Dance of Anger and Reciprocity Theory: Resolving Conflicts in a Romantic Relationship - Research Paper Example

 Introduction The purpose of conducting this analysis is to find alternative ways of handling personal relationship conflicts. This can be accomplished by using new concepts, approaches, and techniques that I have not used before in managing romantic relationship conflicts. Thesis: Reciprocity theory is valuable in understanding non-academic approaches to conflict dynamics because reciprocity is essential in the process of exchanging benefits where the flow and sources of benefits impact the outcomes of conflicts. I will demonstrate the use of reciprocity in resolving worldview differences between me and my boyfriend. I will also use the out-of-the box approach of dancing in anger by Lerner (1988) in understanding the tasks for the brave and audacious. Definition of conflict: A conflict refers to an articulated form of struggle between two or more interdependent parties that may come from different causes, such as incompatible goals, limited resources, and hindrance in attaining goals (Cupach, Canary, & Spitzberg, 2010, p. 9). Case Character Descriptions Character #1: I am the first character. I am Chinese and a Buddhist. I believe in respecting all forms of life because we all have inherent equality. I also strive to follow the Eightfold Path, which includes, among others, the right speech, which means that I will avoid lying, gossiping, condemning, and using harsh language on others, and right mindfulness, which means being aware of my body, mind, and feelings. My goal is to finish college and have a successful career. I see myself as a logical person. I can be argumentative if I want to fight for my ideals, but I also resort to silent submission if I feel hurt, or if the other person is no longer listening to me. I have a boyfriend right now, and though we have some serious differences in values and usually have conflicts, I still respect and love him. Character #2: My boyfriend is Steve (not real name). He is Chinese too and has no religion. He does not believe in God. He uses a double-standard approach in analyzing and resolving conflicts because he is more of an ethical relativist, which means that to him, morality is relative to one’s culture. The fact that nothing is objectively right or wrong to him has led to his gray areas in morality that I could not accept. He likes getting into arguments about right and wrong, success and failure, noble and despicable, and femininity and masculinity. He also wants to finish college and have a successful career and family life in the future like me. Conflict Management Scenario: Steve and I are not the typical college couple who gets into fights. One time, we watched a movie about domestic violence, where a woman left her husband and took their child with her. After the movie, he told me that the woman was “wrong” because what she did was kidnapping and that she should have stayed with the husband for the “sake of the family.” I was shocked at him and told him that the cop, the woman’s husband, is “psychotic for hurting her for 12 years, physically and verbally,” and that there is “no way that he would easily change because he was a power-hungry, aggressive individual.” He said that I was “wrong” and reminded me that marriage is “sacrosanct” and that even domestic violence can be “resolved” through different means, such as counseling. I agreed that it was possible for them to try resolving their issues, but the man was not into counseling. He is the type of man who “cherished his face or reputation more than anything, even more than his marriage.” He told me that I have the same problem as the woman, “making assumptions about what men want and can and cannot do, and that we did not even give the cop a chance.” I paused for a moment and said that he “maybe right, since the woman did not try talking to her husband about counseling, but during that kind of physical and emotional abuse that can get lethal, the best step is to safeguard one’s life first.” I told him that “survival is imminent because he could almost kill her.” He replied that “it is possible that he could kill her, but he might have not. The truth is, the man could have anger management issues and needed professional help. The last thing he needed was a wife who ran away and stole his kid away from him.” I asked him if he was the father of the woman: Would he consider counseling first at the risk of his daughter’s life? He answered without hesitation: “I’d break that bastard’s face with my own fists and cut his balls and throw them to street rats.” Again, he shocked me. He stressed: “That’s would I do. But of course, my daughter would not be stupid to marry an asshole like that. My daughter would marry someone loving and responsible like me.” He smiled, and the debate ended. Analysis Description and Application of Dance of Anger According to Lerner (1988), anger is a “signal” that people should listen to, instead of dismissing it easily, which society may be conditioned to do, especially when women are the ones expressing their anger (p. 1). People dance when communicating with each other too, and when they are in conflict, one moves forward, while the other goes backward, because moving toward each other creates a violent collision (Lerner, 1988, p. 12). These concepts are related to conflict because I also do not like expressing myself in anger in a unilateral way without getting feedback from the other, or not knowing how the other truly feels and thinks about me. As a woman, I do not see it feminine to be verbally angry. As a Chinese, being angry is normal if done with fellow women, but not at men and not publicly. Being a young Chinese woman in America, however, I am not like others who stay quiet. I can argue in defense of my beliefs, even with men. It is now the age of gender equality, so I do not see myself at all as secondary to men in dignity and rights. Components: Lerner (1988) argued that those who want to be better managers of anger and conflict should pursue daring and brave tasks. These steps include observation, removing an act that results to a circular dance of anger, defining the self, and planning for countermoves. Observation means studying our use of ineffective anger styles, such as quiet submission, fighting and blaming, and emotional distancing. Removing an act that creates a circular dance of anger means removing the fact that I also give in through silence for the debate to end, or when I no longer find it productive to continue it because he will not change his mindset anyway. Defining the self means determining responsibility for anger and feelings. Planning for countermoves removes underfunctioning and overfunctioning roles where overfunctioning refers to one person taking all responsibility, while underfunctioning refers to the partner who fully relies on the other for managing the conflict. Application to Conflict In my observation of myself, I could see that I was the one overfunctioning in managing the conflict. My boyfriend just throws words without caring if it results to conflicts. He is underfunctioning because he relies on me in managing our conflicts. Furthermore, I did not like it when I was getting angry. I felt that anger is bad for my Buddhist belief of right speech and right effort. I did not see anger as a positive sign that I should manage productively, as Lerner (1988) would have said. Instead, I deal with my anger by pacifying myself and giving up the debate before it escalates and I become even angrier at my boyfriend in the end because I could not defend myself in a way that satisfied me. Our circular dance of anger happens through my silent submission. Our conversations end with me feeling dissatisfied of how I expressed my values and how my values have been trampled. To define my “self,” I realized that I practice “de-selfing” where I sacrifice my awareness of my identity to conform to my boyfriend’s wants and expectations (Lerner, 1988, p. 28). He wants me to accept his values and actions as valid even, if they are not in my values system. He does not want to see my values as right when compared to his. I used countermoves where I tried to give examples and to define the limitations of the situation. I did not force myself nor did I use harsh language. I tried to help him see the essence of respecting the woman’s decision, but he could not see it unless he was the woman’s father, but then he also thought about acting violently. I felt that I lacked countermoves that did not result to my de-selfing because my boyfriend can be quite funny and his sense of humor usually ends our conversations to diffuse my anger at him. I noted the need for countermoves that expressed my anger more proactively and the need for respect. Description and Application of Reciprocity Theory The concept is reciprocity from reciprocity theory. Reciprocity refers to the giving of benefits for benefits that are also received (Collett & Avelis, 2011, p. 232). This is based on Molm’s (2010) reciprocity theory which states that the structure and organization of transactions affect their cognitive and affective outcomes (as cited in Collett & Avelis, 2011, p. 232). Reciprocity means give and take, though in equal flows and sources all the time. The flow and source of benefits affect reciprocity. The flow refers to unilateral or bilateral flows, while the source is indirect versus direct (Collett & Avelis, 2011, p. 232). Molm (2010) argued that unilateral flows can result to either exploitation of the other or showing trustworthiness because of the reciprocity involved (Collett & Avelis, 2011, p. 232). She added that reciprocal exchange involves risks that may even improve trust and positive affective outcomes because there are no promises, only potentially cooperative exchanges (Collett & Avelis, 2011, p. 232). These concepts are important to managing conflict because they show how unilateral reciprocal flows and indirect benefits may be good in improving trust and decreasing the salience of conflicts. Application to Conflict Management Scenario The flow of reciprocity is unilateral because I am the one trying to make a point that my boyfriend should use a more objective way of determining what is right and wrong and not use double standards of morality. In our conversations, including the scenario presented, I believe that I can see that we have reciprocity because we can openly express ourselves to one another. I do not shy away in expressing my values, and he also does the same. I also try to show him my point in different ways, such as asking him to put himself in the position of the beaten woman’s father to see if counseling is beneficial at that point of their relationship, or if it is better to take flight first, while thinking of countermoves. The indirect source of benefit comes from our engaged discussions on important ethical and social questions. I know that he is a good person, but he also rarely wants to see my values as worthy or as valuable as his. The cognitive effect on me is that I am forced to think of more ways of convincing him of my values, while he simply reacts to me. The affective outcome is that I am upset when he undermines my values and I feel that he disrespects my values system. I see the benefits of unilateral flows where I could manage the conversation better by showing him the indirect values of my contribution to his ethical development. I may be able to show him more sides of the same issue, but I lack creative and persuasive means. Our arguments can get heated and I can get very mad at him, which dissipates the conflict when I end it with silence. I do not feel that there is enough reciprocity in our relationship, however. I feel that I am the one always giving in and understanding him. I think that reciprocity happens when he also respects my values and finds alternative ways of expressing himself less harshly. Integration of Dance of Anger and Reciprocity Theory and Application to Case Dance of anger and reciprocity both value the sense of self of the parties and their attainment of mutual benefits. They want all parties to get benefits from their transactions. Reciprocity, however, is not about equity or fairness, but the ability to appreciate the exchange of benefits, no matter how short it may be for one person. Dance of anger wants to attain even power relations and to help people manage anger, instead of dismissing it. Dance of anger is about knowing the self, removing steps that result to anger, and countermoves that is similar to the aspect of finding reciprocity in the relationship. Reciprocity is about exchange of benefits, while dance of anger is also about finding benefits for both parties. Observation is important to both dance of anger and reciprocity because it leads to self-analysis. Dance of anger supports bilateral exchanges though, while reciprocity accepts the benefits of unilateral exchange flows. Removing the act that results to dance of anger can be parallel to reciprocity’s theory of removing practices that lead to the exploitation of another person. In addition, dance of anger offers specific tools for reciprocity. For instance, the tasks for the daring can be turned into ways of improving the flow and sources of benefits that will be good for both of us. By removing de-selfing, for instance, I can focus on benefits that I can also gain, where I reduce the negative affective outcomes of our debates for our relationship and sense of self. Application of Integration to Your Conflict The heart of the conflict is the stubbornness of my boyfriend in validating my values system. On this regard, reciprocity shows that I should let him express himself, as long as he respects my ways of expression too. I do not expect him to have my values, but to also see the advantages of my ethical framework. Dance of anger adds that I should help him develop open-mindedness regarding other people’s values and respect them as valid too. I must resist de-selfing, even when his humor might seem good enough to diffuse the tension. Silent submission should be removed and be replaced with a unilateral expression of my beliefs. I must not let him monopolize the meaning of right and wrong and expand our moral frameworks to be more respectful and equitable. The flow of benefits should be bilateral, as well as the sources. The flow of exchange of benefits should be shared. Countermoves can be expanded through finding more indirect benefits for my boyfriend when he sees my values as valid. This can be done through letting him air out all his issues and to ask him to give me also the same time and attention when I am discussing my values. Summary and Conclusion The purpose of conducting this analysis is to find alternative ways of handling personal relationship conflicts. I accomplished this by using new concepts, approaches, and techniques in managing romantic relationship conflicts. This is beneficial to me because I am now more capable of handling conflicts in close relationships. These concepts and theories showed the importance of observation and self-analysis to resolving conflicts. Observation and self-analysis reveal personal communication and conflict management flaws and strengths. Dance of anger acknowledges that anger is a legitimate source of emotion and reflection, but it ends with healthy conflict-management tools. Reciprocity underlines that unilateral exchanges can be healthy if people reciprocate benefits in action. Reciprocity can lead to unequal relationships which can be reduced through the dance of anger’s concept of countermoves and de-selfing. I should not sacrifice my ideals by expressing their importance to Steve and underlining that he should also see my value system as legitimate as his. Interpersonal conflicts can be fruitfully managed through analysis and the determination and attainment of mutual benefits. Conflicts should not be brushed under the rug because they can pile up and lead to break-ups. Silent submission is unhealthy and leads to the dance of anger. It is healthy to have conflicts that reveal truths about our identities and aspirations in life, but we should not allow unhealthy resolutions of conflicts to result to the loss or weakening of the self. References Collett, J.L., & Avelis, J. (2011). Building a life together: Reciprocal and negotiated exchange in fragile families. In S.R. Thye & E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 227-254). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Cupach, W.R., Canary, D.J., & Spitzberg, B.H. (2010). Competence in interpersonal conflict (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Lerner, H. (1988). The dance of anger: A woman’s guide to changing the pattern of intimate relationships. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Read More