From my time spent studying speech communications as an undergraduate, I've developed an opinion about conflict that reflects both the potentially destructive aspects of conflict, and the productive aspects of conflict. For me, when I say "destructive," and "productive" I mean in terms of interpersonal communication, or the relationship aspect of the conflict (as opposed to the task or pragmatic side). Intentionally, I call it "conflict" rather than "argument," because I feel that those two words have fundamentally different meanings.
To argue is to fight. Fight for what? Fight for yourself, your ego, your pride, or your identity. My problem with that is: if I were to fight with someone to negotiate my status, or my identity, etc, that to me, would seem pointless. The socially constructed natures of my "identity" or my "status," or my "achievements" are such that the other is free to perceive those things as they will. I have little control over their perceptual filters and individual biases that cause them to perceive me in a specific way. So, to fight, or argue, with a person is to attempt to assert yourself, or the beliefs you identify with, in such a way that you force yourself on to the other. As stated previously, I see very little value in this.
To be in conflict, however, is to attempt to bring that person into your world in such a way that you invite them into your perspective. It's not a persuasive pursuit per se, but an opportunity for growth, in that, the two (or more) can begin to gain better understanding of one another, recognize common denominators, and begin to build a resolution from that.
Do you see the differences? In short, the difference is this: To argue is to force, and to conflict is to invite. I understand that this might be a unique way of connotatively defining these words, but no matter how you phrase it, it's still an important differentiation to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment