That Tony Blair speech

"A problem is "a crisis". A setback is a policy "in tatters". A criticism, "a savage attack".

So says Tony in a quite remarkable speech about the media.

This episode illustrates rather nicely behaviour within conflict. Take a look at The Independent's response. We see articles setting out counter-allegations of blame, and direct attacks on the original protagonist - "Mr Blair - if you were braver..." in attempts not to engage the discourse but to attack the speaker as so reduce their standing within the discussion. We can come back to that in the future. There will be almost daily examples.

But the point I want to highlight here is the one of the power of language to create, or call into being.

A "Crisis" is a news event whereas a problem would not be. A policy "In tatters" has so much drama to it that a setback would not. Criticism, an entirely valid discourse in itself is inflamed so that it becomes a savage attack.

How in our own debates and discussions do we use language that calls the other party, or their actions, into a specific role that they may or may not welcome?

The complaint against the media's tendency for hyperbole is that such exaggerated language makes it very difficult to have a moderate, progressive conversation. The topic or issue of the dialogue is lost or side tracked as the original protagonist is now forced to respond to the language itself that is being used as opposed to the subject matter the language is trying to convey. How can that promote effective communication?

The space between stimulus and response

Stephen Covey writes in The 8th Habit that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lie our growth and our happiness."

That is a central tenet of my approach to conflict management. We can always choose our response to any stimulus, provocation or comment made within a conversation. if we can train ourselves on the range of possible responses, and how they will effect the direction of the argument then we do two things.

Firstly, we empower ourselves. We become the driver of the discussion rather than just letting the dispute take us along in its path.

Secondly, we take back on board the responsibility that we have to ourselves, our families, colleagues and community to act, communicate and relate effectively.

It is no longer enough to blame our partner or colleague for the dispute. We contribute to it by the way we respond and we need to recognise that and make sure that we don't let ourselves and each other down by not keeping up our end of the bargain.

Dialogue in dispute resolution

Ever noticed how conversations get stuck in that same old rut. You know the one. The one where your boss points out that your billable hours are down this month, or your good wife objects that you never do anything around the house, and just why is it my turn to walk the dog again?

These conversations, and please share your own examples, become almost ritualistic. We know what our responses are going to be, what the counter-response is and so on. We know at the outset where the conversation will escalate and just what the provocation will be. We know how the discussion will end and we know it won't be pretty.

Maybe there'll be tears like last time. Or that silent sulk.

We know just where despair will set in. We'll experience that sense of "Here we go again".

And what a waste. What a waste of our abilities to use our intellect, to use this wonderful tool of language, to choose better responses at each stage of those stuck discussions. Even if we just chose a different response then that would be better.

What if, for example, instead of coming back with the defensive comment we actually reassured our dialogue partner that we are interested in knowing why they feel that way? How have they come to hold that point of view? Or maybe we could even acknowledge that it is a reasonable point of view to have, even though we may not agree with it. That would certainly send the discussion in a different direction to the one we are accustomed to. Who knows then, just what we could achieve out of any of those repetitive arguments.