As Americans become more polarized, even family dinners can feel fraught. Tense conversations often end with a familiar refrain: “Let’s just drop it.”
As a communications educator and trainer, I am frequently asked how to handle these conversations. I assert that saying “agree to disagree,” or any other phrase that politely stands in for “stop talking,” will not restore harmony. It could do permanent harm to family bonds.
When families talk about anything, they are not just exchanging information. They are building trust and creating a shared story that deepens the relationships.
According to communication researcher Mark L. Knapp’s model of relationship development, relationships have a life cycle. People come together and solidify their connection through five stages, from “initiation” to “bonding.” Many relationships eventually come apart, going through five stages of breakdown.
One stage, in particular, illustrates why avoiding hard conversations is dangerous: “circumscribing.”
Imagine circumscribing topics of conversation with yellow police tape around them. Having a few of these “no-go” topics in a relationship probably will not doom a marriage or cause family estrangement. However, marking too many ideas as off-limits makes it easier for people to avoid conversation altogether.
Circumscribing is one of the “coming apart” stages. If problems aren’t addressed, a relationship can keep sliding to termination.
Social connection is a basic human need. Relationships do more than provide support; they play a key role in how people define themselves. According to psychology’s “social penetration theory,” conversation with close family and loved ones deepens relationships while helping people learn to articulate their deepest values.
So, if “agree to disagree” is not the answer, what is?
There is no one-time process that will fix all conflicts over the course of a family dinner. These techniques take time, patience and compassion. However, there are two techniques I recommend: “looping for understanding” and “reframe and pivot.”
Looping helps both people in a conversation understand each other. Feeling misunderstood tends to escalate conflict, so this is a great starting place.
During a “loop,” each person pays careful attention to what their partner is saying without judgment or interruptions. Then the listener shows their understanding by using what’s called “empathic paraphrase,” restating what they heard but also what emotions they perceived. Finally, they ask for confirmation that their understanding is correct.
If the speaker says no, the listener “loops” by asking them to explain what they got wrong and tries to paraphrase again. The participants keep looping until the answer to “Did I get that right?” is an emphatic “yes.”
However, that understanding may not be enough. Once both parties understand each other, another technique, “reframing,” can help pivot the conversation away from confrontation toward resolution.
In reframing, the speakers find and discuss a single point of agreement. By emphasizing what they agree about, they look for a starting place to tackle the problem together.
For example: I think you and I can both agree that we want to keep the family safe. However, I think we disagree about what role having a gun in the house would play in that safety. Is that right?
This reframing presents both communicators as having a key shared value. Reframing moves the conversation away from inflammatory language that could reignite the fight.
No technique will ever be perfect. Careful communication can be mentally exhausting. Pressing pause is always OK: I don’t think we are going to solve our nation’s financial issues tonight, but thank you for talking about it. Let’s keep doing it. But for now, I think there’s pie. Want some?
It’s important to accept that not all relationships can or should be saved. However, it is always good to know that the relationship ended for a clear reason, and not over a misunderstanding that was never addressed.
Lisa Pavia-Higel is an assistant teaching professor of English and technical communications at Missouri University of Science and Technology. Distributed by The Conversation and The Associated Press.
