Mediating Evil

The Language of Conflict

In every country, there are not only national languages and local
dialects, but thousands of micro-languages, ranging from professional
terminology to ethnic phraseology, popular slang, bureaucratic
technicality, family vernacular, and generational jargon. There are, for
example, distinct languages for organizational management, political
candidacy, ethnic minorities, social classes, economic cycles, and
criminal pursuits. Each of these languages serves a unique purpose
and produces unique results in the attitudes and behaviors of those
who use them.

There is also a distinct language of conflict. There is the conscious
use of exaggerated statements to disguise requests for reassurance,
as in stock phrases such as “you always,” and “you never.” These
words are not intended as statements of fact, but mean “You do too
much or too little of X for me” and “I would appreciate it if you would
do X less or more.” Yet the mere use of these phrases indicates the
presence of deeper emotional problems, impelling us to:

Camouflage our requests as statements of fact

Exaggerate the truth

Stereotype others as unreasonable

Not take responsibility for communicating our needs

Fail to accurately describe what we really want from others

Miss opportunities to become vulnerable and invite others into
more intimate conversation

Ignore others needs, explanations, or reasons for acting in their
self-interest

Miss openings to collaboratively negotiate for satisfaction of
mutual needs.

When we are uncomfortable with intense emotions, or want to
camouflage a hidden agenda, it becomes difficult to describe our
feelings accurately. When asked how we feel, we use words implying
that we are being coerced by others, instead of words accepting
responsibility for how we feel about what others have done. Our
words contain judgments – not merely about what others did, but of
who they are. We say, for example, “He is infuriating,” or “He made
me mad,” instead of “I am angry.” Or, "She is a blabbermouth,"
instead of “I feel betrayed.” Or "He is out to get me," instead of “I am
afraid he is going to fire me."

By translating or reframing these statements, we convert a
language of powerlessness into a language of empowerment, just as
do by turning “you” statements into “I” statements, being precise
about what we are feeling, transforming conflict stories, and
recognizing that beneath accusations lie confessions and requests,
either of which serves our interests better. These are all valuable
interventions, but they do not address the underlying problem. A
more careful examination of the language used in political conflicts
reveals a deep set of issues.

Psychologist Renana Brooks describes the ways language is used
to reinforce abuse and domination in power relationships. She cites,
for example, broad statements that are so abstract and meaningless
they cannot be opposed; excessive personalization of issues so they
can only be addressed individually; negative frameworks that reinforce
pessimistic images of the world; and inculcation of a “learned
helplessness” that assumes change is impossible. Mexican novelist
Octavio Paz describes how this deterioration of language reflects a
broader social and political decay:

When a society decays, it is language that is first to become
gangrenous... and alongside oratory, with its plastic flowers,
there is the barbarous syntax in many of our newspapers, the
foolishness of language on loudspeakers and the radio, the
loathsome vulgarities of advertising -- all that asphyxiating
rhetoric.

A similar asphyxiation occurs in the rhetoric of conflict as a result of
distortions produced by adversarial assumptions in speaking and
listening, the strangled expression of intense emotion, the coexistence
of fear and rage, the weight and weightlessness of the issues, the
craving for revenge and forgiveness, and the simultaneous exhibition
of power and powerlessness, arrogance and humility, domination and
dependency.

Language in organizations can also become an instrument of
domination and control, reinforcing assumptions of hierarchy,
bureaucracy and autocracy. Even seemingly innocuous corporate
expressions such as “upper management,” “direct reports,” “bottom
line,” “alignment,” “getting people on board,” “raising the bar,” “lean
and mean,” “accountability,” “pushing the envelope,” and similar
expressions reveal myths and assumptions that
distortcommunications. In similar ways, the language of law is replete
with terminology conveying arrogance, incomprehension, and hostility
directed toward emotionality, vulnerability, artistic thinking, human
error, collective responsibility, compassion, frivolity, redemption, play,
and forgiveness.