Conflict Management and Communication - Coursework Example

of Conflict Management and Communication Conflicts in any society are predominantly the result of lacunae in communication. The inability to understand each other’s cultures often leads one to lack respect for the same. Such problems in communication are aggravated by prejudices and stereotypes associated with social categories of race, gender and class. This paper shall analyze and draw attention to conflicts of race within the United States of America and the reasons thereof. I shall not reduce racial conflict to one reason but shall look at the different factors that contribute to its existence. The incredible diversity in terms of gender and class as far as marginalized races are concerned should prevent one from making such statements of generalization. Such statements would, moreover, lead to one not being able to understand the varied reasons behind the conflict, resulting in the marginalized getting further marginalized. I believe that at its root, racial conflict emerges from the economic benefits that are to be gained from the oppression of marginalized races by the economically advanced ones. Interpersonal relations are based on the assumption that two persons would engage in a meaningful transfer of information. This transfer is then part of a relationship that is dependent for both partners in the conversation (Palmer 279). In other words, participants in a conversation are dependent on their partner to continue a dialogue. If one person decides to not cooperate, the conversation would fall flat. The transfer of ideas in such a situation is expected to facilitate the meeting of cultures and such a negotiation moves towards a resolution of a conflict. The dependence in such a situation is then meant to be complementary rather than merely supplementary. The co-existence of communities and individuals is what is aimed at through such communication. In the case of racial conflict in the United States, the absence of such communication may be put down to the fact that communication does not begin from an empty slate. Centuries of conflict and oppression have created mistrust between the different races that exist in America. Also, the fact that people begin such conversations with presuppositions means that partners in the conversation would be dependent not on each other but on their own prejudices for the furtherance of the dialogue. Such a dialogue would not be able to sustain itself. Peter Hartley argues that effective communication can only occur as a two-way process. He points to the flaws in theorizations of communication where linear communication models are given importance. This privileges a one-way model of communication where people are senders of information and ideas rather than being good receivers of the same. This then means that both parties remain fixed in their beliefs and value-systems. The circuit model of communication, on the other hand, favors a system of communication that is based on the issue and receipt of information (15). This makes dialogue and dialectics possible in a situation which may have been ripe for conflict. In other words, the resolution of a conflict itself becomes a platform for the churning of existing ideas. Here, conflict, rather than being a problem, becomes a part of the solution. In the context of racial conflict, one sees the issue of information, often to the general public. The sending of information is often made without the expectation of an opposing view. The ‘call to action’ that is often sent out presupposes the absence or even undesirability of an alternate view regarding the issue at hand. Rather than looking at things through rigid lenses, one would need to learn how to ameliorate conflicts through dialogue and negotiation, aimed at the syntheses of views. The definition of conflict may stand one in good stead while looking at this problem. Kenneth W. Thomas argues that conflict is the frustration of one’s concerns as caused by another person who refuses to engage with those concerns. The dialogue, as mentioned earlier, would be significant in this regard as it points towards the necessity of understanding alternative ways of looking at the world. Thomas’s use of the word “frustrate” too is significant (265). It point to the absence of a compromise in conversations that may happens between warring factions. The inability to incorporate relativism in one’s own understanding of the world is pointed out here, something that leads to the frustration of dialogue and the stunting of any possibility of dialogue. One example of this may be seen in E. Franklin Frazier’s monumental study of the African American family unit. He traces the history of the African American family from the days of slavery to the twentieth century when the Emancipation, the Reconstruction and the Great Migration had already taken place. The accusations that are often leveled against such a unit, Frazier argues, emanates from a lack of historical understanding. This, again, stems from the lack of dialogue between racial communities, as a result of which stereotypes emerge regarding oppressed sections of the society. Frazier points to the impossibility of a conventional family unit being formed in the ante bellum South as a result of the frequent shifts that African Americans were made to undergo (112). This meant that bonds of family could not possibly be conceived between fathers and children, or even mothers and their children. Racial conflict, however, cannot be understood merely through the prism of race alone. One would need to factor in concerns of gender and class into this discussion to gain a more holistic understanding of the subject. For instance, writers like Toni Morrison and Gloria Naylor have articulated concerns regarding the marginalization of black women during the creation of a large African American coalition. While articulating concerns regarding the oppression of a racial community, the oppression of women within that community is neglected and even ignored. In fact, the supposed need for a larger communal unity leads to the greater marginalization of women within that community, they argue. The need for dialogue, ironically, is emphasized between communities but not within the community. Writers like Morrison and Naylor stress the need for dialogue between elements within a community rather than always looking outside. This is not to say that they do not understand the reasons for oppression that were created by racism, but to emphasize the multi-faceted nature of the problem at hand. Class too is a factor that often goes unaddressed during a discussion of this issue. The controversy surrounding Bill Cosby’s infamous ‘Pound Cake speech’ is an example of this. The lack of a dialogue between the different classes of the African American community is visible in the insensitive portrayal of the African American underclasses, in this speech. The inability to understand the concerns of the lower classes within the African American community leads to the absence of a conversation. This then leads to disunity within the community. The necessity of dialogue is thus, reiterated in such instances. The management of conflict thus, requires communities to look for diversity and factor in class, gender and other social categories that may be divisive. Only then would such communities be able to engage in negotiations with other communities. I would argue that the management of a conflict can thus, only be done, through a holistic understanding of the roots of the problem. The understanding can be aided by dialogue between the different parties that are involved in the problem; the challenge in such situations is to understand the different stakeholders present. The challenge thus, lies in being able to not alienate those people who may already be at the receiving end of oppression. This would merely take away any incentive that they may have for coming to the table for negotiations. The building up of trust is thus, a necessary feature of any dialogue between individuals. It is all the more important when the dialogue is between communities since an individual’s identity is more often than not, tied to his or her communal identity. Also, communal tensions can often cause lasting harm that may scar entire communities for generations. The challenge that lies in front of people who are asked to manage such conflicts is the creation of a platform for all involved to come and participate in a dialogue. The importance of a dialogue lies also in its ability to solve such conflicts in a peaceful and non-violent manner as opposed to the manner in which racial conflicts have been dealt with. The loss here is not merely of human lives and property but also the possibility of a future where people would be able to live in peace and harmony. This is especially important at a point of time when conflict in society is the norm rather than the exception. Dialogue and understanding becomes all the more important in a society where people have become inured to violence and have become cynical regarding the very process of conflict resolution. I believe that the institution of organizations that bring stakeholders from both communities would be helpful as far as the resolution is concerned, enabling a smoother operation of the society. Works Cited Frazier, E. Franklin. Black Bourgeoisie. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Print. Hartley, Peter. Interpersonal Communication. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. Palmer, Mark T. “Interpersonal Communication and Virtual Reality: Mediating Interpersonal Relationships”. Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Eds. Frank Biocca and Mark R. Levy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995. Print. Thomas, Kenneth W. “Conflict and Conflict Management: Reflections and Update”. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (1992): 265-274. Print. Read More