Interpersonal Conflict

An Existential Psychotherapeutic and Practical Model

Karen Weixel Dixon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317234982
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Interpersonal Conflict provides a psychotherapeutic and philosophical understanding of the nature of interpersonal conflict. Arguing that facilitating conflict resolution has little to do with objective logic or rationale, and everything to do with personal (and cultural) values and aspirations, Karen Weixel-Dixon uses the lens of existential psychotherapy to provide innovative skills for conflict management.

The book offers a deeper understanding of those theories and practices surrounding currently held perspectives on conflict, and extends the repertoire of communication skills relevant to difficult interpersonal situations, offering theoretical and practical input into the possibilities of reaching a therapeutic result.

Interpersonal Conflict will be an engaging and informative guide for professionals in psychotherapy, health, HR, legal and teaching professions working with conflict, as well as students taking courses involving conflict resolution.

p.5

Chapter 1

Why existential psychotherapy?

Before we consider the question ‘Why existential psychotherapy’, it would be useful to give a brief overview of the philosophical school that underpins the psychotherapeutic model.

There are factors that are common to every human being: we are born, we die, we suffer, we change, we live (in) time, we strive, we inhabit a world with others. The list of what are known as ‘existential givens’ will be expanded as our discussion proceeds; suffice it to note at this point that we all share, in every epoch, culture, and place, the same conditions of existence.

It follows, then, that a basic appreciation of these aspects may deepen our understanding of ourselves and of others: we share the most fundamental concerns. It is precisely because we share these kinds of circumstances that there is a possibility of understanding each other at some level and to some extent. This is an important principle to be aware of when one is either a party to a dispute or acting as a facilitator to a disagreement: there is a principle involved, a value that is implicated in the positions that are being contested and defended; with some investigation and reflection, we can probably ascertain, and to some degree identify with, these issues.

To the extent that we can comprehend what is being thwarted in any contest, the situation can become less threatening to those involved or even to those observing: the ground may feel familiar, the issues recognised as those we have in common in some way.

It is often the case that it is mis-understanding that is at the core of interpersonal conflict; therefore, having even a modicum of comprehension about what one’s opponent might be struggling with can provide a glimmer of hope for rapprochement (and possibly also manipulation, which will be considered subsequently).

p.6

Additionally, someone who is angry or defensive doesn’t always have a clear or deep comprehension of the multiple issues and principles that are involved in their own complaint; they are too busy trying to camouflage what they believe to be their vulnerabilities.

The concerns expressed in any contest can be recognised as deeply human. This helps to normalise the situation, and can open the way for it to be viewed as an opportunity for communication and development in a relationship.

Furthermore, it stands to reason that as these concerns are recognisable as universal, it does not require any particular expertise or specialist training to appreciate the interests that are common between all people(s).

Existential philosophy, as a body of works, considers the human condition in an attempt to reach a description of the needs and concerns that make us human. An aspect of being human is also being unique: we each hold a particular perspective on our common predicament.

Rollo May comments on the relevance of existential psychology:

Existentialism deepens the concepts that define the human condition. In so doing, it prepares the way (for the first time) for a psychology of mankind. (May 1969, p. 94)

This is a fundamentally inclusive perspective.

Though existential philosophy is often described as a school of thought that is as disparate as it is cohesive, the principle unifying factor under consideration by the existentialists is described by Friedman:

the actual situation of the existential subject as the starting point of thought. (Friedman 1992, p. 4)

The focus is on this person before us, and with us: this person is the example of how we are all the same, and different.

Existential philosophy is not just armchair rhetoric: the greatest minds of this school of thought used their own lives and experiences as the starting point for the exploration of what it means to be human, of what it means to exist. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty are but a few of the writers and thinkers that are included in this group, and all of them looked to the concrete and the particular in their lives in the hopes of understanding human existence. (It should be noted that existentialist works are not just philosophical; Franz Kafka would be an example of this, as would be the dramas of Sartre.)

p.7

In an overview of the considerations explored by these philosophical expositions, it is noted that all human cultures entertain similar questions: How shall I live? Why do I exist, and die? What difference does my life make, if any? The enquiries are ubiquitous; the response is personal. There are no abstract responses to these questions: the answers are demonstrated in our choices, our behaviours, what we would live for, die for, and fight for.

In this way, existential philosophy is recognised as an investigation that begins with a subject, that is, the human subject.

Macquarrie also comments on this aspect of the philosophy:

It is a philosophy of the subject rather than the object. (Macquarrie 1973, p. 14)

So although we do all share some basic concerns, we also hold a unique perspective on these concerns. This is what is meant by subjective truth (this theme will be expanded upon in later chapters of this text).

What makes this a particularly important perspective for understanding interpersonal conflict is that these kinds of challenges are the result of seemingly opposing views of ‘truth’, subjective truths, each held passionately, each defended vigorously. These views may not be fully articulated or appreciated by those involved, even though they may be the basis of the individual’s (or the group’s) choice or their own position; but the crisis can be the opportunity for just such revelations.

As I often comment to those studying conflict and mediation, the dispute is not in the paperwork; it is between the people involved. The ‘truth’ of the matter is not represented by objective facts, but how the facts are subjectively experienced. To discover that truth, one has to explore; one has to enquire.

It should be noted, however, that subjective truth is not a license to justify any choice or action. We share a world with others; they will be affected by each individual’s action (in word and deed); and subsequently will bear further consequences for (possibly) everyone within a particular context or network.

This stance is in opposition to abstract analyses and scientific paradigms that seek to define humans in a reistic, mechanistic model. In other words, we must look to the being himself to understand how his life is being experienced, and how his values inform his choices. It is difficult, and ineffective, to attempt to understand a person from an objective standpoint, for example, via the structure of the brain. Although there may be some scientific validity in such a description (and this may be helpful in some contexts), it does not account for the person’s perspective on their situation, which is what lies at the heart of their value system, and therefore their strategies for actualising these values.

p.8

Existential psychotherapy, which forms the basis for this paradigm of understanding and managing interpersonal conflict, is itself grounded in the tenets of existential philosophy. The psychotherapy is not so much an applied philosophical model as it is a project in understanding any person, and any people, with reference to the concerns that are common to all human beings, and how these issues are being met and engaged with by this particular individual or group.

As there is an expectation of some shift in perspective for those involved in a dispute, there is also hope in existential therapy for change. This change will likely be in the form of awareness, and understanding of self in relation to others and to the conditions of existence. The aim is for clarity about one’s engagements with these givens, and an appreciation of one’s agency.

Deurzen-Smith comments:

The existential approach to counselling centres on an exploration of someone’s particular way of seeing life, the world and herself . . . in reconsidering what was previously thought of as already known certain fresh discoveries are made. (Deurzen-Smith 1988, p. 26)

These discoveries cannot but help to shift perspectives: new awareness produces further options, and some possible choices are also eliminated by virtue of practical circumstances, or voluntarily discarded. Already, we can see the possibility for change of some description.

The agency, the exercise of choice, will be in the service of how we respond to these givens; our choices will support our assumptions about how we can best engage with the conditions for the betterment of our lives, and the realisation of our values. This is an issue that will be elucidated throughout these discussions.

Cohn comments further on the aims of therapy:

Existential therapy may see as its aim to help the clients to free themselves from the disturbing consequences of denial, evasion and distraction by enabling them to change their response to the existential givens. (Cohn 1997, p. 24)

A change in response to the givens may not lead to a change in behaviour: one may recognise the purpose(s) for one’s choice in behaviour, and continue in the same behavioural strategies; what is of paramount significance is that one recognises the choosing.

p.9

A few of the givens that are most often implicated in conflict situations are responsibility, freedom, and choice. These are conditions that are both blessings and burdens: we often look to someone else to make decisions for us, to assume responsibility (or liability) for our predicament, and we often insist that we are shackle-bound to our course of action.

Certainly, parties in a dispute will often hope to assign the responsibility for the outcome of the difficult situation onto a well-meaning spectator, or facilitator, or to circumstances that are described as ‘beyond one’s control’.

However, if, either as a party to a dispute or as a facilitator for resolution, one can always bear in mind the personal, subjective nature of the situation, one cannot fail to recognise that as the contest is always personal, so must the settlement be: the agreement must be a creation that addresses the needs and desires that are particularly relevant to these persons, at this time, and in this context.

This gives us an indication as to the nature of what may be described as a facilitative resolution process, even when the facilitator is one or both of the parties involved; it is the revelation, discovery, and acknowledgement of the most personal elements of any conflict that promotes the possibility of a therapeutic outcome to the exchange.

The process of facilitative resolution is one in which the values and principles of the people involved in the conflict, that is, their world-views, are recognised for their relevance to the situation at hand, which is the current dispute. It is ineffective in an interpersonal conflict, much as it is in therapy, for anyone not directly invested in the outcome of the process to offer, or attempt to impose, their own or any source of external evaluation or rationale for understanding the disagreement, or for the creation of the resolution: such a strategy would in fact de-personalise the process, and possibly derail it as well.

Keeping it personal means keeping it relevant to these specific individuals embroiled in this dilemma; it is this quality that allows for a therapeutic effect, in that the needs of these parties will have to be served to some extent. How this occurs, in terms of particulars and practicalities, will also be a direct expression of their own intentions and ambitions.

For the most part, what is being facilitated is clarification and communication: clarification of what is at stake, and the timely and sensitive communication, to the others involved, of these concerns.

Parties to a conflict, in the course of this process, begin to realise that there is some possibility of satisfaction of at least some of their needs and wishes, which is quite a different horizon than that of the intransigent positions that are commonly the starting point of a dispute.

p.10

The clarification of one’s world-view allows one to recognise the values that are reflected in our choices, as well as what strategies we employ in an effort to actualise these values and intentions. When these strategies are met with resistance, from another person for example, or are impeded by any element, we become frustrated at least, and can become more aggressive, or manipulative, in an effort to actualise these values and intentions.

References

Cohn, H.W. 1997 Existential Thought and Therapeutic Practice: An introduction to existential psychotherapy, Sage, London.

Deurzen-Smith, E. van 1988 Existential Counselling in Practice, Sage, London.

Friedman, M. 1992 The Worlds of Existentialism: A critical reader, Humanities Press International, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.

Macquarrie, J. (1972) 1973 Existentialism, Penguin Books, London.

May R. (1961) 1969 Existential Psychology (ed. R. May), McGraw-Hill, New York.

p.11

Chapter 2

The essence of conflict and resolution

It’s always personal. Conflict involves at least one person, and more commonly more than one, but even when it is an individual in a contest with their computer, it is the particular world-view of that individual that is being challenged.

It is paramount to keep this proposal at the forefront of this discussion. When one is confronted with what seems to be the faceless facade of a corporation, or the aloof demeanour of a representative of an organisation, one must recall that the aims of these entities are, in the final analysis, represented by and grounded in very human issues. On those occasions when one feels powerless to persuade or assuage the other, be they individuals or conglomerates, the advantage lies in making it personal and keeping it personal. The how and why of this approach will be a central theme in this text.

There would be no conflict if disputes could be settled ‘rationally’, or logistically. It is often the case that those who are not party to the actual disagreement feel that they have a reasonable and objective means by which to fairly resolve the situation, and they stand by in wonder at the seeming irrationality of the combatants. It has been suggested that if the details of the st...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Interpersonal Conflict
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• About the Author
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: The Aim and Structure of this Book
• 1 Why Existential Psychotherapy?
• 2 The Essence of Conflict and Resolution
• PART I Theoretical Foundations
• PART II The Practice of Facilitative Conflict Resolution
• Conclusion
• Index