The Issue is not The Issue: Interpersonal Conflict
Originally featuring in a book by William Steig (1990) about identity and becoming, the character Shrek and accompanying protagonists, Donkey and Fiona, were swept up by DreamWorks and converted into characters of minimal depth whereby stereotypical anxious, ambivalent, and avoidant attachments create easily identifiable conflicts that reflect our society’s perception of conflict as unpleasant and stressful (Eunson, 2007). The purpose of this article is to utilise the characters Shrek and Donkey from the 2001 film to demonstrate notions of conflict resolution theory. Through the description of a selected scene (Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:08:32 – 1:14:00) terms and concepts of theory will be defined and causes of conflict will become apparent. In broadening thought within this discussion, the type of conflict will be identified, and the strengths and weaknesses of the characters conflict skills will ascertain the paradox of the conflicts resolve as it relates to the concept “the issue is not the issue” (Eddy, 2012, ¶3; Lederach, 2003). Finally, recommendations will demonstrate how authentic conflict resolution can be attained to promote improved relational outcomes.
Although there are many ideologies within the conflict resolution paradigm, two consistent elements arise as potential causes to conflict. These are: intractable differences in incompatible goal attainment (Putman, 2006), as well as disintegrated intercommunication styles (McCorkle & Reese, 2016). In the selected scene conflict arose between Shrek and Donkey, whereby it is clear that the immediate issue of an incompatible goal: Donkey wanted to live with Shrek, Shrek wanted to live alone, is rooted in misunderstanding and a history of relational disintegration (Lederach, 2003). As the scene progressed, Shrek displayed heightened emotional aggression then walked away in an avoidant manner; Donkey then exhibited perplexed anxious and pursuing behaviours, and it became clear that there were pervasive patterns of disintegrated intercommunication that have a direct impact on Donkey and Shrek’s ability to authentically resolve their impending issue (Lederach, 2003). Furthermore, disintegrated intercommunication is evident in a seemingly subconscious interdependence between the pair, which may have been based in inadvertent power plays of unmeet needs (Fisher & Sharp, 2004; Gurrero & Valley, 2006; Lederach, 2003; Putman, 2006; McCorkle & Reese, 2016).
As the initial scene merged into the next, Donkey and Shrek’s disintegrated patterns continued and began to highlight the paradox: “issue is not the issue” (Eddy, 2012, ¶3). Donkey resumed his pursuit of Shrek by asserting his need of connection, acceptance, support, and safety in a passive-aggressive manner. Without consulting Shrek, Donkey began to build a wall within Shrek’s swamp. Upon being questioned by Shrek, Donkey responded competitively. Shrek’s response then reflected the earlier interaction and demonstrated, once again, heightened emotion based in exasperated and resentful aggression. Accordingly, it became evident there is a certain causality that, although this may have been one episode, there were intractable differences that stem from both the history of the relationship, individual disintegration, as well as cultural differences (Lederach, 2003; Putman, 2006).
An interpretation of this causality, as based in the paradox of the past replaying in the present (Lederach, 2003), is that at the root of disintegrated intercommunication is the inability to be aware of inner processes, motives, or for one to internally make sense of a situation; this leads to reactivity rather than perspective responsiveness (Furlong, 2009, McCorkle & Reese, 2016, Siegel, 2010). Shrek and Donkey demonstrated this notion when, within their interaction, it became evident that, through a volatile outburst of emotion, a miscommunication of interpersonal relationship value and status had triggered Shrek’s sense of powerlessness and need to reestablish internal equilibrium (Abigail & Cahn, 2011; Fisher & Sharp, 2004; McCorkle & Reese, 2016).
This reestablishment of internal equilibrium comes to Shrek by “playing the victim” (Fisher & Sharpe, 2004, p.43) in a defensive and aggressive manner. Going back to the beginning of the scene, Shrek initially instigated the conflict by, rather than pausing and attending to his fears and doubts and clarifying the situation, chose to react as victim and attribute Donkey as perpetrator (Fisher & Sharpe, 2004). Misunderstanding and the inability to make sense of the situation then produced role reversal between the characters (Deutsch, 2006); this then perpetuated the already established power dynamics and habitual tit-for-tat approach (Eunson, 2007). Such is evident as the main scene continues through reciprocation and belligerent behaviour: “Back off!” “No, you back off.” “This is my swap!” “Our Swamp.” (Shrek snatches a branch Donkey was holding) “Let go Donkey!” “You let go.” “Stubborn jackass!” “Smelly ogre.” (Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:12:00 – 1:12:10). This conflict style, while serving a power play dynamic in the moment, is rife with reactivity that only serves the individuals temporarily.
At this point within the scene, disintegrated patterns again take over. Shrek capitulated returning to victim mentality and retreating in an aggressive-avoidant manner: “Fine!” (Drops the branch and walks away), Donkey then aggressively chases: “Hey, hey, come back here. I am not through with you yet.” Retaliated with: “Well, I am through with you.” Finally followed by Donkey in an emotional outburst, seemingly to regain control and attempt resolve: “Uh-uh. You know, with you it always, ‘Me, me, me!’ Well, guess what! Now it’s my turn! So you just shut up and pay attention! You are mean to me. You insult me and you don’t appreciate anything that I do! You’re always pushing me around or pushing me away.” (Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:12:12-22). This is where the misunderstanding of a zero-sum or negative-sum (Eunson, 2007) outcome can reinforce disintegrated patterns and maintain destructive communication that has a certainty of restricting relationship growth (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998; Siegel, 2012).
The analysis of the selected scene thus far has demonstrated that Shrek and Donkey’s disintegrated patterns promote a negative-sum conflict and are clearly a considerable weakness within the resolution of the conflict (Eunson, 2007). Conversely, the subsequent turn in the conflict – as triggered by Shrek retreating to his outhouse (Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:12:35), highlights the paradox in the scenes conflict resolve: what may have seemed like a strength merely keeps conflict styles and power dynamics within the relationship replaying and thus highlighted, once again, that “the issue is not the issue”( Eddy, 2012, ¶3; Lederach, 2006). As retaliation based negotiation withdrew more information (Eunson, 2007), Shrek questioned Donkey’s loyalty bringing about further belligerent behaviour. This in turn elicited more information that remarkably eventuated in clarifying the initial misunderstanding. Most intriguingly is that these behaviours produce an apology and forgiveness; this highlighted yet another paradox of the conflict’s resolve. It may seem that through an apology Shrek takes responsibility for his actions, however, due to the regret attributed to cultural character trait: “I’m Sorry. I guess I am just a big, stupid, ugly orge…” (Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:13:45) which conversely continued Shrek’s manipulation of victim (Fisher & Sharpe, 2004); the apology was hollow and without inner contrition (McCorkle & Reese, 2016). Without attentiveness to emotions, needs, or interests, in this situation and others, interpersonal trust will wither and true connectedness as based in compatible goals, motives, and intentions will not be established or developed for authentic conflict resolution (Furlong, 2009; Lederach, 2003; Siegel, 2012).
With this adept understanding of the cause of conflict, the question arises: how could Shrek and Donkey have attended to this situation, albeit many others within their relationship, in order to attain authentic conflict resolution, thus cohesive compassionate connection? The answer lies within the ability of the characters to look toward awareness of heightened reactivity, attending to raising body, mind, and spirit sensations, and to create the space for integrated intercommunication (Lederach, 2003; McCorkle & Reese, 2016; Siegel, 2012).
Integrated intercommunication begins with an overt focus on transformative conflict (Lederach, 2003). That is, rather than a zero-sum or negative-sum standpoint, an active choice to reconcile through depth of knowledge as a base for awareness and understanding (Eunson, 2007; Lederach, 2003; McCorkle & Reese, 2016). Such knowledge begins with viewing conflict as an opportunity to see and embrace: differences; ebbs and flows; beyond short term goals; as well as values and interests of self and other (Raider, Coleman, & Gerson, 2006). Furthermore, to identify, distinguish, and separate threat, justification, positions, and power plays; and to communicate feelings and needs through “I” statements knowing that change is a process (Deutsch, 2006; Eunson, 2007; Fisher & Sharpe, 2004; Furlong, 2009; Lederach, 2003; Raider, Coleman, & Gerson, 2006).
With the view of conflict as an opportunity comes the power to choose to compassionately connect (Rosenberg, 2005). In the case of Shrek and Donkey, Shrek could have chosen to transform well before the conflict began unfolding. This notion highlights an enigma within the specified scene: if Shrek displayed the conscious decision to pause, attend to his feelings in awareness and presence, the capacity to find clarity in his needs, interests, and indeed in his fears, could have opened the opportunity for Shrek to respond rather than react (Putman, 2006; Siegel, 2012). With inner-clarity and with purpose of understanding, Shrek would have moved the interaction towards transformative conflict (Lederach, 2003) and thus integrated intercommunication as a foundation for improved relational outcomes.
Correspondingly, with these same conflict resolution ideologies in mind, Donkey may have also been able to be an instigator of transformation rather than the propagator of unpleasant and stressful conflict. In Donkey this may have looked like the choice to harness the power of presence and awareness in an approach that, rather than impinging on Shrek’s personal space (his swamp; Adamson & Jenson, 2001, 1:11:39), was assertive by nature (Abigail & Cahn, 2011), allowed Shrek time to calm down, and ensured that the misunderstanding would find authentic resolve. Furthermore, it is imperative to note that should the belligerent behaviours continue to the point whereby apology and forgiveness is imperative for relationship restoration (McCorkle & Reese, 2016), that assertive responsibility is taken by Shrek, and potentially Donkey, in the parts they played. To attend to the behaviour in a transformative manner, “I” based statements (Abigail & Cahn, 2011; Cornelius & Faire, 2006) that attend to specific behaviours, feelings, and needs of the other (Rosenberg, 2005) create an opportunity for a deep sense of remorse (McCorkle & Reese, 2016). These assertive approaches highlight the imperative nature of awareness and presence (Siegel, 2012), and thus knowledge, in creating a transformation toward authentic conflict resolution and thus improved relational outcomes.
This article has utilised DreamWorks (2001) Shrek and Donkey to establish the paradox “the issue is not the issue”; and indeed that destructive conflict lays await in pervasive patterns of disintegrated intercommunication. As thoughts were broadened, the type of conflict was identified as negative-sum, and the strengths and weaknesses of the characters conflict skills highlighted that although there was an apparition of resolve, it was merely a façade. Finally, recommendations demonstrated how authentic conflict resolution could have been ascertained through the choice to compassionately connect and use conflict as an opportunity to assertively promote improved relational outcomes. Ultimately this leaves one remaining thought: what could it mean for society if entertainment reflected cohesive compassionate connection?
References
Abigail, R. A., & Cahn, D. D. (2011). Managing conflict through communication (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Adamson, A., & Jenson, V. (2001). Shrek [Streaming video]. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/au/
Cornelius, H., & Faire, S. (2006). Everyone can win. Sydney, Australia: Simon & Schuster.
Deutsch, M. (2006). Justice and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 43-68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eddy, B. (2012). Who are high conflict people? Retrieved from http://www.highconflictinstitute.com/who-are-high-conflict-people
Eunson, B. (2007). Conflict resolution. Melbourne, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Furlong, G. T. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox: Models & maps for analyzing, diagnosing and resolving conflict. Mississauga, Canada: J. Wiley & Sons.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5-22. Retrieved from http://dio.org/10.2307/353438
Guerrero, L. K., & La Valley, A. G. (2013). Conflict, emotion, and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication(pp. 69-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lederach, J. (2003). Little Book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
McCorkle, S., & Reese, M. (2016). Personal conflict management: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Putman, L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raider, E., Coleman, S., & Gerson, J. (2006). Teaching conflict resolution skills in a workshop. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 695-725). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenberg, M. B. (2005). Nonviolent communication: A language of life. Chicago, IL: PuddleDancer Press.
Sharp, S. W., & Fisher, E. A. (2004). The art of managing everyday conflict: Understanding emotions and power struggles. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Siegel, D. J. (2010). The mindful therapist: A clinician’s guide to mindsight and neural integration. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). Pocket guide to interpersonal neurobiology: An integrative handbook of the mind. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Steig, W. (1990). Shrek! New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
