From a storyline point of view, "Killing" shows the process of two couples seeking to resolve their conflicts. The conflict originally originated when one child knocked out another child's tooth, and the lawyer couple, as the perpetrator's parents, went to the injured boy's home to seek reconciliation with his parents. When the reconciliation was about to be reached and the lawyers and the couple were about to leave, for various reasons, the four returned to their home and had further communication in the closed space. On the surface, the two parties tried to seek a reasonable reconciliation method, but in fact they conflicted. Constantly escalating. By the end of the story, the two sides have completely deviated from the code of conduct in modern society, and violence is imminent. Interestingly, in the context of the completely fruitless meeting, the contradiction in the quarrel was naturally resolved: the two children were reconciled as before, and the little hamster did not die.
During the more than 70-minute meeting, although the relationship between the two parties has always been dynamic, it can be determined that when the two parties first met, they sat together for the purpose of seeking consensus. There were also many time points, and the consensus was about to achieved. But why did the two sides solve the problem in good faith, but in the end, the result of "reconciliation was repeatedly interrupted and the consensus was repeatedly torn apart"? In the following, the author will analyze the language, behavior and mutual influence of the four individuals, trying to find the reasons for the failure of reconciliation and the escalation of conflict. In order to accurately trace the language behavior of the characters, the author refers to the parents of the accident boy Zach as "lawyers" and "agents", and the parents of the injured boy as "salesmen" and "writers".
1. Word selection
First, among the various reasons for the escalation of conflict, the most obvious is the choice of words. When the two sides describe the process and outcome of the "kids fight", there are often conflicts over wording. For example, in the original written statement, the writer chose "armed" to describe the fact that Zach was carrying a wooden stick, only to be changed to "carrying" when challenged by lawyers. Obviously, arming represents a kind of subjective aggression, while carrying is simply describing behavior from an objective point of view. Starting with armed and carrying, the two sides have further conflicts over whether they have caused "disfigure", "injury" or "deliberately injury". Like armed, disfigure and deliberately are also full of strong subjective sins , after the two sides lost control of their emotions, the writer even used "victim and criminals" to define the identities of the two children. In fact, both armed and carrying are describing the behavior of holding a stick. Disfigure and injury are also describing the fact that Ethan was injured. At the level of objective facts, there is no difference between the two sides, but at the level of deep understanding, the two sides There is a huge conflict: the lawyer sees the whole incident as a little slapstick between children, while the writer sees it as an antisocial attack full of strong subjective sin. Under the circumstance that the conflict of understanding has not been resolved, once the writer brings his own subjective understanding into the objective description, it will lead to the resistance and disgust of the lawyer. At the same time, due to the repeated and continuous selection of these words with strong personal awareness (such as armed, disfigure, deliberately), lawyers feel that communication is more difficult and resistance is more necessary. Therefore, in the dispute over "injury" or "deliberately injury", the lawyer said "this is the most unbearable point for me". Maybe the dispute between "armed" and "carrying" was not a big problem at first, but due to the lack of consensus The repeated appearance of the words has caused the deterioration of the relationship between the two parties to gradually escalate from a quantitative change to a qualitative change.
2. Lack of information
Further analysis shows that the lack and asymmetry of information are also important reasons for the escalation of conflicts. The reason for Zack hitting Ethan is considered "no reason" in the eyes of the salesman and the writer couple, so they understand that Zach's behavior is an anti-social outrage. The reason Zach told the lawyer and his wife was "because Ethan, as the leader of a small group, did not allow Zach to enter the small group, and Ethan also made Zack's small reports." Although this reasoning has not been verified, the lack of this information is enough to make the salesman couple confident enough to believe that their son is a "no fault" victim, and it is this starting point that the writer uses repeatedly throughout the interview. He insisted that the other party should admit his "major mistake", asked the other party to severely punish his children, and raised the whole incident into an anti-social act of violence. Also because of the asymmetry of information, the lawyer couple could not understand why the other party was so paranoid when he viewed the matter. Later in the conversation, for a combination of reasons, the salesman and his wife chose to ignore their "possible missing information," and the writer angrily threw his backpack to the ceiling when he heard the agent mention "shared responsibility." Shout out "get out of my house" and "victim and criminals can't be the same." At this point, the writer has completely ignored the possibility that Ethan was also at fault, or chose to ignore this possibility.
3. Problem control
The initial question to be resolved in this meeting was "Zach wounded Ethan, how to reconcile", as the conversation did not end, the conversation naturally spread to many other issues, such as "The salesman threw the hamster on the street" Is it appropriate?” and “Whether the pharmaceutical company’s method of dealing with a public relations crisis is proper.” As the incident went on, the conflict between the two couples even turned into a conflict within their respective husbands. Accusing lawyers of not taking on family responsibilities and only caring about work. Looking back, whether the salesman sticks to the rules and whether the lawyer lacks responsibility has little to do with the main issue of "Zach injured Ethan, how to reconcile", and these derived contradictions are not helpful to solve the immediate problem. question, nor should it be mentioned on such occasions. At the same time, we should also note that, if not controlled, the scope of contradictions will gradually spread out.
4. Lack of common ground
At the beginning of the meeting, the two sides had a common goal of solving the problem of fighting between children. However, with the deepening of communication, the differences in the backgrounds of the two sides continued to emerge. Due to their professional backgrounds, lawyers and couples paid more attention to personal interests and practical interests in the process of dialogue, while salesmen and couples paid more attention to social norms and the degree of culpability of violent acts. , especially the writer, because of her long-term research on African projects, she has a deeper understanding and understanding of slavery and oppression, which makes her have her own special and strong political position in the contradiction between the perpetrator and the victim. While there is little connection between everything that happens in Africa and the problems they are currently addressing, it is precisely because of this particular political stance that writers' attitudes towards it are shaped by their social context, which The background is what the other three lack, and the contradiction becomes very justified at this time. Similarly, the other three parties (lawyers, brokers, and writers) also have their own unique behavioral habits and social backgrounds. For example, salesmen have specific fears of reptiles and mammals. If the two sides (or the Quartet) do not focus on finding common ground as the talks progress, it will widen the differences and escalate the conflict. In fact, during the conversation between the four people, the two sides had many opportunities to seize the common points to ease the atmosphere of the meeting: both the lawyer and the salesman like to drink whiskey and smoke cigars, and both the agent and the writer have dissatisfaction with their families... …These are opportunities to ease tensions, but both sides miss them.
5. Damage to non-entity interests
During the conversation, the parties concerned are not only concerned about the substantive interests (how to reconcile), but also the relational interests and procedural interests. The comfort and effectiveness of the conversation are affected by the conflict resolution process on the one hand, and vice versa on the other hand. affect the settlement of the entity's interests. In this case, due to the proliferation of conflicts and the escalation of conflicts, all parties during the conversation showed or expressed their discomfort. The lawyer privately called the salesman a sheep, and the salesman and his wife said that the lawyer was about to touch his bottom line. , the writer believes that the agent is extremely hypocritical, and the agent vomited on the spot because of excessive pressure. And the vomit stained the writer's collection of pictures and soiled the lawyer's suit. At the same time, the behavior of lawyers who continue to make calls during the conversation also seriously affects the coherence of the conversation process. Although this interruption sometimes avoids the instantaneous escalation of conflicts, repeated interruptions actually affect the effectiveness of the conversation, which further affects the settlement of entity interests. In an environment of unpleasant and incoherent talks, it was difficult for the two sides to reach a satisfactory consensus.
People are emotional creatures, especially when 4 ordinary people enter a negotiating environment, it is difficult for them to focus on the contradiction itself, try to control the problem and express it in appropriate language. Under the combined effect of the above reasons, the conversation eventually broke down and the conflict escalated step by step. When the conversation is deadlocked, the two sides have lost hope of resolving the conflict, and no one even remembers what the conflict was, at which point whisky becomes a loudspeaker for amplifying the conflict. Under the influence of alcohol, the prejudice and anger hidden in everyone's heart spew out, and no one cares about the code of conduct in modern society. But whisky wasn't really the main factor in the breakdown of the conversation. The moment the agent and writer asked the salesman for whisky, everyone was actually ready to vent. The alcohol at this point is just an excuse to make the whole thing explain more like "Western civilization ruined by whisky".
View more about Carnage reviews
