How a Polarized Battle became an Exposure to the Other – the Role of

As was displayed in the above story, the consultant was in the beginning faced with a very difficult situation of getting two very strongly defined groups to work together. At the first meeting at the ranch the two groups were like oil and water; literally like black and white. The two groups did agree on the necessity to change these circumstances, and that they would all like to do this together. But in contrast to what popular negotiation theory (Fisher and Ury, 1981, Ury, 1993) says about positive outcomes as long as there are mutual gains and identified common goals, these two groups could not communicate and they could not reach a solution. Their differences were too explicit and they experienced the classic disadvantages of diversity such as miscommunication ad anxiety. They didn’t know much about each other and had difficulties understanding each other’s point of view, which made them anxious and suspicious. It didn’t matter that they found issues they could agree

on, they still didn’t get anywhere. They saw each other as too different. They found out the hard way that it was pretty tough to agree academically that

‘now we have trust in each other’. The communication problem was very visible. They were very polite towards each other, smiled and greeted each other, but as the consultant said, they kept to themselves. They didn’t exchange one word or gesture, which was beyond the formally required.

What began to change things was a very specific decision made by the consultant. When he saw that no one opened up and didn’t do any talking besides polite greetings, he began to talk about himself and tried to show people who he was and what his points of view were. As he explained himself he “did this because people don’t trust you if you don’t show them who you are. Only when you show them who you are, can you hope that others begin to tell who they are”. And then something began to happen: The black group started to enter the dialogue, they started opening up. In the beginning the consultant was quite puzzled that it was the black group—the tough guys—

that opened up first. But then he realized that it was probably because they saw him as a representative from ‘their group’; that is, one who wanted to change South Africa. On the contrary, it took quite some time before the white group opened up. They were very reserved for a long time. One of the reasons was probably that they too saw the consultant as a representative for the black group, a group that wanted to turn over ‘their South Africa’. To become this inner circle that was now present at the meeting, the white leaders must have been part of the system that tried to stop the resistance movement, so the consultant was absolutely not one of ‘theirs’. The two groups therefore in the beginning—even through the consultant—stuck to their firmly defined in- and out groups. Their greatest loyalty was to their own group, and it was extremely difficult for them to break free from this situation of groupthink.

But the white group eventually began to open up a little. They slowly found out that the consultant had a military background and that he was also a civil manager and basically pretty ‘cool’ or neutral in relation to many things and just wanted to create results. They found out that he after all could be ‘one of them’, and that it was probably OK to talk to him. Thus, both groups opened up to the consultant, and both of them saw him as one of theirs. In this way, they were still focusing on their similarities with the consultant—that which could unite them with him. But then an interesting thing turned up. If the consultant was able to talk to both groups, then more and more discussions occurred where more and more people wanted to join. So the way they opened up to each other was to discuss very concrete issues through the exposure of the consultant. They found out through him, that if he was able to connect to both sides, then maybe there was more to the discussion than what they could initially judge as belonging to their group or not. They began to see that they probably weren’t that different after all. In this way, both group realized that their visible and categorical differences—the color of their skin—not necessarily defined whether they had anything in common or not. If they opened up in language and exposed their true selves, they discovered things about both themselves and the Other, they didn’t expect.

The story very well illustrates the Levinasian point that language is not an objective instrument for the participants of the conversation to pass over meaning as assumed in popular management communication literature such as Fisher and Ury (1981) and Ury (1993). In these theories, language and the meanings it unquestionably communicates hold an unambiguous concreteness, and language thereby holds some level of universality as it assumes a correct use of discourse.

The Levinasian understanding of language is in this way a part of a movement, which has been labeled ‘the linguistic’ turn. The main point of the linguistic turn is to question the representational function of language as something fixed and stable. On this basis it is argued that language is not a simple reflection of the external world. Rather it is itself what constructs and enacts both the world and the individuals within it. Language is no longer seen as representing events of an external reality but as shaping them, and in this sense all social practice can be understood as a textual construction of reality (Belova, 2007: 4, Cunliffe, 2002: 129) Following this view it is therefore argued that we live in conversational realities that construct us as individuals by responses to others (Shotter, 1993). The world is therefore constituted by our language and the responses we give each other. However, since language games on this view are in constant alteration, meaning is constantly slipping beyond our grasp, and can therefore never be locked into one category (Hassard, 1993). Building on this view, Belova (2007) argues that conversation is not seen as a bridge that creates a smooth passage of meaning between the interlocutors. Language doesn’t flow in a strait line from one to the other. Instead, she argues for conversation as a rhythm, which is characterised by intervals and breakdowns; staying true to both closeness and separation.

Speaking however is most often directed at an Other. Therefore it is not only a question of seeing language as something that constructs you as an individual, it is equally important to consider how we in language approach the Other and how this encounter affects both self and other.

As we encounter people whose positions differ from ours, we tend to represent ourselves one-dimensionally, ensuring that all our statements form a unified, seemless web. As a result, when we enter a relationship defined by our differences, commitment to unity will maintain our distance. And if the integrity or validity of

one's coherent front is threatened by the other, we may move toward polarizing combat. (Gergen et al., 2001: 696)

Speaking is inherently an ethical act of encountering difference, and in this way conversation constructs me. But what I find more interesting—and what Gergen here also insinuates—is how I as a self approach my interlocutor in conversation. How does language—not only construct me (as an ethical subject)—but how does the language used construct me as well as the one I’m responding to; that is the Other. By a commitment to unity and with the goal of persuading the other unifying the other into me, we will most likely end in an assimilation of the Other’s otherness or in a polarised combat that takes us nowhere. Levinas connects language and ethics; and does this in a way that nicely follows up on Gergen et al.’s own wish to create a ‘transformative challenge’ to language, which is “to shift the conversation in the direction of self-reflexivity—or a questioning of the otherwise coherent self” (Gergen et al., 2001: 696). I will now return to the consultant’s story and illustrate this shift in language.

Language at play in the consultant’s story very much constructed the participants’ situation, as well as who they were in this encounter. If language had been a merely rational instrument, it would have been possible to follow the method of mutual gains or aiming towards consensus. But in this case no language rational and logical enough could have made these people meet in consensus. By a commitment to unity or with the goal of persuading the Other and unifying the Other into self, they would most likely have ended up in an assimilation of the Other’s otherness or in a polarized battle that would have taken them nowhere. Instead, we saw how language—in the form of both the ontological said and the ethical saying—constructed the scene from the moment the consultant began exposing himself. By telling stories about himself, the two groups began to open up to each other as well. In this way it

was the consultant’s exposure that started the positive process. The consultant had no other option than to begin to talk about himself. If he didn’t get them to open up, he would not succeed. He was in a vulnerable position; and he showed that to the two groups.

The consultant did this initiated by the recognition of the strange world of both Others. He realized that they were too far apart from each other, but also that they were ordinary people. Not defined by the color of their skins, but by their human qualities—qualities, which were not linked to their race, but to who they were as human beings. He realized that he needed to get beyond the color of their skin and the only way of getting there, was to start that exposure himself. He then exposed himself and in doing this made them become Others to each other. Instead of illuminating the two groups of how they should behave, he saw them as Others, embraced the dimension of the Other. He recognized their otherness and exposed himself.

He did not act according to textbook negotiation, but according to his own moral response-ability to the Other. He did not solely listen to what they said, he listened to the call of an Other; to the saying the entire situation expressed.

He acted by the involuntarity of responding to the Other’s face. Besides that he did not only respond in a said but responded in saying. He acted by exposing himself; in the offering of his own world to them. He responded in a saying as a sign to them as neighbor about a responsibility, which can never be contracted. So it was not only the words he gave them, the stories he told. It was just as much the way he did it, the way he laid himself vulnerable in doing it. In an ethical saying he offered his vulnerability to them.

It was the face of this Other that drew the consultant to be interlocutor, and the Others to be his interlocutor. That they took the role of interlocutors is in this relation very essential, as it meant that the Other is was not just an object for the monologue of the self, the Other became partner in the conversation, the Other took part. The ‘stable’ consciousness of the self was in this way challenged by the face of the Other. The consultant’s ‘stable’ consciousness was challenged and turned out not to be so stable. Both ‘sides’ realized that he was capable of showing other sides to them in an encounter—that he was capable of change. And they reacted to this capability, saw it as a call; perhaps even saw him as an Other that demanded a response from them.

In the passivity of the exposure, the consultant didn’t try to force rules or milestones upon the two groups; he knew this would end in a polarized battle.

Instead, he passively exposed himself, showed that he abolished “identical quiddity” (Levinas, 1981: 49). He neglected his defenses, left his safe shelter of being the boss—or even the savior. Instead, by making himself vulnerable and taking a chance, he exposed himself to outrage, to insults and wounding.

But instead of insulting and wounding him, they responded to his call and opened up as well. To expose oneself is also to take a chance, to run a risk of failure and embarrassment. The consultant took a risk. He risked that they would just mock him for his openness. He risked that they lost respect for him.

But he performed the ethical act and risked his exposure. His exposure was what made things happen. They all, thereby followed a Levinasian rationality as they made themselves vulnerable to the critique and attack of the Other, they all let the Other interrupt them, and they reached a solution not by defending themselves, but responding to the Other.