Transforming Communication

In shifting the focus of our actions and com­munication from dualistic us versus them to language of many possibilities encompassed in the concept of relationship, we have the poten­tial to create better social worlds.

True community does not come into being because people have feelings for each other (though that is required, too), but rather on two accounts: all of them have to stand in a living relationship to a single living center, and they have to stand in a living, reciprocal rela­tionship to one another. (Buber, 1970, p. 94)

We need to collectively think through the social construction of meaning that we are cocreating and the coordination and manage­ment of this meaning, especially in the event we do not have shared goals, values, beliefs, and ways of behaving in our social worlds due to cultural orientation differences. In this section, I explore transforming communication with consideration of the language and word choice we use, which is connected to our level of consciousness, readiness, and capacity to select more constructive language. We can further develop and raise our level of consciousness by becoming more aware of our worldview influ­ences and reflective processes that lead to more mindful choices.

In conflict situations, our emotions shift from our normal state, and these heightened emotions influence the way we communicate.

Our ability to be more mindful about the type of language we use in our com­munication is directly related to our level of consciousness. Kegan et al. (2001) identify levels of consciousness that influence how we think, what we pay attention to, and how we express ourselves including the ability to make changes in our communication. These levels of consciousness are referred to as ways of knowing, and it is Levels 3, 4, and 5 that have particular relevance here. The develop­mental sequence before Level 3 includes Level 1 typical of infants in which they think objects in the world around them are extensions of themselves and Level 2 when they start to realize that they have some control over their reflexes. In Level 3, Instrumental Knowing, we are concrete learners and pay attention to what is tangible.

Level 4, S ocializing Knowing, allows us to in a more reflective way connect with others through relationship. We are in touch with our own values and beliefs as well as the other person’s. This level of knowing allows us to move beyond our own frames of reference and expand to acknowledge and understand the world of the other, in the context of relation­ship, which is what makes building community possible. We tend to be nonjudgmental about our cultural differences and have the capacity to be curious and accepting. In Level 5, Self­Authoring Knowing, there is even greater con­trol in how we frame our perspectives, what we consider to be relevant, and how we structure our relationships. In Level 4, we can focus on the relationship as it exists, and in Level 5, we are able to reconstruct the parameters of the relationship. This means that in the context of relationship, we are able to not only acknowl­edge and respect each other’s values and norms of behavior, but we can actually create new ones that fit this particular context we are creating in relationship. We need the ways of knowing characteristics of Levels 4 and 5 to be able to transcend from conflict to community in the process of building better social worlds, through connection and communication, espe­cially when there are worldview differences that exist across and within cultures.

One way we might develop these higher levels of consciousness toward socializing and self-authoring ways of knowing is through reflective and reflexive processes.

Reflecting-in-action is what Fisher-Yoshida and Nagata (2002) refer to as being reflexive in that while we are experiencing an interac­tion or communication, we are at the same time engaging in a metalevel observation of ourselves being in the moment. Instead of waiting to reflect after a particular situation is finished, we have the chance to reflect and select a course of action or redirection of our action in the midst of the communica­tion unfolding. Ideally, the more we perform reflection-on-action, the better we will develop our skills to be more reflexive in the moment.

Another aspect of reflective processes is to use critical self-reflection that frames reflec­tion-on-action and reflection-in-action in a particular way. Taylor (2009) identifies three forms of critical self-reflection that take place in the process of transforming our perspec­tives and worldview. These are (1) reflecting on the content, which is what we see, feel, and perceive; (2) reflecting on how we perform the functions of perceiving, which is about the process of perception; and (3) reflecting on the premise of why we even perceive. When we reflect on the content of a conflict, we are focusing on the substantive issues. Content, process, and premise can be used as an orga­nizing framework for reflection-on-action or reflection-in-action.

When we consciously focus on applying the five paradoxes to understanding our inter- cultural interactions better, and if we are using them in the moments of interaction, we are reflecting-in-action. This metaperspective allows us to be more mindful of where on the paradox continuums we want to be in com­munication with others. Having this meta­perspective allows us to make wiser choices toward more effective outcomes.

When we are in conflict situations, we are experiencing different realities, because our worldviews shape what we experience, and no two sets of worldview experiences are the same. To move past these differences and incommensurate sets of values, we reach criti­cal moments or bifurcation points in which we need to make critical decisions (Pearce, 2007). First, we need to realize that these are critical moments and that we have these choice points from which to decide our course of action. Reflecting on the five paradoxes in these moments is one strategy to use to better understand some of these choices. We need to consider how to create a shared reality with the other party from which we create community. This is done by being open, flex­ible, reflective, and reflexive, as we live into relationship as the highest order of context. According to Kegan et al. (2001), it calls for a fourth or fifth level of consciousness and the creation of new norms that are mutually cre­ated in relationship.

Prioritizing relationship as the highest order of context is in alignment with the collabora­tive quadrant of the dual concern model, in which a high level of importance is given to both our own needs and degree of assertive­ness, while at the same time being very focused on satisfying the needs of the other through cooperation (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). We become more mindful of our approaches to conflict and can use these models as a guide about the choices we make when we reach critical moments.

Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001) expand the dual concern model to an eight-style conflict grid that considers an intercultural approach.

This eight-style conflict grid later devel­oped into the cultural values dimension grid (Ting-Toomey & Takai, 2006) in which four approaches to intercultural conflict were identified. These four quadrants are based on the two dimensions of individualism/col- lectivism and small and large power distance, and they are (1) impartial conflict approach (individualism and small power distance); (2) status achievement conflict approach (indi­vidualism and large power distance); (3) benevolent conflict approach (collectivism and large power distance); and (4) commu­nal conflict approach (collectivism and small power distance).

Now that we have reviewed some ways in which we can transform our communica­tion, the underlying concepts, and levels of readiness needed, I will present a case study to further illustrate these points. The case study helps bring these concepts to life. First will be the background of the case study, followed by some discussion points, and then a look at the case from the viewpoints of context and sequence using the lens of CMM. CMM will provide alternative ways of framing the case as a vivid example of how we can transform communication through framing relationship as the highest order context.