Transformation

Conflict is part of the human condition; it is inevitable. Researchers and practitioners do not seek to end conflict as much as they strive to lessen its violent effects and transform its power into something more constructive.

To be more specific, transformation is explored throughout the four conflict contexts introduced in this volume. At the interpersonal level, Guerrero (Chapter 4) discussed forgive­ness as it relates to how people respond to hurtful events between friends and partners. Those findings suggest that when people are very hurt by the actions of someone close to them, they are more likely to use constructive communication and to forgive if the relation­ship is rewarding (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Koerner (Chapter 8) explored the functions of family conflict communication and how they can allow for a shift in the power dynamics within adolescent-parent relation­ships. Bolton Oetzel (Chapter 9) approaches conflict transformation from the perspective that family-based treatments such as training in communication and parenting show great promise in aiding in the recovery of those who suffer from mental illness.

At the organizational level, Lutgen-Sandvik and Fletcher (Chapter 13) also talk about the importance of collective effort in transform­ing a conflict-filled environment.

Turning to the community level, Littlejohn and Cole (Chapter 22) explore the potential of transcendent communication such as dia­logue to redefine perspectives, realities, and relationships. Cheney et al. (Chapter 18) also highlight dialogue as it relates to working with communities. They point out that processes that seek “deep reconciliation borne of mutual understanding” require in-depth analysis to be conducted on multiple levels: interpersonal, group, and institutional. This is particularly the case with communities that are affected by historical traumas. The authors also point to various academic explorations within the related themes of apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Looking from an intercultural/interna- tional perspective, Kim (Chapter 24) explores the resilient spirit of immigrants’ adaptation process and their stress-adaptation-transfor­mation process from their original cultures to their adopted homelands via a spiraling trajec­tory of individuation-universalization pattern. Broome (Chapter 28) explores dialogue as an important component of building cultures of peace. He presents both practices that make constructive dialogue possible as well as chal­lenges (e.g., the nonlinear nature of dialogue, the need for time and strong commitment, the tenacity to sit side by side with your enemy and with a respectful attitude) that can prevent its transformative potential. Fisher-Yoshida (Chapter 30) also explores communication’s transformative potential but from the vantage point of microlevel analysis. She argues that put­ting relationship “as the highest order of con­text within which we communicate” (p.

Taken together, these chapters play a part in a larger conversation about transforma­tion and conflict communication. There are also other aspects that might be explored in the future. This section suggests areas where we might advance theory, research, and prac­tice as they relate to transformation and the related concepts of forgiveness, apology, and reconciliation. Specifically, we posit that there is richness in the exploration of forgiveness as it relates to institutional wrongs and different cultural understandings of appropriate recon­ciliation attempts.

Despite its long, diverse, and substantial history in theology and philosophy (Kelley & Waldron, 2006), forgiveness has not often been studied from a communication perspec­tive. When it has, however, it has been with a view to better understand interpersonal relationships and wrongdoing (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b; Kelley & Waldron, 2005, 2006; Waldron & Kelley, 2007). Recent decades, however, have seen a surge in apolo­gies from large institutions. These apologies were in response to grave mistreatment such as the sexual abuse of children by priests in Ireland and the ensuing cover up by the Church’s administration (Coll, 2010) and the sending of aboriginal children to abusive resi­dential schools in Canada (Anderson, 2012).

Some of these apologies (e.g., the one from the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper) explicitly ask for forgiveness; many of them do not. However, whether implicit or explicit, it appears that inherent in all of these apologies is a hope for transformation in the victim­institution relationship. As the world continues to unearth institutional human rights abuses, apologies like those mentioned above presum­ably will only increase in frequency.

Institutional forgiveness communication (existing on the exolevel) may differ from that between family or friends (existing on the meso- or microlevel of analysis) in that it is often fraught with multilayered issues of ethics, justice, historical context, and power. In addition, unlike an apology from a fam­ily member or friend, victims of institutional violence do not receive the apology from the perpetrator directly, and this can potentially add another enormous barrier to personal healing; finally, the institutional representative who does apologize does so in a highly medi­ated environment. For all these reasons, insti­tutional forgiveness communication appears to be unique and rife with opportunity for research and theory building in the conflict communication field.

Second, an area worth exploring for researchers and practitioners alike is the com­municative factors or characteristics that make conflict transformation possible within differ­ent cultural settings. There are many factors that could influence how reconciliatory acts such as apologies might be received. Cross- cultural differences could influence what is considered a sincere or insincere apology (Funk-Unrau, 2004; Hatch, 2006; Yamazaki, 2004), what is an appropriate apology for­mat or script (see Liebersohn, Neuman, & Bekerman, 2004, for more on cultural rhetori­cal resources), whether the audience feels it is important to hear the specifics of wrongdoing (Funk-Unrau, 2004; James, 2008), whether the provision of an official record is impera­tive (James, 2008), or what symbolism and or representation is considered appropriate or effective (Hatch, 2006; Yamazaki, 2004). Approaches that aim to transform conflict involve some amount of risk and vulnerability for both parties; that risk is only increased when working across cultures as the mean­ings of all the key transformation terms can vary from person to person, relationship to relationship, community to community, and institution to institution.