inquiry has developed and moved in directions we could not have anticipated in those early years.

Systemic Theory. This broad tradition draws attention from individual attributes to rela­tionships and connections, in which com­munication processes are emphasized over personality and individual behavior. Note in the Pornotopia case, for example, that we are not interested in the personalities, styles, or traits of individual players but emphasize interaction patterns within and between the parties in the dispute. The moral conflict in this case stems not from personal characteris­tics but from interaction patterns. This is why we emphasize the use of language and mutual response. From system theory, we learn that the “whole” is created through interaction among parts and that processes of interaction produce outcomes (Littlejohn & Domenici, 2001; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Systems are organized sets of components that act on one another to create something more than a mere accumulation of characteristics. When you take a systems approach, you look at the dynamic forces among parts in terms of some kind of energy or information (e.g., Coleman, 2011). Control and self-regulation are also important as the system forces lead to homeo­stasis as well as adaptation and change. In addition, systems cannot be understood apart from their environments, because the system itself always interacts within a network of shifting relationships.

Our work has been especially influ­enced by a line of systems inquiry known as second order cybernetics, primarily attribut­able to thinkers such as Gregory Bateson (1972) and Heinz von Foerster (1981); observ­ing always means interacting with the system itself.

In all our work, then, we want to concen­trate on what happens between parties in con­flict, how they communicate with one another, and how this communication affects and is affected by larger systems. Much of our work is interventionist in nature. In other words, we become involved with actual communities and learn from this experience. Our “knowl­edge” about moral conflict and transcendent discourse develops over time as a result of this engaged practice. Our key learning from sys­tem theory is that moral conflict is a dynamic relational state arising in certain forms of interaction.

Social Constructionism. The second influence on our work hails originally from two move­ments in sociology: (1) symbolic interaction- ism (Lal, 1995) and the “social construction of reality” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and (2) the philosophy of language (e.g., Schutz, 1967; Wittgenstein, 1953). This work expanded to a movement throughout the social sciences that Kenneth Gergen (1985, 1999) aptly named constructionism (Galanes & Leeds-Hurwitz, 2009; W. B. Pearce, 2007). In the communi­cation field, this school of thought forms an important part of what has been called the social approach (e.g., Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011), which is based on the ideas that human beings always make their realities socially, through interaction, and that language and other symbolic forms shape what we experience. The focus of attention in constructionist research is what gets made in a social situation and how social worlds come into being through communication (W. B. Pearce, 1995). In other words, humans “make” or “construct” social worlds through the forms of communication they employ.

In the realm of moral conflict and tran­scendent discourse, then, we can look at (a) how moral conflict involves certain patterns of interaction, the use of certain kinds of language and action; (b) what is created in moral conflict situations; and (c) what could get made if the language and process of com­munication were to change. O ur key learning from constructionism is that moral conflicts are made in human interaction, and they can be transcended when communicators shift their patterns of talk.

Practical Theory. This view establishes a set of principles by which an actor can make dif­ficult situational decisions (Barge & Craig, 2009; Cronen, 2001; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Instead of predicting outcomes from causal models, practical theory provides a basis for achieving goals in complex situations where many solutions and outcomes may be possible. Following this tradition, our work is designed to provide practical guides for action. According to Craig and Tracy (1995), practi­cal theories “construct a tentative, revisable, but still rationally warranted normative model that is relevant to a broad range of practical situations” (p. 252). Cronen (2001) wrote that practical theory “offers principles informed by engagement in the details of lived experience that facilitate joining with others to produce change” (p. 14). According to Cronen, practi­cal theories provide a basis for understanding the uniqueness of situations to learn from experience and to weigh alternative courses of action for achieving positive outcomes.

An example—indeed, an exemplar—of practical theory is the c oordinated manage­ment of meaning, or CMM (W. B. Pearce & Cronen, 1980; Pearce & Kearney, 2004). Especially influential in our work, CMM looks at the ways in which action, particu­larly interaction, is embedded in socially con­structed contexts of meaning. CMM provides a basis for understanding how people connect their actions with meaning, the logics that drive interaction, and the ways in which shift­ing contexts can bring about changes in mean­ing and action (Littlejohn & Domenici, 2001; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). The Pornotopia case illustrates the power of contextual logic very well. Each side in this clash operates from a “logic” that makes the case seem compelling to the point of total rejection of other points of view. We will see this phenomenon again in the case studies summarized in the following section.

In reflecting on CMM, W. B. Pearce (2004) mentions several themes he believes impor­tant in the theory. These include (a) multiple contextuality, or the idea that all experience is understood in a web or dynamic contexts that give meaning to action; (b) connected stories, or the relationship between the interactions that people live and the stories they tell; (c) coordination, or the challenges of organizing and understanding actions within a system; (d) mystery, or openness where firm answers cannot be found; and (e) continuing creation, or the dynamic, constantly created nature of our social worlds. Our key learning from practical theory and CMM is that responses to moral difference are coordinated practices by which communicators manage actual situ­ations in their lives.

Action Research. As a final influence on our work, action research involves inquiry accom­plished through engagement in actual com­munities (e.g., Stringer, 1996).

Our inquiry into moral conflict began with a series of case studies. From these, we began to conceptualize patterns of communication in moral conflict situations, and we explored new forms of interaction that can transcend moral differences. In the following sections, we outline these dimensions of our work: (a) early case studies, (b) conceptualizing the discourse of conflict, and (c) exploring tran­scendent communication.