Gulf words syndrome and the language of conflict

The words we use can provide a window into our attitudes and applied values if we learn to observe and monitor the language we use in dialogue, especially when we feel strongly about an issue or others' behaviour. The process can also provide insights into:

1. The causes of others' difficulties with us


2. Our own difficulties in making ourselves heard when we are in conflict; and


3. Why it is, sometimes, that everything we say creates a wider gulf between the parties.

During the 1991 Gulf war reporters at The Guardian demonstrated this, (though that may not have been their intention). They studied media coverage (in theirs and other UK newspapers) and noted the selective language used. The full list is at once hilarious, dismal and shocking:

We have	Iraqis have
Armed Forces, reporting guidelines and press briefings.	A war machine, censorship, propaganda.
The allies	The Iraqis
Take out, suppress, eliminate, neutralise, dig-in, precision bomb, launch first strikes pre-emptively	Destroy, kill, cower in foxholes, fire wildly at anything, launch sneak missile attacks without provocation.
Our personnel are	Iraqis personnel are
Boys, lads, lion-hearts, heroes, professionals, cautious, confident, loyal, desert rats, brave, dare-devils, young knights of the skies, motivated by an old-fashioned sense of duty. Our ships are an armada. Our POWs are gallant boys. Our boys fly into the jaws of hell. Israeli non-retaliation is an act of great statesmanship.	Hordes, troops, paper tigers, cowardly, desperate, brainwashed, cornered, cannon-fodder, blindly obedient, mad dogs, ruthless, fanatical, motivated by a fear of Saddam, bastards of Baghdad. Their boys cower in bunkers. Iraq ships are a navy. Their POWs are overgrown children. Iraq non-retaliation is blundering or cowardly.
George Bush (senior) is	Saddam Hussein is
At peace with himself, resolute, statesmanlike, assured.	Demented, defiant, an evil tyrant, a crackpot monster.
Our planes	Their planes
Suffer a high rate of attrition, fail to return from missions.	Are shot out of the sky. Are zapped.

Going over the top: how to be neither listened to nor heard

I've been taking took note of the specific language used in local and international newspapers to express problems and conflict. Examples appeared within Letters to the Editor or verbatim accounts of speeches and interviews. Look out for my forthcoming best-seller, reporting my findings: "The Shoot-yourself-in-the-foot Dealing With Difference Thesaurus: How to Provoke Unhelpful Negative Reactions so that What You Need Heard is Neither Listened to nor Heard, and an Unbridgeable Gulf is Built Between You and Your Audience." (I'm working on the title.) Here are some of the ways everyday people express everyday differences, problems and challenges with others. Use it, I suggest, to begin monitoring your own words:

• The people who did this are selfish, self-centred, and egotistical.
  


• What a nasty, narrow-minded, virulent creature she shows herself to be.
  


• They [particular trade union members] are a gang of marauding thugs.
  


• We've been the victim of scurrilous, extremist, vitriolic and utterly untruthful attacks.
  


• I do not appreciate an ignorant dork like you writing to criticise me. Go and get stuffed. You have a problem.
  


• His opinions are an array of ill-informed dilettante prejudices, a parade of platitudinous trivia.
  


• The campaign is idiotic, stupid and ridiculous.
  


• Their decision was dirty, filthy and undemocratic. They moved in the dead of night like thieves.
  


• The cop came to this conclusion after some fascist, small-minded, judgemental, bigoted, ageist, rural red-neck reported me for bad driving.
  


• He was unhelpful, uncooperative and obstructive.
  


• It was deeply offensive, a calculated racial slur, proving his unfitness for office.
  


• They are racist, narrow-minded, arrogant and petty.
  


• Their behaviour was despicable, devious and damnable, marked by diversions, lies and petty manoeuvrings.
  


• He cannot keep his word. He is a liar and a traitor to God.
  


• This is the work of a person of low calibre, extremely vindictive, a nasty piece of work.
  


• Your behaviour was discourteous, ill-mannered and totally unacceptable.
  


• It was bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, hysterical scare-mongering.
  


• Compared to us they're a group of intimidating pricks and smartarses.
  


• It was completely hysterical, emotive and lacking in objectivity.
  


• The trouble with them is that they're too judgemental!
  


• He accused me of myopia and referred to me as cretinous, imbecilic, ignorant and moronic: the comments best apply to himself.
  


• My opponent is a document-shredding, Constitution-trashing, commander-in-chief bashing, Ayatollah-loving, arms-dealing, drug-condoning, Noriega-coddling, Swiss-banking, law-breaking, letter-faking, self-serving snake-oil salesman who cannot tell the difference between the truth and a lie.
  

Perception is a mirror, not a fact

These observations - The Guardian's and my own, demonstrate well that projection makes perception. What we think about others is what we project on to them, what we look for and what we tend to see. It also demonstrates how easy it is to create unbridgeable gulfs between people. Once we label and stereotype people we begin to lose sight of their humanity and need for dignified treatment or listening: it becomes easier to dismiss them and see them as the enemy deserving of hostility. It has led me to the very useful question, when facing a challenge: Is the trouble on the screen or in the projector?

That question goes to the heart of constructive dialogue and permeates our work on interpersonal skill development. Being helped to answer it has brought profoundly useful insights to many who have studied our Hear and Be Heard programme of interpersonal skill development.

Trading insults

Howard Markman, Professor and clinical psychologist of Denver University has this to say about the practice of trading insults: "One insult or character assassination erases five, 10 or even 20 acts of kindness in a relationship. Trading insults, lack of communication and a refusal to see the other's point of view are sure signs of a doomed relationship. The way couples argue is more important in predicting their chances of divorce than how much money they have, their sexual compatibility, or how much in love they are."

© Copyright 2002 - 2007 Tom Watkins Group. All rights reserved.

Select and contact a Mentor if you'd like to discuss these ideas or want support to make progress with your own issues.

Click here to subscribe Encouraging Progress our free, online newsletter.

[Send this page to a friend]

[ Back to top ]
 

[ Return ]