Conflict Communication Theories

Uniting Conflict and Communication

Communication and conflict are interdependent, simultaneously defining each other. In 1973, Leonard Hawes and David Smith discussed the conceptualization of conflict along three dimensions: goal, strategy, and time. They delineated prospective and retrospective approaches to goals. The common approach at the time was prospective, assuming individuals have clear, direct goals; conflict is defined by contradictory goals. The [Page 165]retrospective approach assumes that goals are meaningful only after behaviors are enacted; communication defines the nature of a conflict rather than goals. The second dimension, strategy, refers to resolution versus management of conflict, mentioned previously. The difference lies in the assumption of conflict as destructive or constructive. The third dimension, time, refers to the assumption of whether conflict is episodic or continuous—a temporary disruption to be eliminated or a normal, vital, and integrating aspect of interaction to be managed. Different combinations of assumptions on these three dimensions lead to different conceptualizations of conflict. Prior to the entry of communication scholars, theoretical treatments presumed prospective goals, resolution strategies, and an episodic time frame. This approach was very limited. Communication scholars were called on to take the opposite view (retrospective goals, constructive outcome, and continuous time frame).

In 1978, another communication scholar, Brent Ruben, developed a system-theoretic view that embodies this opposite approach. He argued for a pragmatic or transactional view of communication, presumed by a retrospective view. A prospective view of goals implicitly assumes a mechanistic sender—> message—> receiver = effect view of communication. Ruben's perspective rejects both this linear view and the prospective view of goals. Ruben also distinguished paraconflict (symbolic) from conflict (observable action). As symbolic, conflict is defined as constructive or destructive by how it feels to the individuals. As action, conflict is defined as constructive or destructive by how it functions for the system. Ruben did not allow for an episodic conceptualization because he viewed communication as continual and inevitable. Conflict is defined as the discrepancies between the demands and/or capabilities of the system and the demands and/or capacities of the environment. Conflict is the way a system survives, because adaptation (communication) is constant; conflict and adaptation are inseparable.

...