Key points:
I agree with you, Mr. Arthur Miller, “the forest is burning” indeed. America's current political climate seems like a wildfire of disagreement. We cannot see each other through the smoke of our confirmation biases, nor can we hear each other through the crackling, swirling flames of our self-created echo chambers. As educators, we should all work together to help guide our country through this self-destructive conflagration. Teaching various conflict resolution methods to our students could be a recipe that public schools could employ for this monumental challenge.
In addition to the obvious benefits of teaching conflict resolution to students in classroom management, children would also develop better interpersonal relationships outside of the classroom. Maybe, eventually, our democracy could improve too?
I have compiled several conflict resolution strategies based on modern psychology and neuroscience. I have been incorporating them into typical high school English language arts and social studies content for several years (Piccoli 2-5). Using a Rogerian rhetorical writing style, I focus on teaching students to express empathy, find common ground, and ask questions rather than using facts to persuade (Piccoli 2-5).
Below is an example of a student activity on how to integrate these strategies into a lesson about the conflict between Dr. Frankenstein and his monster in Mary Shelley's famous gothic novel. Frankenstein.
Instructions: Imagine you are Dr. Victor Frankenstein at the beginning of Chapter 17. The monster has just finished explaining the rejection he faced from so many people after Victor (you) abandoned him and asked you to make him a companion. . However, you know you shouldn't do it because the female monster might be evil, she might not love the monster, and/or this situation might result in a new species of monster. Follow the Rogerian rhetorical style argument described below (1-8) to persuade the monster to understand Victor's (his) point of view.
1. Express empathy by describing how they feel and why they feel it.
It sounds like you feel angry because you feel alone. People have unfairly rejected you because of your appearance, because of how I designed you to look. On top of all that, you feel betrayed because I abandoned you.
2. Continue to express empathy by checking their point of view: Describe to them the best possible version of your arguments so they know you fully understand their point of view. Be sure to emphasize and acknowledge any new information they have given you.
Your argument is that if I turn you into a female monster you will live away from people. Therefore, there is no risk in me creating a monster companion for you. You're saying it's not too much to ask to have a partner. Also, I didn't realize that the townspeople, the De Lacey family, shunned you and shot you in the arm after saving a little girl's life. That must have been devastating.
3. Find common ground (common goals) and list any parts of their argument that you agree with and how much you agree with them.
I totally agree that I shouldn't have abandoned you, that was wrong of me. We both don't want to continue destroying each other's lives.
4. Offer a “welcoming statement,” a statement that is intended to encourage your opponent to feel less defensive or less foolish by changing his or her point of view and “taking a step” toward your point of view.
At first I also thought that turning you into a companion monster would be a good idea until I asked myself some questions.
5. Ask “highlight questions” higher-level thinking questions (How or What) that “illuminate” your arguments but allow your opponent to discover your arguments on their own.
How will you know if the female monster will be good or bad?
What if they both had monstrous children?
How can I trust you?
6. Propose a compromise(s):
I will try to make you seem less “monstrous” to others. I will introduce you to people, little by little. Can I have some time to think about it?
7. Listen and try to understand their objections, repeat 1-7 as necessary.
A similar activity could be designed in Social Studies lessons between two historical figures involved in a disagreement:
Instructions: Choose a role: A supporter of President Woodrow Wilson is debating with a First Amendment advocate over whether free speech should be limited under the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during World War I. Use the same style of Rogerian rhetoric described above.
It is true that a Rogerian-style argument is not appropriate for all types of conflicts. These conflict resolution strategies would not be appropriate in a courtroom, under threat of physical violence, or in conversation with someone arguing in bad faith. Additionally, some students may find it difficult to resist the temptation to try to “win the debate” instead of focusing on empathy and finding common ground. Teachers are advised to offer students an alternative choice task in case they resist these techniques. However, offering students a practical set of steps for better conflict resolution could help them transfer these skills to their everyday lives and improve their interpersonal relationships.
Still, some worksheets on the topic of conflict resolution are just seeds scattered on the steaming forest floor of our disagreements. All educators should emphasize the value of having an open mind and modeling how to listen and empathize with those with whom we disagree. Throughout human history, these principles were often the seeds from which the trees of peace, love and understanding grew. We all grow our story together, every day, for better or worse. Is it too late to change and learn to love our enemies?
This reminds me of the wisdom of an ancient Chinese proverb. The best time to plant the seeds of peace, love and understanding was 20 years ago. But the second best time is now.
Links
New Jersey English Journal: ELA Strategies for Teaching Students How to Disagree Productively
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/nj-english-journal/vol11/iss2022/8/
Owl.Purdue: Rogerian rhetoric
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/rogerian_argument.html
Children fight with their parents so many times before they turn 18
https://nypost.com/2018/12/03/kids-fight-with-their-parents-this-many-times-before-they-turn-18/
PEW Research: America's Dismal Views on US Politics
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/
How to build an exit ramp for Trump supporters
https://hbr.org/2016/10/how-to-build-an-exit-ramp-for-trump-supporters
Lieberman, Matthew D et al. “Putting feelings into words: affective labeling alters
Amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science Vol. 18.5 (2007): 421-8. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.
01916.x
Rozenblit, Leonid and Frank Keil. “The Misunderstood Limits of Popular Science: An Illusion of Explanatory Depth.” Cognitive Science Vol.
26.5 (2002): 521-562. doi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
Shapiro, Shauna. Mindfulness Practices for Difficult Times: Emotion Regulation, Perspective Shift, Compassion for Empathy Distress. Alternative and complementary therapies.Jun 2020.109-111.http://doi.org/10.1089/act.2020.29277.ssh
Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. “Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, no. 3, (Midwest Political Science
Association, Wiley), 2006, pp. 755–69, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3694247.
Westen, Drew., Pavel S. Blagov, Keith Harenski, Clint Kilts, Stephan Hamann; Neural
Basis of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional limitations in
Partisan impeachment in the 2004 US presidential election. J. Cogn Neurosciences
2006; 18 (11): 1947-1958. https://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article-abstract/18/11/1947/4251/
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=();t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)(0);
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘6079750752134785’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
