8/14/2019 Marshall Communication and Conflict Fibreculture-conference-mag

1/4

Communication and Conflict

by Jonathan Marshall

[A slightly modified version of an article which appeared in Danny Butt, Chris Chesher, Gillian

Fuller, Lisa Gye, Geert Lovink, Molly Hankwitz, Estehr Milne, Ned Rossiter and David Teh (eds),

Networks of Excellence (Waikato Institute of Technology and Power Institute of Sydney, 2002):

page 15. ]

Communication is usually held to be an unalloyed good. The greater the volume, range and speed of

communication the better it is for everyone. However this may not be accurate. With our current

burst of increased communication we are not necessarily heading towards greater union, peace and

happiness or, as some assert, towards a global brain. In fact we may be heading towards greater

conflict - especially if people do not realize some basic problems in communication.

To take an extreme example: if two groups of people and the systems within which they live do not

interact, then they are unlikely to come into conflict. If they are brought together to communicate,

then they can also come into conflict - they may discover their worlds are mutually incompatible

and coexistence impossible. They may not, but as they have different cultures, interests and

imperatives, some conflict or misunderstanding is probable.

It might be argued that they could learn to communicate peacefully and cooperate eventually, but

there is no guarantee of that. Throughout human history when groups who were previously unaware

of each other are brought into contact there is usually conflict, often ending in the restoration of

peace by genocide or conquest. We can also imagine that two groups, through increased

communication, come to find that their worlds are completely incompatible and there is no

possibility of further coexistence. Communication involving groups, or group identity, increases the

possibility that at least one person in one of the groups will take offence, and shift the situation into

conflict for everyone.

Even between people who are intimate, the expression of one persons views, or the way they

communicate something, may appear to lead to a discovery which produces conflict. Is it, for

example, always good for your spouse to tell you they have had a casual affair? Even if you think it

might be good beforehand, the telling might change everything between you. Sometimes it can be

8/14/2019 Marshall Communication and Conflict Fibreculture-conference-mag

2/4

better to keep silent, or to maintain communication by deciet.

Any definition or use of the term communication should avoid the fallacy of using that term to

refer primarily to successful communication with apparent mutual understanding and harmony.

Such good communication is a special case of communication in general; it cannot be assumed to

be the most common, or most important, form. We cannot assume that lies, misrepresentations,

inaccuracies and misunderstandings, are secondary or incidental. The possibility of communication

implies the possibility of misdirection. Communication is also not a simple transfer of meaning

from one individual to another, it always involves interpretation. In good communication a person

will attempt to check that their interpretation vaguely corresponds to the other persons intention -

but this involves that other person then interpreting that interpretation and so on, for ever.

The interpretation of a message changes with its context, or framing, which is external to the

message. As different people almost always provide different frames, any message may have

different meanings for its interpreters. It is highly improbable that people will understand a message

of any complexity in quite the same way. Between different cultures, with habitual use of different

frames, the chance of radically divergent interpretations increases. Instability of meaning,

misunderstanding and variability is fundamental to communication. Misunderstandings will

eventually lead to conflict. Understandings may eventually lead to conflict. Therefore potential

conflict is fundamental to communication.

One way of attempting to remove ambiguity from messages, is through the exertion of force. We

most commonly see this between parents and children, in which the child is told to do something

and then guided (with varying degrees of violence) into performing the required action. Such

guidance is common when the power differential between participants is great, or when there are

obvious problems in communicating. Clearly this use of force has the potential to lead to the

communicative situation being framed as hostile, and for conflict to result.

As a result, good communication is only possible between equals. The more unequal the

participants, the more the distortion. People with authority mystify their authority to keep it safe,

and those beneath them give their superior what they want to hear, because of the consequences.

This often leads to a conflict between the group and reality, as decisions are based on distorted

communications.

8/14/2019 Marshall Communication and Conflict Fibreculture-conference-mag

3/4

8/14/2019 Marshall Communication and Conflict Fibreculture-conference-mag

4/4

over the nature of the message. If such framing is easy to make (say by the presence of opposing

politics), then the message can become framed as hostile, and hostility result.

There are a myrid of ways in which increased communication, speed of communication, or breadth

of communication can lead to hostilities, misunderstandings and conflict - whether that is intended

or not. Therefore we cannot continue to assume that increased communication is always beneficial,

or that democracy will continue to benefit from such communication.