Mending Fences
Mending Fences
De-escalation: A First Step to Resolution
What happens when a conflict becomes bigger than any of the involved interests? Jen Hawthorne Kelsey and Patrice Brymner guide you through the maze of contentious standoffs to the calmer side, where interest-based dialogue fosters understanding and peace. As they reflect on the art of conflict de-escalation on Mending Fences, listeners learn effective communication strategies that are more necessary now than ever. Whether it's the bubbling tensions in the classroom or the more prominent scale of global disagreements, self-inquiry strategies can shed light on personal disputes and their striking similarities to international relations.
Welcome to Mending Fences, a podcast about effective ways to communicate and live with differences. I'm Patrice Bremner and I'm Jen.
Speaker 2:Hawthorne. We're both family law mediators and collaborative law attorneys, but our conversations go well beyond family law. We explore the personal, interpersonal, legal and cultural impacts of conflict. We explore the personal, interpersonal, legal and cultural impact of conflict.
Speaker 1:Hi, and welcome back to Mending Fences. I'm Patrice Bremner and I'm here today with Jen Hawthorne Kelsey. Hi, Patrice, Hi Jen, Jen and I have been talking for a couple of weeks about something that we've wondered how to bring to the podcast, and I think we've landed on a good challenge for our listeners, and this is about de-escalation of conflict. So it came up for us in conversation about things we're seeing in the news. We're recording this podcast in the spring of 2024. And we've seen a lot of conflict on college campuses and across the world.
Speaker 2:Really, Right, Jen, Right right, I don't think this is overstating it. It does feel often like we're on the brink of war in several different areas.
Speaker 1:And the conversations we've had have been based on our observations of watching conflict sort of escalate and wondering how can it de-escalate.
Speaker 2:And we've been in our conversations identifying parallels to the work that we do and we just keep coming back to the same questions and the same observations about the differences between interest-based communication and positional communication. How it's being reported broadly is that there are very few conversations in any of the current conflicts regarding actual sit-down conversations between leaders to figure out what everyone is trying to accomplish. And, more importantly, this is the question I always ask why? Why is that the goal, why is that what they're trying to accomplish? And instead everyone is being very loud about stating their positions, sometimes violently so, instead of engaging in problem solving. And, as Patrice said, in the work that we do most often with families, we can see that too.
Speaker 2:When folks come in and just stick in their position. They come in wanting a specific thing, refusing to hear the other person and refusing to move off of it. Nothing gets done and nothing gets better and in worst case scenarios, things become more litigious and more hostile and those ongoing relationships or those ongoing shared interests are never talked about, addressed, and it's just a cycle of conflict, like these folks in the divorce world, for example, might be the people who end up in court over and over again because they never learn how to make joint decisions. And I think much more broadly, like in the world. There's been ongoing conflict in some of these, over some of these things, for literally decades, centuries, and that's right. It's not my area of expertise, nor Patrice's, obviously, to solve.
Speaker 1:You know world geopolitics, but because of our background in our profession, we see a lack of what we would like to see in terms of communication yeah, and one of the observations that we made just talking earlier today, jen, I think you mentioned or I was listening to you talk about like, like when we're talking about what's happening on campuses, and the question of like what, wanting to make sure that we understand, like, what are students asking for? And that's not even clear, right? So? And I don't know if that's because of inadequate messaging on the part of the students or if it's the way the media is presenting it, but the underlying interests are being lost in the escalation of the conflict. There's more focus on the conflict rather than on the actual movement or whatever the ask is, and I think that happens in our work too that people can become much more centered on the conflict and on winning or on holding their ground and lose sight of the underlying interest.
Speaker 2:Other people's perspective or perception of the conflict and how that impacts them as individuals. I think that happens in family conflicts too, including divorce Right that people want to make sure they look like the person who is in the right.
Speaker 1:And the other thing we mentioned, and then we're going to get to.
Speaker 1:We have a challenge for our listeners today, but before we get to that, the other observation that I thought was worth mentioning is that, you know, in an interpersonal conflict, like in a family conflict or a divorce situation or in a workplace situation or whatever it is, whatever interpersonal in your life, regular garden variety conflict, we don't have the added sort of confusion of media reporting, but we do have.
Speaker 1:But what can happen is we begin to create our own narratives about how we're right and the other person's wrong, and we might start to tell people. And as we do that, as we start to tell our friends or our families or other folks in our lives, we can start to create a narrative that makes it harder and harder for us to see things in a new way, which might be necessary for de-escalation, and I think that de-escalation is necessary to problem solving. That's just what I've come to believe. So, anyway, I think we have to be careful about what kind of stories we're creating and creating kind of our own internal, almost like our own internal reporting, like our own internal CNN about who's right, who's wrong.
Speaker 2:Well, and also sort of going along with that. I think each of us individually has a responsibility to get more comfortable with being able to say you know what? I thought that was the narrative. I thought that was what was happening. I gained more information, I learned something and I'm admitting like maybe I was too extreme in my reaction. I was admitting fault and admitting change and accepting responsibility in conflicts, because it's often the case that it is no one person's fault that something happened.
Speaker 1:That is often the case.
Speaker 2:Yes, it's almost never the case that it is truly one evildoer.
Speaker 1:One evildoer and one victim.
Speaker 1:All right. So on to our challenge. So we have a challenge for folks and we've come up with some questions that we would challenge folks to use to do a little bit of self-inquiry the next time you find yourself in a conflict, and you can keep this to yourself. You don't have to ever share it with anybody. But these are some helpful questions and I would also say, as we get started, that I, as I observe myself, I think I'm in conflict more often than I think I am. Like the conflict doesn't always come with a sign that says entering the conflict zone, you are now in conflict, like it happens in conversation, and there are some. So I think the self-inquiry can help us recognize when we are positional, even in situations when we wouldn't have been thinking about this as conventionally conflictual. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2:That absolutely makes sense to me and I think what you're describing maybe at least this is how my brain just heard this is what you're describing is that in a situation where you're describing maybe at least this is how my my brain just heard this is what you're describing is that in a situation where you're not expecting to have any level of conflict with somebody on any given day, in the middle of that conversation, interaction, whatever it is, when you feel that fight or flight response coming out because somebody says something that makes your brain say that's the total opposite of what I want. It's our human nature to dig in and get ready for that fight. Right, that's right, and I think that's exactly what you're describing, and it happens in so many different scenarios on small levels every day.
Speaker 1:Right, so, without needing to understand why which I do want to understand someday, but that's beyond our conversation today but setting aside like why that happens, it just does For the purposes of our questions today. Dear listeners, here's our challenge. If you so here's the first question If you find yourself thinking that you need to make a stronger case for something, right? So what are the symptoms? The symptoms of conflict are you're trying to convince somebody that your way of doing something or your way of thinking I don't know, I don't know how else to say it Is the only way?
Speaker 2:Or the better way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, or the better way, Right. So a good question to ask yourself is am I assuming that our interests are divergent? Am I assuming that our interests are divergent? Am I assuming that, in order for me to get what I need or want in this situation, that you're going to have to give something up, or vice versa?
Speaker 2:Right and I think when positions appear on the surface really different, it's so hard to see that there might still be those shared interests.
Speaker 1:But we're not there yet, we're just at the. Am I assuming? So just just the it's a clue that I've become positional is that I'm thinking that, in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to make a sacrifice, or for me to get what I want, that I've got to convince you of something or persuade you or coerce you? It's that feeling of I don't know how else to describe it.
Speaker 2:It's that feeling of only one of us can be right here. There is no space for nuance, there is no space for some truth. On both sides it's all or nothing. You're in that sphere of like? Are you feeling if they get their way, I lose everything?
Speaker 1:Or even just I lose something yeah, I mean, I guess I'm seeing it a little bit greater than that. Like that I'd be giving something up. I'd be giving something up if I said yes to what you're asking. It would be at a loss, I'd be at a loss, and that loss, yeah, whatever it could just be. And sometimes the loss is just you were right and I was wrong. Right, it can be small. So that's the first question. So am I assuming that? Am I behaving from that assumption that we're occupying different interests, or I don't know how to say that?
Speaker 2:And so then, if that's what you are assuming, if you check that in yourself and you recognize that as an assumption you are making, the challenge is take a step back and ask yourself could I be wrong? Is there a possibility? There are some shared interests here, and when Teresa and I were talking about this earlier, we, independently, both immediately our brains jumped to that could even be like, I think, when people think about we have shared interests, the first go-to is it has to be a shared interest over the thing that we are in conflict over, and that's not always the case, and that doesn't have to be the starting place in de-escalating conflict. The starting place could be at a high level. We both want this conflict to be done. That's a shared interest.
Speaker 2:Another shared interest that's at a really high level is we need to coexist. You know for our divorcing families very often they're co-parenting, they have extended family that they both want relationships with. They have to coexist and they have to do so in a way that doesn't make other people uncomfortable For what's going on. All on these college campuses. You know, a shared interest that occurs to us, as we were talking earlier, is both sides the university and the students, whether they're in a place where they can see it right now, have a shared interest in whatever university it is maintaining a good reputation globally, really, because the university obviously wants to continue and the students who are earning degrees from that university have a reason to want that university to have, in the end, a good reputation, and so that's a really high level goal that maybe could get a conversation started.
Speaker 1:And then eventually move on to the issues that started the action Right. So right now I think in some cases that's kind of lost and that happens absolutely in family conflict as well that you lose sight of what we were talking about originally and now we're just talking about how badly you, how bad you are at fighting, you know, or whatever, how badly you, how bad you are at fighting, you know, or whatever. And it, yeah, you can really get lost in the, in the positional, in the posturing.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And not even realize it. So that's so. Those are. The two questions so far are am I assuming that our positions are divergent? Am I coming from a place of assuming that I can't get what I need without you having to give something up, etc. Second question is might we share some interest as something as simple, as we both want to move on. We both want to have this be behind us, we both want to coexist. We want a new way of communicating, we want a new way of problem solving in the future.
Speaker 2:We both need a break from being in fight or flight mode, so we need to come to some sort of understanding, even if it's temporary, about how something is going to happen.
Speaker 1:And then the next step. If we can start to see like, yes, there are, I can see as an individual, maybe I am in conflict with another individual and I start to see, like you know, we probably do have some shared interests. Maybe there is another way for me to look at this. I am willing to see something different than just the things I've been assuming. What do I do next?
Speaker 2:Thinking about this. We, patrice and I, both explored our own personal conflicts, because looking at other people's conflicts can give you a different view, I think, of what people are experiencing than thinking about your own spouses. And our observation is that if the other person isn't actively engaged in this process of trying to understand their interests so you're not actively at the time this conflict happens in mediation or in some sort of counseling with the person that you're in conflict with, it might actually not help to say to them hey, I've been thinking about my interests, what are your interests, and that might sound like that's the right next step. And even thinking about some of our other podcasts, that might sound like what we were saying should happen. But the first step if that's the question you're going to ask is getting buy-in to one of these process choices and instead what we're sort of suggesting this time is the challenge is that you are an agent of de-escalation for yourself. You're not asking someone at least at the time this is happening, to get involved in some sort of process to help the two of you de-escalate. Instead, you're saying I myself am going to try to deescalate this instead of continuing to ratchet it up.
Speaker 2:And the reason we're saying that, like I was thinking about my own reaction to being asked sometimes well, what is your goal in this conversation? And if my head is not in the right place, that feels confrontational and it feels a little bit like I haven't been heard in the beginning parts of the conversation and my internal reaction is to say I want to be heard, I want to be understood, and that's obviously not happening here, and so, while that's a question I often ask in mediation, although not quite in that way but what are you? You know what's your why, why is this position important for you In your own personal conflicts? You might just want to try engaging in a conversation where you are actually just listening.
Speaker 1:Right, and I think it goes back to like the we're talking about de-escalation rather than conflict resolution. So we're talking about like I think it takes two to escalate, right, Both parties or both sides or whatever, are engaged in positional ground protection, like positioning and posturing to protect the ground that they're holding mentally or otherwise. So it takes two to escalate, but maybe only one to de-escalate, and that's a withdrawal of escalation.
Speaker 2:That's a great point, patrice. Yeah, I hadn't even been thinking of it as we started this conversation like that, but I think you just made such a really important point that de-escalation necessarily comes before there can be any conflict resolution. And it's making me think of the cases where de-escalation never happens in our world, in divorce, where, instead of choosing some sort of conflict resolution, what people do is they litigate and go all the way to trial and a judge issues a judgment and that's what they're supposed to live by, but those folks engaged in that fight to the trial likely never, ever, felt their conflict de-escalating. So now they have this order somebody else created that they're supposed to live by, but they're still in this state of escalation between each other, and so the conflict continues because they'll fight over aspects of that judgment and they those are the folks that end up in court over and over and over and you could.
Speaker 1:I can think of so many examples outside of you know, divorce resolution, where you can see that where there's a solution imposed by a third party or an outside force, and and so the conflict just pops up somewhere else between, yeah, it just, it'll just take on a different form, yeah, so until there's de-escalation and and resolution that comes from a recognition of shared interests or comes from an interest-based problem-solving approach, you might not get lasting peace Right. So those are our three kind of questions, and our challenge is to become curious about your own assumptions about what would happen if you gave ground. So, and then where might you have shared interest? And then how to take the answers to that self-inquiry and make use of it without using it against the other person.
Speaker 2:Right, remembering to get yourself like just don't get caught in fight or flight, take a step back. Think about how you can be the person who is trying to de-escalate in every conflict, and maybe you yourself will at least live a more peaceful life.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think your suggestion was a good one. The next conversation with that person, maybe don't say anything, maybe just listen and you don't have to say I'm trying to find shared ground or I'm trying to find common interest. You don't have to say that because that, like Jen said, that could be in itself confrontational. So you just listen and then say something as simple as thank you, I'm going to give this some thought and can we talk again another time? Leave it at that. Yeah, I think that's the way to go. So maybe today, instead of ending with, we'll keep talking, maybe we're going to keep listening.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I was thinking that doesn't make sense today. So yes, so today we'll keep listening and understanding better. Thanks, Jen.