I see the same thing you see. People often act as if suppressing the emotion will resolve the conflict. And, you're right, I don't advocate suppressing the emotion.

I like the way you expressed the better alternative approach of “why am I feeling so . . . angry, sad, mad.” Backing up the process to address our perceptual frame rather than our feelings is a much more powerful approach than ignoring or suppressing the feelings. In my experience, the suppression approach only works for a short period of time. The feelings will come out eventually (probably not in a healthy way). Addressing the perception that lead to the feeling usually gives us the mental space to understand the other person in a much deeper way so that we move towards the empathy and reconciliation you mentioned.

Great point about life not usually being a zero sum game.

It's good to get input from a fellow laborer in the field of conflict resolution. Thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts here.

It's true that “[o]nce we become emotional about an issue, we tend towards behaviors that escalate the conflict rather than resolve it.” I don't think the answer to become unemotional (or to suppress emotion) and I don't think you mean to suggest that. I do think others believe that “not feeling” is what we need to do if we hope to resolve conflict without acrimony, however.

Instead of either “acting out” or suppressing emotion, we can ask ourselves “why am I feeling so . . . angry, sad, mad.” The answer to this question is often the key to resolution. If I realize, for instance, that my anger at a political opponent arises from my own fear that my vested rights or interests will be harmed by his or her political position, I am freed to talk about my fear, which does not tend to escalate, but to de-escalate conflict – indeed, it often leads to empathy and reconciliation. Why? Because the “other” is also often also motivated in his/her political position by fear of the loss of his or her vested rights or interests.

We mediators have learned (or re-learned) that life is rarely a zero sum game. That your loss is rarely correspondingly my gain or my benefit your detriment. It is when we stop talking about our opinions and begin to talk about our experience and our emotions that true resolution – not compromise but collaboration – has a chance of resulting.

Thanks again for your very thoughtful posts. I'm adding you to my google reader right away.

As always, you contribute great thoughts in your comments. Thanks for contributing.

I wish I could say that I had read the book you mentioned. Unfortunately, I didn't even know about it. I'll have to add it to my reading list.

Thanks for pointing out the polarizing effect of what happens as people cluster in like minded groups.

I agree with you that finding commonality is a key to seizing opportunities and truly enjoying life.

Thanks again for your input to this post.

Because of how our brain is wired, we can spiral down into disagreement and further friction faster than we can go up into open listening and finding a way to compromise.

The relatively new book, The Big Sort covers the ways we in the U.S. are increasingly likely to live in communities and belong to groups where everyone has similar beliefs. The counter-intuitive result is that, to secure a sense of belonging in the group, members tend to take the extreme edge of beliefs. That leads to polarization.

Yet to thrive in this Age of Engagement, cultivating relationships with people extremely unlike you, finding the sweet spots of mutual interest or shared beliefs is akin to the main way one can see the larger picture in situations, seize some opportunities and enjoy a richer life.

BTW, you probably know that Suzette Haden Elgin wrote a classic book with the same title at that for this post.