The language of peace
If we are passionate about a cause, we are sometimes inclined to use aggressive, even war-like rhetoric to defend it. This may derail us from reaching the important goals we are aiming for.
When we are trying to resolve difficult problems, war-like narratives can come to the fore. Phrases such as “a fight for”, “battle against”, or “an army of” may start with the best of intentions – to signal the need for focus, drive and a sustained commitment to a worthy, common cause. But they also introduce duality.
This language helps to create a clearly identified enemy, an “other”, or something that should be defeated. From there, it’s suggested we need metaphorical battle plans, weapons or tactics, and the identification of allies. Even if the “fight” is not against other people but against a phenomenon that is clearly bad – such as poverty, COVID, or climate change – if other humans appear to be standing in the way of the good cause, they can quickly become rhetorically akin to the enemy target.
“We should be focused on long-term, sustainable relationships, instead of the short-term satisfaction of conflict.”
I am more and more convinced that many of the big problems we face as humans can only be solved successfully through collaboration, compassion, and a keen understanding of the needs of others. This should naturally lead us to start talking and listening. So the language we use matters, especially when the conflicts are within our own communities. Battle language, while perhaps invigorating, makes complex issues appear more simple than they are. That can divide us and render perceived opponents as one-dimensional, sometimes even caricature-like rivals – standing in the way of our worthy goals. This in turn makes those so-called rivals easier to attack. It is clear why this often happens: it is hard to keep up the spirit of the “fight” while introducing nuance and a sense of understanding to different sides of an issue.
Perhaps we are often slightly blind to the fact that, within our communities, we should be focused on long-term, sustainable relationships instead of the short-term satisfaction of conflict. Battles and heated disputes, even if they are just with words, can create an atmosphere of fear – fear of losing things we hold dear in our work, fear of losing face, fear of looking weak, fear of appearing uncaring, and probably many more besides. When humans are fearful, they are inclined to either withdraw or lash out. Neither tactic is very good for reaching a solution to a difficult, complicated problem that will need multiple perspectives and likely take considerable effort and time to resolve.
“Conflict resolution can actually strengthen communities rather than weaken them and can prevent a wedge from being driven between us.”
The best solutions are reached when “opposing” parties feel safe, and when nuanced views can enter the discussions. In fact, it’s best if we abandon the notion of opposing parties altogether. If we can achieve that, conflict resolution can actually strengthen communities rather than weaken them and can prevent a wedge from being driven between us.
So how do we actually do this in our workplaces? From my own experience I can identify two elements to this. First, I do my best to avoid feeling self-righteous, convinced of my position, and angry about perceived pushback or criticism. This is because I know these emotions ultimately make me fearful in situations where tensions rise, and my instincts tell me to fight or flight. I have learned over time that fear is a terrible advisor, and that calmly persevering in difficult situations is often the best course to take. This better enables me to express compassion, to listen, to understand the fear in others, and to focus on our common humanity instead of on our differences. And this influences the words I use too. It is then a lot easier to experience for myself a safe space for discussion and finding solutions.
Second, I try to identify the best and most appropriate route to reconciliation. This means accepting that sometimes things will be in my gift to resolve, and sometimes they will be in the hands of others. But if, even in some small way, I can help create a culture where others can reach that point of resolution, I will have made a worthy contribution.
“Most difficult issues in the workplace or elsewhere, can only be fixed by people talking to each other.”
I want to believe that within our workplaces we have less divisive, more sophisticated ways to express ourselves and to be fair and equitable. We also don’t need to resort to the tactics and language of the battlefield to address individual unwanted behaviours. We just need the resolve of the entire community and an adherence to shared values, to call out these behaviours, and ideally eradicate them altogether.
Most difficult issues in the workplace or elsewhere, can only be fixed by people talking to each other – by sharing experiences, by listening, and by developing a focus on common goals, rather than on differences. This will introduce a willingness to learn from past mistakes and take away the fear of retaliation. And even in situations where actual war is happening, as soon as combat ends, peace talks and restorative actions need to take place. These can be the route to longer-term stability and will hopefully prevent future conflict. A common thread through all of this is finding the right language to resolve and de-escalate.
So, if “peace talks” need to happen sooner or later anyway, why not enter into them before we pick up our verbal guns? Meaningful dialogue and collaboration leaves all parties with a sense that their needs will be met. I was about to write, “with a sense of victory”, but realised that this introduces war rhetoric – it’s that easily done. Perhaps a more healthy and appropriate ending is that peace talks can leave us with a sense of common purpose, belonging and community – and an inclusive, shared language. Those are all goals that I believe are very much worth striving for.
