How conflict responses affect relationship strain and reconciliation

Forgiveness

Unresolved Conflict as a Source of Relationship Strain

The example on p. 298 vividly illustrates an important point with which I agree. Specifically, the ultimate effect of a particular conflict on a relationship often depends substantially on the manner in which participants respond to the conflict. In fact, the same conflict under circumstances where it is resolved optimally need not necessarily damage a relationship at all. Conversely, where the chance to resolve that conflict appropriately is missed, the result can often be significantly (and understandably) different.

When the individual first said something insulting to lesbians, the person who invited that individual had done nothing wrong requiring any apology (say, to any lesbian friends who were present); there is little apology necessary for merely inviting an acquaintance to a social gathering without having a comprehensive understanding of all of their political (and other) views and opinions. However, the same conflict could reasonably generate relationship conflict based on the response of the person who invited the offender.

If the response is to quickly change topics without ever responding to the specific viewpoint expressed, any lesbian friends at the table would be (rightfully) offended that avoiding unpleasantness or social embarrassment took precedence over an appropriate response to the statement. If the response is to immediately respond that the statement was offensive and that the speaker clearly does not share the same values as the rest of the group, the lesbians at the encounter would have admired the person who invited the offender. In that case, responding appropriately to the offensive viewpoint would have demonstrated personal integrity and solidarity with the lesbians.

Adding Insult to Injury through Specific Responses to Conflicts

The example on p. 299 vividly illustrates another important point with which I agree. Specifically, in an intimate relationship (especially), it is very easy to exacerbate the potential damage from any situation by adding insult to injury in trying to avoid all conflict through dishonesty, denial, and minimization. For example, consider a hypothetical couple who have agreed that their relationship is mainly a friendship "with benefits" but by no means a committed romantic relationship. They get along as friends and share a mutual physical attraction but they both realize that they have very different life plans (and word views) that would make them completely inappropriate long-term life partners. Their agreement is that they will both keep any other intimate relationships separate and private. As in the example on p. 299, one partner does meet someone else and begins an intimate relationship but denies that anything is at all different when first approached by the friend.

In this case, it is perfectly conceivable that answering the first inquiry honestly would enable the friends to discuss the development and come to some agreement or satisfactory resolution or mutual acknowledgement without necessarily ruining the friendship component of the relationship. The "dumped" person might even require some alone time to deal with unexpected emotions, but without any cause or justification to be feel angry at or hurt by the honest answer, "Yes, since you asked, I have started seeing someone." However, by denying the (correct) perceptions of the inquirer, and by lying where there was no need to in the first place, the responder has made it impossible to avoid hurting or angering the questioner. It has nothing to do with the fact that their situation may have changed; it is strictly about adding unnecessary insult to the injury.

Conceptual Application in Professional and Personal Relationships

As it just so happens, many of the topics covered in this reading are demonstrated by the recent occurrences on a radio program that I enjoy. The situation was that a radio producer agreed to allow a station assistant video producer install a camera in his office for use when the radio show host wanted to communicate with the producer during the show. At the time the camera was installed, the radio producer agreed only under the express promise of the assistant video producer that the setup would never be used to embarrass him. As it happened, the radio producer fell asleep at his desk and both the video producer and assistant brought the embarrassing tape to the attention of the radio show host.

After the ensuing arguments and accusations, the video editor acknowledged that he had betrayed the trust of the radio producer and the explicit agreement between his department and the producer and he apologized, unprompted. The radio producer was angry but did accept the apology. Meanwhile, the assistant video producer continually defended his actions: he questioned whether any explicit promise was ever made; he argued that it should not have applied; and he complained that it was not only his decision. He also apologized but only after considerable haranguing from the entire radio show cast, especially the host. The radio show producer did not accept the apology; instead, he expressed his willingness to continue working together professionally and appropriately with the assistant video producer, but he expressed the position that he no longer trusts him or considers him a personal friend, effectively ending a 20-year friendship.

This reading really put into perspective for me why such a radically different reaction could be appropriate even in response to the same factual source of conflict. I realize that many conflicts are generated more by the actions and statements of the wronging party to the wronged party after the fact. I have resolved to remain aware of the issue in my professional and personal life and to make sure that any damage caused by my mistakes will be limited to whatever damage is directly attributable to the mistake. I will not allow an inappropriate response on my part, after the fact, to magnify the harm of my initial mistake.