Chapter 4, Discussion 3

One concept that I found to be the most interesting is that of defensiveness. I am interested in this concept because I have been told that I get very defensive in disputes. I, too, have recognized this about myself, and I am not proud of the way I react when faced with a conflict or argument. The text states that “defensiveness arises from the interaction of people in a situation and occurs when people have a perceived flaw that they do not want to admit and they are sensitive to that flaw” (p. 73).  I admit that I am incredibly sensitive to flaws that I see within myself, and I do get self-protective when they are noticed and criticized by someone else. However, I do not deny these flaws, and I am open to admitting to them in a conflict. Initially I retort out of insecurity, but I am usually mindful of my reasoning and share why it is that I reacted in such a way. I have found that listening on both ends is a valid tool for calming the situation and helping me to keep from feeling attacked. 

Chapter 4, Discussion 2

     I have a hard time listening to the other party before I interject with my explanation. This is especially hard for me if I feel like I’m being attacked, because I instantly become defensive. When others talk, I am usually thinking about what I will say next, rather than being completely focused on the conversation that is taking place at that moment. After listening, I do not write down most of what the other person tells me because I do not feel the need to transcribe the conversation when I am lost in the moment. This is especially true for conflicts. I am usually too worked up with emotion to take the time to write down what is being said. I think that in many cases it would be a good idea to take notes during a dispute, because there can be accusations or further argumentation based on misunderstandings. Especially when serious emotion is involved, people can mishear or misconstrue what the other party is saying and cause further issues.

Chapter 4, Discussion 1

     I find it quite difficult to stop a conflict, because I tend to get defensive very quickly without analyzing the situation. I get emotional and sensitive in conflict situations, and I react automatically whether I feel it is for damage control, or to defend myself against the other party. Sometimes I find that it is best to walk away from the conflict for a bit to gain some perspective on the issue at hand, and to gather my thoughts and organize a response that is more effective and beneficial for both parties. I like to reflect on a situation when I am away from the other person involved in the conflict, because then I can delve into my true emotions and opinions without feeling like I am being affected by the other person’s presence or input. I also like to listen to music for a bit, or watch TV to distract myself from the topic and have a chance to calm down. This way, I am more likely to approach the subject in a more rational and efficient way.

Chapter 11, Discussion 3

A concept that I found to be interesting in this reading is the caucus. It is incredibly beneficial for the feuding parties to contribute to the discussion in a more positive way by giving full disclosure of information to the mediator in a private dialogue. The mediator is able to get details of the conflict that each party is reluctant to share in front of one another which, with permission from each party, can be carefully and professionally inserted into the discussion by said mediator. The mediator can investigate the true feelings of each party confidentially and try to convince him/her to share them openly and honestly with the other, or to helpfully guide each party towards the discovery of these feelings in the discussion. It is wise that the mediator shares the same amount of time with each party so that there is no favoritism, and each party feels safe confiding in him/her. I have played the mediator role in caucus’ involving friends and family members. I would listen to both sides of the argument on separate occasions with the parties involved, and try to encourage the information shared with me to be brought up in a discussion with the other party. I find this to be successful because it allows the parties to increase clarity through the caucus, and hopefully gain the courage to be more open and honest in the discussion.

Chapter 11, Discussion 2

These techniques can be useful in intrapersonal conflicts as well. Fractionation can be helpful in situations when one feels overwhelmed with multiple aspects of his/her life at once. For example, when one is stressed because of too much homework, not having time to finish obligations at work causing conflict with one’s boss, a roommate moving out causing rent to become too expensive, disputes with the landlord over the lease agreement, etc., breaking down each complex issue into smaller and more manageable ones can be very effective and beneficial. When each issue is broken down into a more controllable form, it can be easier to see the best way to solve it. Also, the intensity and stress of the situation may be alleviated once issues that seemed to be massive are made less intimidating. 

Framing can be helpful to solving issues when it is performed as soon as an issue arises. In moments when someone says something that is personally offensive, or does something deemed as inappropriate, it is beneficial to avoid blame or judgment by reflecting on reasons why he/or she may have spoken or acted in the way that he/she did. Also, it is helpful to understand why it is personally offensive, so that one can determine if this is really an issue of maliciousness, or simply a misunderstanding and difference in opinion. Reframing is important because it allows one to see a situation at a different and less involved angle, and it allows for a new perspective the issue. This is where the answers to the framing reflections can be useful. Once the questions in your mind are answered and you have a deeper understanding of that person’s motive, you can reach common ground by trying to empathize, and change your attitude about, and expectations of, that person.

         For example, if someone is giving a serious speech about the war in Iraq and an audience member starts laughing, you may find this incredibly distasteful and disrespectful. This causes you to question why he began to laugh at such a solemn speech. Instead of thinking, “what an insensitive jerk!” you begin asking questions. Was he reading a funny text? Daydreaming? Being tickled? After framing the situation, you discover that the laughing audience member is the sibling of a soldier in the war, and he was simply laughing at the picture being projected behind the speaker of he and his sibling together that brought back joyous memories. This causes you to reflect on moments you’ve spent with a loved one who is now far away or in a difficult situation, and show empathy to this soldier’s brother.

Chapter 11, Discussion 1

Communication majors should make good mediators because we investigate deeper into the "how" and "why" of communication, and do not simply focus on the "what." Communication majors are able to demonstrate how to extract a message from a given context, and examine the less-obvious and implied meanings beyond the words being said. This discipline also teaches the importance of taking the physical forms of communication into consideration when sending and receiving messages. Nonverbal communication reveals a great deal of information, and is just as important as verbal communication. We can further analyze a situation in a way that can be more beneficial to both parties in need of a mediator, because being more informed on an issue, and considering the physical and social context, can lead to a more accurate and effective resolution.

Lawyers and psychotherapists might find it difficult to effectively play the role of mediator because they tend to be advocates for one side or the other and have personal bias. Lawyers approach mediatory issues as they would litigation using confrontational techniques and taking one party’s side over another. Also, a mediator should encourage cooperative communication behavior rather than competitive. A lawyer’s job is to create a “winner” by getting a judge and jury on his/her party’s side of a given case. Mediation requires neutrality. This is why it would also be difficult for a psychotherapist to be a mediator, because mediators must “demonstrate their neutrality by equalizing the speaking time, giving the same amount of speaking time and attention to both parties, and not spending time alone with one of the parties without spending the same amount of time with the other during the mediation” (p. 197). A psychotherapist typically spends time alone with clients, and will likely offer his/her services if needed by either party without focusing on the equality between the two. Should one party request more time with the psychotherapist than the other, he/she is receiving more alone time and attention, and getting more speaking time. These two careers produce some sort of bias toward one party or the other, which would make an impartial and/or impersonal mediation much more difficult.