CADRE Resources

Dealing With Worldviews In Interpersonal Conflict

Anne Giacalone DiDomenico

Understanding worldviews is as elusive as understanding human nature. It is a reality based on unseen dimensions, unimagined proportions, and rooted in unacknowledged patterns of thought. Dealing with worldviews at the interpersonal level calls for two things up front: 1) a conscious awareness of the components of our personal worldviews and 2) a conscious awareness of how our worldviews work when we interact with others. HOW do we relate to others? How we think about this demonstrates our personal framework for thinking. So, what IS our personal framework? What thoughts, concepts, and ideas do we entertain? What beliefs and values underlie and support these thoughts, concepts, and ideas? What does relating to others look like when it is broken down into worldview components? How does a collective worldview impact a personal worldview? How does this information get translated into interpersonal conflicts? Bringing these questions to ground zero - the intrapersonal level - is where our exploration begins.

Personal Worldview Components

At the individual level, a worldview encompasses a person's ontology, epistemology, axiology, ethics (Nudler, 1993), cosmology, and theology (Sire, 1997). Every aspect of the individual's subjective world is brought together on the inner plane in order to create meaning. I use the metaphoric phrase, inner plane, to denote that place in each of us where the intricately connected aspects of our personalities interactively engage in the meaning making process. All of our accumulated learning - innate, intuitive knowledge and learned, environmental knowledge, becomes the material for building our worldview framework. From this framework, we see, interpret, and engage the world. Every person is positioned from a unique vantage point created specifically and personally to agree with personal early-life experiences. Perhaps, I can make this more clear by offering a few real life scenarios.

While playing outside, Jaime, a four-year-old, runs across a busy street to play with another neighborhood child. Observing this action, Jaime's parents experience a feeling of panic and with it a barrage of thoughts flood their minds. One parent quickly runs to the street and calls Jaime home. Once in the house, they reprimand their child for lack of caution in crossing the street. They describe the horrors of what could happen - the possibility of danger. Jaime, confused, hurt, and disappointed is punished. The child's worldview contrasts the parent's. Differing values modify behavior -- fun and companionship versus health and safety.

Pat and Jean drop by for an unexpected visit. They have just received great news and can't wait to share it in person with their best friend, Terri. Terri, on the other hand, is in the middle of a challenging project that is shadowed by a weighty deadline. Time is of the essence. Terri finds this visit imposing and assuming. Anxiety and frustration are mixed with guilt, as Terri wonders why they didn't call first. In this situation, different values are manifesting and creating an uncomfortable situation for Terri whether or not the emotions are expressed.

Alex suggests that the Community Human Relations Committee consider initiating ongoing dialogue at monthly meetings so that the group has an opportunity to explore bias and prejudice within the group as an exercise for dealing with bias and prejudice in the community. Although slow to react, all members ultimately respond with many voicing personal concerns. There is a sense of rising tension in the room as individuals express emotion-laden statements. Some see the idea as positive and necessary action -- an opportunity. Some see the same idea as negative with a destructive quality. It is seen as threatening. Others see the idea as having questionable possibilities. They are not ready to agree but not ready to discount the idea either. Portions of differing worl