|
Interpersonal communication is one of the fundamental underpinnings of society.
We can define communication, as Krauss and Morsella do, as the transfer of information.[1] In this context communication channels can be understood simply as the modes or pathways through which two parties might communicate. As population grows and technology evolves accordingly, these channels of communication change as well.[2] Many have observed that "the world is getting smaller," referring not only to the ease of travel, but also to the ease of communication around the globe. Unfortunately, however, just because communication is easy to accomplish does not mean that it is done, or that the result is an increase in understanding.
Thus, we must distinguish between communication channels and the messages that use them. In conflicts, communication problems can arise from poorly communicated ideas which result in misunderstandings and/or from poor channels of communication. This building block is primarily concerned with the latter.
Communication in Conflict
Additional insights into channels of communication are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Often, during a dispute or a conflict, communication is strained or broken off entirely. Fighting husbands and wives may avoid each other or stop talking freely to each other about each person's feelings. Disputing co-workers, neighbors, or friends will do the same. Disputes make many people uncomfortable, so they try to avoid the discomfort by avoiding its source--the person and/or the situation that is causing the problem.
In larger-scale conflicts, not only is communication broken off, but often the only information one gets about the other side comes either from rumors, or from the media, or both. There is a strong tendency to only see what one expects or wants to see, and negative stereotypes develop quickly. Without direct evidence to the contrary, provided by personal interactions, relationships can become increasingly strained and assumptions about the other sides' beliefs, interests, needs, and intentions are likely to become increasingly distorted.
Re-Establishing Communication
One of the first goals to dealing constructively with both disputes and conflicts is to reestablish channels of communication. Fighting spouses or co-workers should calm down (see cooling-off periods) and then begin talking again, using de-escalatory language (such as I-messages and empathic listening) to try to understand the other sides' interests and concerns.
If tensions are too high to undertake such communication without help, third parties are often effective at reestablishing channels of communication -- they may in fact become THE channel of communication between parties exploring conciliation. The third party may be an official mediator, or it may simply be a mutual friend, a rabbi or pastor, a co-worker--anyone trusted by both parties to help resolve the dispute. A third party can carry messages back and forth, and explore ideas for settlement that the two parties could not discuss face-to-face. Third parties have the added benefit of being able to manage the dialogue such that intent and meaning can be communicated without hostile interpretations.
[1] Robert Krauss and Ezequiel Morsella, "Communication and Conflict," in M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2000), 131-143.
[2] Quincy Wright, A Study of War, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1967).
[3] Stephen Van Evera, "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914," World Politics 38, 1 (Winter 1985), pp. 80-117. Jack Levy, "Necessary Conditions in Case Studies: Preferences, Constraints, and Choices in July 1914," in G. Goertz and H., eds., Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology, and Applications (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 113-145.
[4] G. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missle Crisis, (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971).
[5] Krauss and Morsella "Communication," David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).
[6] Matthew Evangelista, "Cooperation Theory and Disarmament Theory in the 1950s," World Politics Vol. 42, No. 4, (Summer 1990) pp 502-28.
[7] Marc Levy, "Mediation of Prisoner's Dilemma Conflicts and the Importance of the Cooperation Threshold: The Case of Namibia," Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 29 No. 4 (Fall 1985), pp. 581-603.
Use the following to cite this article:
Ouellet, Julian. "Channels of Communication." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/absence_communication/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Offline (Print) Sources
Wright, Quincy. "Chapter VIII: Character of Modern Civilization." In A Study of War, 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Pages: 166-217.
This section of Wright's book describes how communication advances and technology has affected the development of war and peace. Wright argues that communication advances have aided the spread of humanist ideas, but also helped create conflict within that spread.
Krauss, Robert M. and Ezequiel Morsella. "Communication and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Edited by Deutsch, Morton and Peter T. Coleman, eds. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000.
This chapter describes how communication structures and is structured by conflict. In this manner Krauss and Morsella describe four different models of understanding communication and conflict in order to describe ways to bridge communication gaps.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
Evangelista, Matthew. "Cooperation Theory and Disarmament Theory in the 1950s." World Politics 42:4, 1990.
Evangelista's work shows how communication prevents cooperation. Rational actors models that assume non-communication do not lead automatically to cooperation. Thus in crisis situations, Tit-for-Tat type actions will not necessarily lead to resolution of the crisis.
Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed.. New York: Pearson Longman, 1999.
Allison's work shows that bureaucratic limitations as well as limitations on communication between groups limits the solutions that groups can find during times of crisis. In this case the lack of open channels of communication often created misperception of the United States' and Soviet's actions.
Levy, Marc. Mediation of Prisoner's Dilemma Conflicts and the Importance of the Cooperation Threshold: The Case of Namibia.
Levy's article is a case study that tries to disprove simple Prisoner's Dilemma theories as explanatory models for civil wars. Instead, argues Levy, civil wars are better characterized by games of deadlock.
Van Evera, Stephen. "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914." World Politics 38:1, 1985.
Van Evera's piece shows many of the structural and perceptual limits to clear communication. It is an effective example of the ways in which misperception can inhibit communication and is thus one of the first problems that must in addressed in order to resolve conflicts.
Return to Top
|
