Hocker's View Of Conflict

952 Words2 Pages

There is no trying to escape from conflict because it is bound to occur. What is conflict? Hocker and Wilmot (2001) view conflict as, “An expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (p. 9). To simply put it conflict is when difference matters. To further explain, parties are dependent on each other because it is the disagreement itself that created the conflict in the first place which leads to an expressed struggle. Within the conflict parties are perceived to have incompatible goals and scarce resources. Perceived incompatible goals are usually seen as having a winner and a loser. Incompatible goals is described as …show more content…

The way someone manages a difference can make conflict turn into a sphere of harm or a sphere of value. The sphere of harm is when differences are managed in destructive and damaging ways. Littlejohn states (2014) states, “Conflicts are managed so badly that damage is done to people, relationships, and, indeed, entire social worlds” (p. 188). If a party were to react to an indifference by using physical or verbal violence the conflict would move into the sphere of harm. On the other hand, the sphere of value is when differences are significant, but not controversial. Instead, parties value the difference, appreciate it and view it as a positive asset. The goal of conflict is to move from the sphere of harm to the sphere of …show more content…

One difference is parties will not speak to each other the same say depending on the environment. Domenici and Littlejohn (2007) explain, “You will not communicate the same way with your best friend, son or daughter, co-worker, or professor” (p. 32). For example, in a group setting, a student might not be as verbally violent with other students as if there were two sisters having a dispute in a personal context. Moreover, in a group context parties may hold back opinions due to the fact of not know each other as well as they might in a personal setting. If parties hold back on what is said less damage can be done to the relationships and people making it easier to move to the sphere of value. On the other hand, parties involved in a personal context may know each other well enough to feel the right to push the issue and/or issues more so than in a group. The more parties know each other the easier it is to cause additional damage to peers, relationships and social worlds, creating a sphere of harm. With that being said in this case moving from the sphere of harm to value may be faster and/or easier in a group context, while in a personal context it may require extra time and effort. In addition, group contexts have additional parties involved with diverse values and beliefs to respect. When involved in a conflict parties have to take people’s religion, culture and age

Open Document