Article Source: The Positive Observer

Written by: Stephen Shugart

Looking for Common Ground: Positive Conflict Resolution

In this election season, it is particularly apparent that we have difficulty in discussing differences of opinion in a productive way. Turn on the TV and pundits like Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Riely, Ed Shultz, Ariana Huffington, and others, seem to believe you can win an argument simply by being louder than the other--or by insulting the other’s character more deftly. They often try to crush and humiliate each other’s position. They never solve anything, buzzing like angry flies. Why do we get the same results when we encounter conflict or get into arguments?

When my students get to their argument essay assignment, some are concerned because they say they don’t like to argue, thinking that writing teachers expect loud, angry arguments, something like they had with their significant other, or parent, the other night, or something akin to what they see on Fox News or CNN.

They feel that arguments often get nowhere, except creating or reopening sore feelings and misunderstandings. In our culture, conflict is most often framed in win-lose terms. It’s not fun to lose. It’s humiliating and frustrating. And because of this, some may even say, “I’m ‘conflict avoidant.’ I don’t deal with conflict well. I’d really rather not express what I really feel.”

However, when I explain that there is a form of argumentation that finds common ground and synthesizes two opposing sides, they are relieved. It’s called Rogerian argument, named after the Nobel-nominated psychologist, Carl Rogers. It’s a technique that helps diffuse conflict and to create shifts, to transition to a new viewpoint. That appeals to us as humans; it feels better to agree, especially if you are dealing with hotbutton topics like euthanasia, gun control, abortion. Being red-faced and angry isn’t a particularly healthy way to live.

Essentially, a Rogerian argument has four parts. 

1. You always start out by stating your opponent’s point of view with compassion. Without judgment, show that you truly understand the other side by explaining how you can see that they believe what they do.
2. Show in which contexts and under what conditions your opponent's position may be valid. Note that the opponent is never made to feel completely wrong.
3. State you own position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
4. State how your opponent's position would benefit if the opponent were to adopt elements of your position.

An attempt is finally made to show that the two positions complement each other and that each supplies what the other lacks.

A Rogerian argument requires a belief system in which common ground is the end goal instead of someone winning and someone losing. It is the win-win strategy of dealing with conflict. However, some people may go, “Okay, but there are some things I couldn’t ever see the other side of.”

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) and similar success and achievement systems suggest that you can always find common ground by “chunking up.” Chunking up is a way to look at the big picture. It’s a tool of choice among hostage negotiators.

You can find common ground by asking questions of yourself and of your opponent, like 

• “What do we really want from this situation?”,
• “What is this an example of?”
• “For what purpose…do you believe this, want this?” or
• “What is your intention?”

With each answer, you ask the questions again until you find common ground, taking the argument to higher and higher levels of abstraction. Why? Because unproductive arguments often fight over details, picking and picking at them like scabs. If you can remove the nitpicky details, it is more likely that you can find agreement.

For example, a gun control advocate might argue for required handgun licensing. If we ask, “What is your intention for putting restrictions on hand gun?”, he or she might say, “I would know gun users know what they are doing and that I’m not going to get in the crossfire of people who shouldn’t be licensed.” “For want purpose do you want to know that?” Or, “What do you really want from this law if enacted?” “I want to feel safer.” Feeling safe is the big picture, the highest goal for the gun control advocate.

Now if we asked why a gun control opponent is against licensing, “What is your intention for allowing anyone to own a gun without restrictions?”, he or she might say, “Because it’s in the U.S. Constitution.”  “For what purpose does the Constitution guarantee this right?” “So I can feel safe in my home from anyone, even the government.” 

Both ultimately want to feel safe. Now they have a starting point to find ways they both can feel safe. And the Rogerian argument strategy can help guide the way to making a positive shift to a new result. If you listen carefully in this election, the main theme is finding common ground.