Conflict Resolution Project | Case Study

Conflict Resolution Project | Case Study Lynette Renberg Conflict is a part of all our relationships and friendship we endure. It is important to understand the context and nature of conflict in order to preserve our relationships. The situation is Pat and Chris have been saving for their annual trip. For this vacation, Pat wants to go to the shore and relax by the water, Chris wants to go hiking and camping in the mountains. They have usually been able to work out their differences, but Chris feels strongly this year since last year they went with Pat’s choice. Pat brings in a higher income and contributes more than Chris to the trip each year. I will be taking on the role of Pat in resolving this conflict with Chris. The climate that seems to be forming is a negative one. Chris isn’t regarding the facts that Pat does contribute more to the trip and isn’t considering her choice of where to go. Also Pat isn’t regarding where Chris wants to go for the trip and she still avoids the fact that Chris isn’t putting as equal amount of money into the trip as she does. The climate could continue to be negative if their communication stays disconfirming. Disconfirming communication is when those show lack of regard to the conflict and the other person involved. In the Knapp’s Model of Stages in a Relationship, this relationship is at the differentiating stage. Both Pat and Chris are exhibiting differences that are causing conflict. This situation appears to be a symmetrical conflict style in which both partners use the same behavior. Both partners save up money to go on a trip together every year and they both decide together where to go with knowing each other has differences in where to go. My character Pat has more power than Chris. Pat makes more money and puts more money into the trip than Chris does. Chris can confront Pat about how he feels about where to go for their trip, but Pat has more right and power to decide where they go until Chris pays just as equal amount for the trip to be fair. Pat wants to go somewhere with a shore to relax by the water and shouldn’t have to pay more for the trip because it should be equally split between the two. Using the Satir Model, one looks or analyzes their feelings, their partner’s feelings, context or place, and topic is the issue of conflict. There are five stages of this model. Placating can lead to avoidance for one ignores or doesn’t acknowledge their feelings. Pouncing or Blaming is when one ignores or doesn’t acknowledge their partner’s feelings by putting the blame on their partner and the outcome being a win-lose. Computing is when me, you, and context are cancelled out. The topic of conflict becomes the main focus. Distracting is a lose-lose style because no one’s feelings are being acknowledged, there is no place to confront the situation, and the situation is being completely avoided. Interpersonal Style is when all elements are considered in which can lead to a win-win outcome. Everyone’s feelings are being voiced at an appropriate time and place and the situation is being addressed in order to be resolved. For this particular situation, it would be ideal to use the Interpersonal Style stage. That way Chris can express his feelings on how he strongly feels that he should decide where to go this year. Then Pat can express her feelings on how she contributes more money to the trip and how she would like to go somewhere with a beach and relax. As long as a good time and place is chosen the situation can be addressed less defensively and hostile. Both Chris and Pat can talk things through by addressing each other’s feelings, why there is a situation, and figure out together how resolve the issue so everyone is happy. Another method to increase perception of the topic is by using the Pillow Method. There are also five positions in the pillow method to rationally approach a win-win outcome. By using the position five and acknowledging there is truth in all perspectives can leave compromise and consensus to achieve a win-win outcome to this conflict. Here is a win-win situation that can occur if followed right. Identify the problem and unmet needs is Chris feels he should get to choose where to go and what to do this annual trip since Pat chose last year and it is acknowledged successfully. Then Pat can address her feelings on why she wants to go to the shore and the money situation of her contributing more. Chris confronts Pat and asks when a good time to talk about the trip would be. So they both set a date to talk. During the time and place decided to talk about the trip, Chris can describe to Pat how strongly he feels about going camping and hiking this year. Pat can then explain to Chris that she understands where he is coming from and she can explain how she is still contributing a lot to their annual trip and that she really wants to be near a shore to relax. Chris and Pat can then negotiate trip locations where it has camping, hiking, and a shore. Also maybe Chris can contribute a little more to this trip. Once they settl e on a location then they can follow through on their solution and both enjoy a wonderful vacation together being happy with getting what they both want. During this process, if one party didn’t agree or successfully pass a stage, then they would have to start over to the appropriate stage until both agree and successfully continue through the stages. One part that will be difficult in my plan of action is both parties trying not to be defensive and stay sensitive to each other’s feeling and unmet needs. The reason this can be difficult is because since one party (Pat) contributes more money for the trip they may become defensive and say since they make more money it doesn’t seem fair that they would go with Chris’ plans for camping and hiking. That could make Chris feel bad and put him on guard as well. Chris may feel that his feelings and unmet needs are not being acknowledged. Or another scenario is Pat could acknowledge Chris’ feelings and compromise to letting him choose where to go on their trip in which would outcome to a lose-win situation. With there being difficulty in the plan for a win-win outcome, here are some consequences of using a win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, and compromise method. A win-lose outcome is competing where this approach to conflict involves high concern for self and low concern for others. If Pat pursued this outcome, then she would use her power of how she makes more money and pays more for the trip to get her way to going to a beach or where ever she wanted to go disregarding Chris’ feelings and wants. A lose-win outcome is accommodating where one allows the other to have their way rather than asserting you own point of view. Pat could disregard her own feelings and wants by settling to go where ever Chris would like to go this year. Lose-lose outcome is avoiding where people non-assertively ignore or stay away from conflict. Pat and Chris could avoid the matter all together and just pick a place to go without resolving their problems they both are feeling. This down the road could lead into a bigger conflict. Compromising which is a partial lose-lose outcome is when both parties at least give some of what they want, although both sacrifice part of their goals. Pat and Chris could compromise on where to go and how much each will pay, but this delays and setbacks the conflict in which both parties don’t get what they really want to be resolved. A personal experience where I could have used a win-win conflict style approach is with my ex-boyfriend. The situation was my ex-boyfriend started a new job working out of town at least three weeks every month and we hardly were spending time with each other. I was feeling neglected and didn’t feel important to him. The outcome turned into a lose-win. I should have gathered my feelings and unmet needs better and set a date to talk to him about how I was feeling. Instead I had emotional outbursts because I bottled my emotions up and it all came out at really bad times. If we made a date to talk, then we both could have described the problem and our needs so we could be more understanding of each other. By acknowledging each other’s feelings and points of view then we could have negotiated what we wanted to do or how to better our relationship. Once we figured out what would make each other happy and strengthen our relationship then we could follow through in our solution . However, with having so much conflict that was unsuccessfully resolved we ended up parting ways so we wouldn’t hurt each other or continue being unhappy. My ex-boyfriend broke up with me while I still wanted to figure out a way to make our relationship work. It became a lose-win situation because the outcome went in the way my ex-boyfriend wanted and it wasn’t an outcome I wanted. Conflict resolution has many stages and outcomes in all different kinds of situations. I have learned through this course on how to better my communication and resolve conflict for a win-win outcome in my relationships. Pat and Chris will resolve their conflict while keeping their relationship intact and have a wonderful vacation doing the things they anticipated doing. By following the conflict resolution model, can strength relationships and help resolve conflict by addressing the problem, being sensitive and open minded to each other’s point of views, and negotiating to reach a solution that makes both parties happy. Situation Comedy: Analysis of Peep Show Situation Comedy: Analysis of Peep Show Carroll discusses the type of characters which the audience find most attractive in sitcoms: Much humour is undeniably at the expense of characters who are particularly stupid, vain, greedy, cruel, ruthless, dirty, lubricious, and deficient in other respects (2005, p.345). I intend to examine the ways in which Carrolls statement can be supported through the depiction of characters in contemporary sitcom, focusing on the British sitcom Peep Show and American sitcom Community. Peep Show (Clarke, 2003) follows the lives of two friends Mark Corrigan and Jeremy (Jez) Usbourne who live together in a flat based in Croydon, London. Mark has a pessimistic outlook while Jeremy is lazy and childish, with unrealistic goals about his future. American sitcom Community (Harmon, 2009) focuses on the lives of an ensemble cast of characters, Jeff Winger, Britta Perry, Abed Nadir, Shirley Bennett, Annie Edison, Troy Barnes and Pierce Hawthorne, who live in the fictitious town of Greendale, Colorado and attend Greendale Community College. The purpose of humour is to challenge social norms and morals within society. Humour is a part of daily life, and thus it should be relatable to the audience; humour can be culturally specific, or worldwide, focusing on issues such as gender, family or work life, religion, politics, wealth, class, or race and ethnicity: A standard definition of sitcom [is] concentrating on the recurring set-up and characters, the happy ending and the fact that individual episodes rarely refer to events in previous ones (Sander, 2012). The three theories of humour, are superiority, incongruity and release/relief theory. Plato and Aristotle held a negative view towards humour, as Plato perceived humour to be a malicious act while Quintilian, Aristotle and Cicero established that it is a form of behaviour from which civilized man should shrink (Chapman and Foot, 1995 cited in Perks, 2012). Superiority theory is the idea that humour is found in laughing at those deemed inferior. Theorist Thomas Hobbes talks about the sudden glory felt by viewers when they can identify their superiority over others: The idea of laughter is self-applause can nevertheless be defended by pointing out that, even though somebody elses joke occasions my laughter, what I am laughing at, what produces my joy, might be that I can see the point and thus appreciate my superiority (Ewin, 2001). It can be argued that Robert Webbs Peep Show character Jeremy triggers this type of response. Jeremys immaturity is highlighted throughout the show and is often the reason behind his involvement in regrettable situations. Jeremy lives in a fantasy world, he thinks highly of himself with illusory ideas about his future career in music. The audience are aware of Jeremys delusions, and this encourages a humorous element as we laugh at Jeremys expense. The viewer takes comfort in the knowledge that Jeremy is an example of who we aim not to be like; furthering the idea of supremacy and therefore, his character is highly entertaining and comical. This contrasts with Mark (David Mitchell) who is a rational and sensible character. It is evident that Mark is trying to succeed, especially in his work life. The audience may feel sympathetic towards Mark and the superiority notion may not be as dominant in his case, as he has more relatable and reachable goals. Superiority theory applies to Community. In the Introduction to Film episode, Britta (Gillian Jacobs) persuades Abed (Danny Pudi) to begin studying film. Abed enjoys the class, as he is seen later using a camera to create a documentary. Abeds fathers appears at Greendale college furious that Abed is studying film. Abeds friends defend his choice to take the class, explaining he can make his own decisions. His father states that Abed is no longer his concern and now his friends responsibility. Although this incident is comical due to the anger of Abeds father and the awkwardness of the groups response, there is an underlying sense of sorrow regarding Abeds relationship with his father. He is shown as controlling and forceful, and this may explain the reason for Abeds introverted personality. Abed is often the laughing stock of the group, which is also funny to the viewer. We laugh at Abed due to the ridiculousness of his experiences and how he deals with situations, as his actions are not conventional. However, the audience may or may not realise that Abed has had a difficult upbringing (especially evident with his domineering father) and although this can be interpreted as humorous on one level, it may be deeply distressing to Abed on another. We are laughing at Abeds problems and the areas in which he is lacking. Due to his fathers selfishness, Britta and Jeff (Joel McHale) are now cast in the roles of Abeds parents. This is amusing as their struggle of trying to provide for Abed is highlighted, however we are again laughing at the characters hardships, feeling thankful that we are not part of the situation presented. The viewer may also feel they could perform better in parenting Abed, and thus a feeling of superiority may arise in this way. Plato describes laughter: Plato believed that the laughter that attends humour is directed at the vice of self-unawareness. That is, we laugh at people who fail to realize the Socrates adage- Know thyself and who instead deceive themselves, imagining that they are wiser than they are (Carroll, 2005 cited in Levinson, 2003). Incongruity theory relates to the idea of comedy being absurd and irrational/illogical. Shifting away from what is accepted to be normal behaviour and societys values, often using exaggeration and rebelling against societys rules of protocol. Philosopher Immanuel Kant talks about incongruity theory: It is remarkable that in all such cases the jest must contain something that is capable of deceiving for a moment. Hence, when the illusion is dissipated, the mind turns back to try it once again, and thus through a rapidly alternating tension and relaxation it is jerked back and put into a state of oscillationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦to this sudden transposition of the mind, now to one now to another standpoint in order to contemplate its object, may correspond an alternating tension and relaxation of the elastic portions of our intestines which communicates itself to the diaphragm (like that which ticklish people feel) (Kant, 1790 cited in Bardon, 2005). Incongruity theory is evident in Community. Throughout the series, a dreamlike setting is apparent, especially in Abeds Uncontrollable Christmas. Abed Nadir is eccentric and quirky. It is often hinted at that Abed is suffering from a mental illness or personality disorder. During this episode, Abed believes the upcoming Christmas is particularly special as he views his friends as clay stop-motion animations. The group are concerned for Abeds mental health, and encourage him to find the cause for this delusion. The characters who come in and out of Abeds fantasy animated world do so through a curtain, and as the curtain opens, a glimpse of the normal study room is seen. This helps to connect the audience with Abeds friends, and offers a sense of reality. The animation effect is unusual and may surprise or disturb the viewer. This world is an impossibility and is irrational to the audience and to everyone else within the episode, aside from Abed. We are led on the same journey with Abe d and his friends, to try and help him return to rational thought. Community consists of non-linear narratives and surrealist themes throughout, which adds to its overall success as a sitcom. The audience are encouraged to find humour in the bizarre happenings. It should be mentioned that the characters make it known that Abeds stop-motion world is peculiar, and the viewer can laugh at Abed regardless that the cause for his hallucination is related to a more personal issue, which relates back to superiority theory. Peep Show portrays elements of incongruity theory. Mark and Jeremy often rebel against what is classed as normal behaviour. As a cringe-style comedy, Peep Show breaks the fourth wall and this allows for intimacy and immediacy with the audience. Incongruity theory is shown in the episode Shrooming, where Jeremy, to impress the girl he loves (Sus), hosts a drug party at the flat. Mark arrives home from work ill with gastric flu. Jeremy is furious that Mark has returned and this may hinder his chances with Sus and ruin the party. Jez puts sleep medication in Marks tea before locking his bedroom door. The episode is comical as the viewer can sympathise with Mark being very ill and not having access to a bathroom. Jeremy will do whatever it takes to fulfil his own selfish desires. In addition, Marks boss has suspicions over his condition and is unsure if Mark is well enough to attend the upcoming business trip, however Mark insists he is fine. It is evident that Mark is desperate to impr ess his boss and will risk his own health in doing so. This type of behaviour is somewhat strange and the viewer may question why Mark does not refuse due to his ill health; its as though he feels he has something to prove. Once Mark escapes the bedroom, he rushes to the toilet, however the bathroom door has been removed from the hinges. Unfortunately, his boss has come to the flat, but finds him in the bathroom alongside Jez. The two men are appalled and disgusted at Mark, who is extremely embarrassed and uncomfortable. The social awkwardness of the situation is outstanding and the audience experience the humiliation alongside Mark. This behaviour is shocking, as it defies what is deemed socially acceptable, and is an infringement on human privacy. Jeremy and his boss continue to observe Mark instead of realising the bizarreness of the situation and leaving. Feelings of sympathy towards Mark return, and Jeremy is viewed in a negative light as he has the option to allow Mark his privacy but refuses, showing little respect. Herbert Spencer talks about relief/release theory, and its psychological effects: That laughter is a form of muscular excitement, and so illustrates the general law that feeling passing a certain pitch habitually vents itself into [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] action, scarcely needs pointing out. It perhaps needs pointing out, however, that strong feeling of almost any kind produces this result. It is not a sense of the ludicrous, only, which does it; nor are the various forms of joyous emotion the sole additional causes (Herbert, 1987 cited in Olson, 2007). Through the observation of an event or situation an initial build-up of tension is caused, and pleasure is found in the release of this energy.   Austrian philosopher/psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud expands on Spencers theory. Freud talks about the relief that comes with laughing or finding humour in the critique of society and its expectations of us. Freud goes on to explain that our sexual impulses are like our malicious ones, stating that these elements of humour are highly appealing and offer relief, as we are forced to repress these thoughts/feelings by society: The prevention of invective or of insulting rejoinders by external circumstances is such a common case that tendentious jokes are especially favoured to make aggressiveness or criticism possible against persons in exalted positions who claim to exercise authority. The joke then represents a rebel ­lion against that authority, a liberation from its pressure. The charm of caricatures lies in this same factor: we laugh at them even if they are unsuccessful simply because we count rebellion against authority as a merit (Freud, 1960). This illustrates that we will indulge in such thoughts, only if safe to do so; if there is no threat such as our reputation being judged. Relief theory can refer to humour and laughter at cruelty, obscenity, inappropriateness and nonsense. It can be argued that relief and release theory apply more so to a stand-up comedy routine where jokes are continuously told allowing for the sense of anticipation, rather than a sitcom television programme. Relief theory may apply to an episode in Community: Curriculum Unavailable. During this episode, the group have been expelled from Greendale, and notice Abeds behaviour becoming particularly erratic. Due to this, the group attend therapy alongside Abed. During the sessions, the group are informed that Greendale is in fact a mental health institution where the group were attending as patients due to nervous breakdowns, and they created the delusion that they were part of a community college. This revelation builds up tension and anticipation as the viewer begins questioning the entire series and setup of Community. Once Jeff insists this is not be true and the group discover the psychiatrist is a fraud, faith is restored in the narrative. Relief is experienced through this discovery, and we laugh at the ridiculousness of the joke. Nervous excitement is released through laughter at the realisation the counsellor is lying to the group. Also in this episode, it appears Pierce is addicted to pain medication. He experiences hallucinations of a small man, referred to as Tiny Man. Pierce is shown to enjoy his high from the drugs and no one has yet mentioned his addiction, even though it was witnessed earlier in the study room. This may glamorise the idea of taking drugs and we laugh at Pierces pleasurable experience. Drug addictions are viewed as extremely negative within society, and hinting at the idea that taking drugs is an enjoyable or fun experience is a prejudicial notion, thus allowing suppressed feelings to arise in the viewer and laughter to occur. A Peep Show episode Seasonal Beatings, where Mark is hosting a Christmas family dinner shows relief theory. Mark describes his father as having a critical personality and he fears this. It becomes evident that Mark does not have a healthy relationship with his parents and feels nervous about their arrival. Marks girlfriend, Dobby, also attends the dinner however Mark insists she does not inform his parents about their relationship. This sets up anticipation, the audience begin to feel the tension of the situation. There is a build-up of anxiety concerning the arrival of Marks parents as well as ensuring his relationship with Dobby is kept secret. Once his parents arrive, Dobby begins speaking negatively about her boyfriend- this continues the accumulation of anticipation (we want his parents to discover this horrible boyfriend is Mark). Finally, Mark becomes frustrated and it is revealed to his parents that he is Dobbys boyfriend. The relief is found in the reveal that Mark is the di sappointing boyfriend and his fathers reaction we laugh at this, and understand that Mark is the butt of the joke. To conclude, Carrolls account continues to be manifested through characters and storylines within the contemporary situation comedy. Both Peep Show and Community are examples of these types of sitcoms, with characters such as Mark, who we often feel sympathy towards or Jeremy, who comes across as rather selfish and egotistical. Community portrays a variety of characters who differ from one another, such as Abed who is unsure of himself and eccentric or Pierce, often depicted as being sexist through making crude or sexual jokes regarding women. Humour is found in these types of personalities and the way the characters interact with one another. The audience enjoy characters who are willing to push the boundaries and test or challenge social norms. References Bardon, D. (2005) The Philosophy of Humor. [Online] Available: http://faculty.swosu.edu/frederic.murray/philosophy%20of%20humor_1.pdf [Accessed: 10 March 2017]. Community. (2009) Series 1, Episode 3. US. [TV Programme] NBC. 1 October 2009, 9:30pm Community. (2009) Series 2, Episode 11. US. [TV Programme] NBC. 9 December 2010, 8pm Community. (2009) Series 3, Episode 19. US. [TV Programme] NBC. 10 may 2012, 8pm Davies, C. and Berger, P. (1998) Redeeming Laughter, The Comic Dimension of Human Experience. The British Journal of Sociology. [Online] Vol.49(4), p.670. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466184 [Accessed: 12 March 2017]. Ewin, R. (2001) Hobbes on Laughter. The Philosophical Quarterly. [Online] Vol.51(202), pp.29-40. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2660519 [Accessed: 12 March 2017]. Levinson, J. (2003) The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olson, E. (2007) The Horror of Humor. [Online] Available: https://gustavus.edu/philosophy/files/theses/horrorofhumor.doc [Accessed: 10 March 2017]. Peep Show. (2003) Series 3, Episode 3. UK. [TV Programme] Channel 4. 25 November 2005 Peep Show. (2003) Series 7, Episode 5. UK. [TV Programme] Channel 4. 24 December 2010 Perks, L. (2012) The Ancient Roots of Humor Theory. [Online] Available: http://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007context=com_facpub [Accessed: 10 March 2017]. Sander, J. (2012) The Television Series Community and Sitcom. [Online] Available: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:558088/FULLTEXT01.pdf [Accessed: 5 March 2017].