Orality and Conflict Management

Abstract

Perhaps, one of the most neglected aspects of the communication between actors in negotiation processes is the difference and interference between what is said and what is written down.

Many authors call for an open debate in which 'reframing' is a possible outcome and people engage in a constructive exchange of ideas about new solutions. This is based upon the spoken word, with all the virtues of it: continuous, direct interaction, the possibility to experiment with new expressions and forms of thinking, and to bring in the social-emotional dimensions of problems and solutions. On the other hand, negotiations need an empirical base, that exists in many reports and documents, with figures, tables, the listing of factors and arguments. And - of course - negotiations need a solid agreement, put in written words, available for the actors involved (and often for many others, including official institutions).

It is the exploration of the tension between 'orality' and 'literacy' that is subject of this contribution. First, I will illustrate the characteristics of orality, compared with those of literacy. After this, I will talk about the function of orality in negotiation processes, ending with a critical reflection on existing practices.