In chapter one of Interpersonal Conflicts, Hocker and Wilmot propose that our childhood socialization impacts how people deal with conflicts. I found it valid the “our family of origin socializes us into constructive or destructive ways of handling conflict…” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014, p. 3). My conflict style along with my self-examination through “Kegan’s Five Stages of Development” significantly characterize my conflict pattern.
These two methods of identifying the origins of my conflict pattern along with White and Winslade’s ideas of externalizing the narrative significantly impact my pattern of rational thinking accompanied my irrational action. Hocker and Wilmot (2014) describe in great detail the effects of destructive martial conflicts on children. As a product of divorce, I experienced this first hand. Coming from a military family background, I was raised to always question a situation, gain all of the facts, and prepare the proper plan of attack, which is an aggressive conflict system.
I would not say I was ever raised to pursue conflict in a destructive way; however, preceding my parents’ divorce, many of the conversations were emotionally based and often destructive. In most instances, the conflict style exhibited was avoidant or aggressive. Experiencing this at such a young age assimilated into my understanding of interdependence and how to take advantage of others when engaging in conflicts with others. The idea that familial relationship impacting my conflict pattern is extremely relevant.
For example, in my three year relationship, the idea of marriage was a common topic of conversation; however, “…If…parents have frequent conflict, children have a much less favorable attitude towards marriages” (Jennings, Salts, & Smith, 1991). Rationally, I would like to be in a happy relationship; however, my parents’ divorce significantly impacted my view of intimate relationships. I find it hard to display affection. This is an irrational action, in my opinion. My goal of having a happy, healthy relationship, is tarnished by my irrational reactions to intimacy and emotions.
While this is true for me, not everyone responds in such a way to socialization through familial interactions. I agree with Wilmot and Hocker (2014) that relationships and experiences in general impact how someone will handle future conflicts. Authors usually use general words rather than universal words to indicate that there are exceptions. Since my brother was younger when my parents divorced, he does not respond to affection as I do. He is extremely affectionate and thriving in a healthy, intimate relationship. Also, just because my parents employed an aggressive system of conflict does not be I completely adopted it.
I am some times more avoidant or collaborative due to my exposure to the field of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Familial socialization is just one of the factors that influence Kegan’s Five Stages of Development. In order to fully grasp how the five stages vary, one should explore the idea of subject versus object. Pruyn (2010) began his explanation of the constructive development theory (CDT) through the subject/object relationship. The subjective human relies on the emotions and reactions of others to formulate an opinion and eventually an action (Pruyn, 2010).
Only the objective human is not impacted by the actions of others (Pruyn, 2010). With this in mind, Kegan’s Five Stages of Development become more distinct. For the sake of my personal conflict pattern, I will primarily focus on the third and fourth orders of mind. The 3rd order, the “socialized: mind, a person is in between being objective and subjective to other’s emotions (“A Change Theory”). This order, in comparison to the previous order, exemplifies the awareness of the individual of other’s opinions and feeling, yet the individual is still subject to those emotions (Pruyn, 2010).
At the same time, that individual desires to be objective and prove their individuality, which is a confusing time. Personally, the aspect of being subject to my social environment and what my personal relationship meant to the world around me is the reason for my three year destructive relationship lasting so long. I was so worried about being the power couple of our high school and having the cutest guy in school. I did not realize how objective I was to my own needs, interests and desires.
This confuses me because I thought I was looking out for myself by remaining in the relationship, when in fact, I was only hurting my well-being. After leaving that relationship, I feel as though I have graduated to the fourth order, the “self-authored” mind. I “…have created a self that exists even outside of its [my] relationship to others” (“A Change Theory”). In the third order, my subjectivity to other’s opinions affected my rationale in engaging in a conflict. Now, as I am more conscious of myself and my moral aspirations, my number of irrational actions have decreased.
Compromising and integrating, traits of the 4th order of mind, involve creating “a power balance to achieve temporary or expedient settlement sin time-pressured situations” or “being able to formulate a collaborative solution that will either satisfy both parties” (Hocker, 2014). This coincides with the self-authoring mind being “able to take a step back from its environment and hold it as object, regarding his or her culture critically” (Pruyn, 2010). Kegan’s Five Stages of Mind are applicable in self-identification within a conflict.
It is crucial to recognize the danger in trying to categorize someone else within these orders of mind. Pruyn (2010) emphasizes that subjectivity and objectivity are relative to the person. In class, we discussed the fact that we cannot truly know another person’s relativity of object versus subject. Over analyzing and predicting a person’s actions is dangerous and is often my down fall within my conflict pattern. I will rationally plan out a situation based on how I believe the other person will respond; however, in most instances, they do not respond in that manner.
I cannot predict the actions of other, which frustrates and an often results in aggression that ends in irrational action. We did not extensively discuss frustration-aggressive theory; however, frustration with the dialogue of the conversation is the primary cause of my irrational action. “…the feeling of frustration depends on the intentions of those who might regard themselves as blocked…” (Kriesburg & Dayton, 2012). My narrative becomes skewed and my approach to the conflict becomes skewed when I feel “blocked” because the other person did not respond as I predicted.
Winslade (2000) explains that “The narrative metaphor draws attention to the ways in which we use stories to make sense of our lives and relationships” (p. 2). I agree that using externalizing conversation, as White so vividly explains, creates a certain “truth” about how we perceive our lives. As Winslade (2000) elaborates, this method helps to “disidentify with the problem story and begin to develop shared meanings, understandings, and solutions” (p. 5). Both White (2007) and Winslade (2000) focus on the aspect of totalizing and that no one true description can reflect a complex situation.
White (2007) employs the “why” question as a means to break down this “totalized” problem within the narrative find the root of the problem. Winslade suggests employing constructive, solution-bound narratives, which create a new, positive conversation. This applies to my conflict pattern of acting irrationally based on rational thoughts. The idea of the narrative is extremely important to me as I try to predict my future encounters in conflict. I often talk through my problem with my best friend and arrive at my own conclusion by employing a solution-bound narrative.
I hardly ever evaluate the consequences of my action, as what White (2007) would refer to as, “wholly negative. ” I am a pretty optimistic person. In most instances, I find my own solutions with a clear rationale. Unfortunately, the narrative of the trigger point in my conflicts significantly impacts the plan I construct since this is the place I experienced the most frustration. If I have an emotional or hostile reaction to the initial conflict, my rationale is often skewed as my frustration turned to aggression.
The narrative is an important aspect of interpersonal conflict; however, as Winslade and White recognize, it is difficult to find a common narrative. Relying on the narrative can be risky if the participants are not willing to share openly and honestly. As we try to totalize the narrative as Winslade (2000) suggests, the conflict can spiral and the resolution can become farther out of reach. An acceptable alternative is focusing on, as White (2007) would say, the problem not the person. It is almost impossible to solve a conflict without narrative or emotion, so the person may need to be the focus.
Professor Castel emphasized that emotions may actually be the problem so it is important to identify the emotional discrepancies from the beginning. My personal narrative impacts my approach to conflict and contributes to my transition between Kegan’s Five Stages of Mind. I can attribute my conflict style to my parental interactions; however, I am also impacted by the idea of living in a modern society. I became less reliant on the opinion of the larger group and more concerned with trusting my own instincts and ideas.
The “leaders” or my parents’ example of a successful relationship backfired and I was left on my own to find some sort of “truth” about what a relationship should actually look like. This belief aligns with post-modernism and that fact that the “Big Ideas” failed us (“A Change Theory”). As the “Big Ideas” failed us, it is difficult to characterize a person and predict their conflict patter. This frustrates me and results in irrational actions despite rational preparation. With all of this knowledge nd self-awareness, my conflict approaches would seem to be flawless, but as I recognize now in the fourth order of mind, although I am object other’s opinions, I still take them into consideration. In these instances, I am emotionally affected and respond with an aggressive style of conflict that I observed from my parent’s conflict style. On another note, one interpersonal conflict framework that is least beneficial to my conflict pattern is the TRIP model. Indeed, the model identifies the types of goals within a conflict (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014).
Moreover, it addresses the fact that goals may overlap and change as the conflict escalates and deescalates. This is not always personally applicable to my conflict pattern because I also would not refer to the problem as a goal in the conflict. I, personally, would like to deescalate the conflict and resolve the “topic” problem. Repairing relationships and recognizing emotions or identity is the least of my worries. As I do not get into many conflicts, a majority of my conflict are verbal misunderstandings in the work place or on the volleyball court, which could be viewed as Process goals.
Although recognition of emotions are important in these instances, I do not think emotions should get in the way of winning or getting the job done. I am more concerned with just the topic or process of the situation. This stems from my aggressive style of conflict as being raised as a military child. Moreover, as I have entered the fourth order of mind, I have the choice to recognize other’s emotions (Pruyn, 2010). In my case, relationship and identity are not relevant in a majority of my conflicts and therefore, the TRIP model is only slightly applicable to my conflict pattern.
