Fighting, whether it be with family, friends, or romantic partners, is inevitable. All relationships have periods of ups and downs. The elated feeling a pair gets in the “ups” is un-paralleled, yet fleeting. I’d argue that it is far more important to know how to handle the inevitable “downs,” because, how two people choose to handle the “downs” will often determine the degree and longevity of their relationship’s “ups.” The following question often arises when conflict looms; what is the best way to overcome an argument? Many people would answer, “to win.” 

What individuals fail to accept is that “winning” most arguments is not worth the expense of losing any given relationship entirely. First and foremost, people need to view any and all conflict, or tension, as a problem that “we” (as platonic or romantic partners) need to solve together, rather than an argument in which one partner or the other needs to “win” against the other. Very few people enjoy fighting. However, I believe that there are great opportunities to be found in times of conflict. 

There is no such thing as a “winner” or “loser” when it comes to conflict… that is, unless the relationship becomes un-salvageable. So, how ought one salvage a relationship in times of turmoil? The multi-part answer is as follows; salvage your relationship in times of conflict through practicing active listening, placing oneself in the other’s shoes, calmly and collectively speaking, avoiding any use of “you” language, and ~if all else fails~ agreeing to disagree.

ACTIVE LISTENING:

What is active listening, and how can it serve to benefit the resolution of conflict? The quote, “listening is an art that requires attention over talent, spirit over ego, others over self,” sums it up perfectly. It’s one thing to hear and it’s another thing to place one’s ego and pride aside, and really listen. When one hears, he/she passively listens, without paying any great attention to detail, context, or content of what the other is saying. When one actively listens, he/she listens to understand, to grasp the depth of detail(s), context, and content from the conversation.

Often times, particularly when tensions are high, individuals listen to reply, rather than listen to understand. When two people collectively, consciously, unite in understanding of actively listening to one another, rather than hearing or listening in order to solely reply, common ground can be found.

STAND IN THEIR SHOES:

Once both parties are actively listening to one another, common ground can be found, and when this occurs, it opens the doors for both individuals to take a step into the other’s shoes. People often have a one-sided view of why they are “right” and the other is “wrong” in any given argument. However, there are gaps in context and content when relying solely on one’s own perspective; it’s cliche to note, however, it is true that every story has two sides. There are gaps in my knowledge, for instance, regarding the other’s feelings or perspective, which I’d never necessarily become aware of, unless I stood in his/her shoes and tried to see the situation from his/her point of view, rather than my own. 

“Standing in another’s shoes” does not mean that you need to agree with the perspective and/or feelings of the other person. It solely means that you consciously choose to be open-minded to new ways of looking at the one situation; active listening helps with this. Odds are in favor that, after taking into account the other person’s ideas, perspectives, and feelings, you will attain a better understanding of that situation and be able to resolve it in a cool and collected manner.

CALM AND COLLECTED SPEAKING: 

Many psychological and interpersonal studies report that tone of voice is everything when it comes to conflict resolution. These studies find that when one speaks in a lower volume with a less-aggressive tone, the other often replicates that calm and collected manner of speaking. However, when one yells and/or speaks in a loud volume, with an aggressive tone, the other will often replicate that same pattern of speaking. Speaking in a calm and collective manner equates to speaking with a low, non-aggressive, calming tone; it feeds water, rather than fuel, to the fire. What is particularly interesting about this principle is that it is a reverse-psychology tool that is progressive, as pertaining to conflict resolution. 

AVOIDING ANY USE OF “YOU” LANGUAGE:

“You” language can be one of the most detrimental forms of communication within conflict, which is why it is essential to avoid it at all costs. “You” language includes phrases such as, “You did this to me,” “you made me feel ‘x’ way…” You language is accusatory and incites aggression and defensiveness. Instead of using “you” phrases during times of conflict, one should instead use phrases such as, “When ‘x’ happened, it made me feel ‘x’ way,” or “This situation has led to ‘x’.” Avoiding any and all use of the word “you” in disagreement prevents individuals from feeling attacked, and instead, fosters a cooperative environment where active listening and calm and collected communication can take place.

AGREE TO DISAGREE:

As I’m sure most people have experienced, resolution can’t always be found. No two people are the same, and thus, no two people necessarily view any given situation with the same lens… and that is ok. Both platonic and romantic relationships would be incredibly mundane if every person you interacted with had the same perspectives, beliefs, and stances as that of yourself.

I’d argue that 90% of the time, if two people actively listen to one another, place themselves in the other’s shoes, speak calmly and collectively, and avoid any use of “you” language when communicating, resolution can flow naturally. However, there are still times where no resolution is or can be found. At this point, the pair must choose to compromise. A pair can compromise when each party sacrifices something to find some sort of middle-ground, or simply “agree to disagree.” 

Agreeing to disagree doesn’t mean that one person is right and the other is wrong. It simply means that individuals don’t necessarily see the same situation or the resolution of the situation in a similar way… and again, that is totally ok. If all else fails, it’s ok to agree to disagree. Doing so allows a pair to move progressively-past the issue, while still maintaining their unique positions, gaining mutual understanding of where the other stands, and being able to be sensitive and aware of the other’s position moving forward. No argument is worth “winning” at the expense of losing a relationship entirely; this is where “agreeing to disagree” comes in handy.