A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH TOTURNING POINTS “IRONY” AS AN ETHICS FOR NEGOTIATION PRAGMATICS

Some call this phenomenon aturning point,4 which is used to refer to a shift in the action, or what Druckman calls a “departure.”5 Others call it a criticalmoment6 and refer to a shift i

11 Harv Negot L Rev 147

Harvard Negotiation Law Review

to their skill at navigating difficult moments and seeming impasses.1 These are moments in *148 a conflict when a group’sdynamic changes2 times when something extraordinary emerges that occupies a nuanced space between a heightenedmoment of conflict, and the next moment where that conflict has been diffused or exacerbated.3 But this “something” the

“unexpected” exists independently of our ability to predict, control, or even describe it Some call this phenomenon aturning point,4 which is used to refer to a shift in the action, or what Druckman calls a “departure.”5 Others call it a criticalmoment6 and refer to a shift in the meaning of events in a social process.7 Still others, as Putnam and Holmer, and Learyhave noted, describe these critical moments as moments that generate changes in “persons, relationships, social processes andpolitical institutions.”8 These shifts create uncertainty in the negotiation game,9 Leary notes, and can open up the possibility

of learning insights about oneself, insights about the Other, insights about (improving) the relationship between Self andOther, and how interactions affect Self and Other.10 All of these perspectives share the assumption that negotiation is a non-linear process and that there are spaces or moments in the process where relationships, and *149 even the process itself,hangs in a precarious balance.11 Thus, “critical” refers to both the process outcomes and the relational trajectories, as well asthe formation of identity and the struggle for legitimacy.12

Turning points have been studied within a wide array of research methods, and each focus reflects a set of theoreticalassumptions Game theory and behavioral economics study turning points as alterations in the rules of the game.13 Similarly,communication theories, narrative analysis,14 conversational analysis of moves and turns,15 and frame analysis16 haveyielded understanding of the impact of communication processes on negotiation outcomes In ethnography,17 conversationalanalysis,18 content coding,19 and process tracing,20 researchers have worked to account for negotiation outcomes bydescribing features of the negotiation process These methods attempt to document change in negotiation or develop causalformulas to describe the negotiation process, but all too often the complexity of both the larger context of the conflict and theprocess of negotiation escapes the centripetal force of these kinds of explanations the factors are multiple and themselvesundergo qualitative changes that defy a simple formula or categorization While some call for increasing the variety andcomplexity of the variables under *150 analysis,21 critics of variable analytic methods have argued that “variables” or

“factors” are ensnared in the web of inter-subjectivity, and there expire, unable to be discretely separated from an expanding array of factors that are always themselves a product of the observer’s perception.22 From this perspective, theanalysis of “turning points” calls for new, non-reductionist methods that can withstand the complexity of process analysis andgenerate descriptions of evolutionary processes in negotiations where these turning points emerge

ever-The dimension along which negotiations evolve can be defined as the “relational dimension.” While it is the case thatnegotiations are embedded within larger conflict settings with other core dimensions (evolutions, for example, of thedefinition of the problem(s), the structure of the deal, and in the rules of the game), the development of the relationshipcertainly accompanies these evolutions From this perspective, the relational dimension is a fractal for any, and perhaps all, of

these other dimensions Many researchers have documented both the evolution and the devolution of relationships innegotiation and conflict processes.23 We know that turning points or critical moments reflect and/or create changes inrelationships, for better or for worse, but we are not sure how these turning points are generated, or how they themselvesevolve.

•Are these turning points linked (patterned), such that the initiation of a given sequence generates momentum, making thenext turning point more likely? If this is indeed the case, then both the positive and the negative evolution of relationships can

be understood as positive and negative cascading effects It would also imply that once cascades are in motion, they aredifficult to reverse

•Are there patterns in the evolution/devolution of relationships within a negotiation process? This is implied very generally inthe steps of the negotiation process as outlined by Fisher, *151 Ury, and Patton: “separate the people from the problem” is anovertly relational move that blocks cycles of blame;24 once that is done, the intense effort to understand the interest of theOther (i.e., “focus on interests, not position”25) as an engaged ethnographer is possible, and this, in turn, sets up theconditions for learning about Self, leading to the generation of creative options that enhance “mutual gain.”26 Theprescriptions offered in Getting to Yes can thus be seen as offering a map for generating turning points.27 Theseprescriptions, however, do not arise from a developed analytic framework that describes or explains the evolution ordevolution of relationships because this model was not aimed at description but at prescription

•Are these relational changes sudden, unexpected “departures”28 seen as non-linear only because our relational theorycannot account for them? Are they in fact linear, containing a still hidden causality/probability? Given that our statisticalmodels all too often lack the predictive power to forecast “probability,” what theoretical/analytic processes in the discoursecould be harnessed to account for what is currently perceived as non-linear change?

This Article offers a theoretical model, which might allow practitioners to identify, anticipate, or even generate a turningpoint, using it as an indicator of the stage of the relational or narrative development In Part I, I will review the literature onrelational evolution with an eye to those perspectives that are best equipped, theoretically, to address turning points in theevolution of relationships The work of the Mental Research Institute is offered as a framework for understanding conflictdynamics as “ironic,” setting the stage for understanding non-linear transformations (changes in the quality of therelationship) In Part II, I will offer a definition of turning points based on positioning theory, building on the notion ofconflict as *152 ironic.29 I will present a model for both defining and tracking a sequence of turning points in conflictnarratives using the notion of “positioning.” This concept is useful for understanding the intractability of conflict narrativesand suggests how these narratives could be destabilized, opening the way toward positive relational development Using theconcept of the “better-formed” story,30 I will offer criteria for differentiating conflict narratives from those that couldcontribute to positive relational development

This Article goes beyond merely presenting a theory of the sequence of turning points in narrative dynamics Thus, in PartIII, I will offer a strategy for actually generating these turning points Building on a description of conflicts as “ironicprocesses” (that is, conflicts as interactional cycles where the very efforts that persons make to solve the problem and reducethe conflict actually anchor and perpetuate the conflict), I explore the role of irony in the generation of turning points thatcontribute to the creation of positive relational development Building on Clift’s notion of irony as a frame that produces a

“shift in footing,”31 I will (a) build a conceptual frame for describing the nature of the turning points that are needed togenerate the positive evolution of narrative toward new positions-in-discourse for all parties, and (b) provide somesuggestions as to how to enact turning points using irony The argument here is that because conflict is inherently ironic andbecause negotiation all too often takes place within an already problematic relationship, irony itself can be useful indestabilizing conflict narratives, creating the narrative context within which content can be negotiated “containing” theconflict The spiral model of turning points offers a description of different kinds of turning points, and posits a sequence fortheir positive development.32 Irony is described as a core feature of these turning points, fitting the definition of conflict as anironic process Thus, *153 irony is both a theoretical condition of conflict, as well as the framework for designinginterventions

In Part IV, I will suggest that this ironic practice, pertinent to the generation of turning points in positive relationaldevelopment, is a form of ethical practice in negotiation Defining ethical practice as a function of legitimacy in discourse,the sequence of turning points I propose generates narratives that provide for the positive positions for all parties.Additionally, these turning points are ethical in that they construct a narrative in which they internalize, rather than

externalize, responsibility Thus, the Article intends to describe a framework for understanding relational development as afunction of turning points, which themselves reflect the ironic nature of conflict, as well as ironic transformations in conflictnarratives I offer this model as a way of understanding and generating turning points, arguing that this is one way toconstitute an ethics of practice.

I Understanding Turning Points and Their Effect on Relational Development Within the Negotiation Process

Relational development has been described across a variety of disciplines and practical domains, allowing us to identify anddefine relational stages within negotiation processes Yet a survey of these efforts reveals that they have not yieldednormative descriptions of the sequence of turning points in the process of relational development despite considerable work

on identifying relational stages Researchers have been able to conceptualize relationships in complex ways This Part willstress the need for better methods to direct and assess the dynamics of change in relationships as they are happening, in theprocess of negotiating the relationships themselves

A Relational Development in Negotiation Research

Relational shifts are more than empirical surface changes in words and behaviors; they are alterations that shift theontological conceptions of both Self and Other and the relationship between them A review of the literature on relationaldevelopment within negotiation research reveals that while relational development is a *154 core issue, it has not beenconceptualized as a staged process sequenced by either process or structural features While there is research that tracks theevolution of relationships that relational shifts occur33 there is little research that distinguishes variation or sequence in thenature of such shifts Kolb and Williams have, for instance, created a typology of “moves and turns” in negotiation processes,and they address their impact on the relationships within the negotiation process.34 However, these moves and turns are not,

in and of themselves, defined as relational shifts, despite the fact that they impact relationships; instead, their focus was onthe strategy of managing negotiation processes, especially for women While their typology is not itself a sequence, Kolb andWilliams are careful to track changes in the dynamics of negotiators’ responses to moves, they are attentive to the unfolding

of the interaction via moves and turns.35 This is an important contribution even though they do not define relational-shifts, patterned within a developmental sequence, as patterned alterations in conceptions of Self and Other.36Thus, while there is much we do know about strategic moves within negotiation, there is much unexplored territory regardingthe dynamics of evolution in relationships

moves-as-B Relational Development in Communication Research

Communication research also provides some models of relational development Knapp, for example, posits the presence of aset of stages for the development and termination of relationships.37 Though Knapp posits the features of each stage, thesestages are not described in terms of the process for the evolution from one stage to the next.38 Similarly, Sluzki has modeledcoexistence between ethnic *155 groups as a function of a set of stages in the evolution or development of relationships.39But like other communication researchers, Sluzki has described characteristics of these stages without discussing the nature

of the shifts that allow for movement between these stages However, stage theories do enable us to begin to posit thecomponents of an evolution They call for attention to the dynamics of the evolution of the stages themselves

C Relational Development Within Psychology and Psychiatric Research

Within more psychological approaches to conflict processes, there has been considerable attention to trust and trust-building

as the process that reflects relational development.40 If “trust” is defined as an intra-psychic attribute of an individual, itcannot function as a measure/descriptor of relationships, much less of relational development.41 While the “trust-building”exercises and efforts within a negotiation process may indeed increase trust, there has been no attention to trust-buildingexercises, relative to relational development, or to descriptors of a sequence in the trust-building process, even though trust iswidely understood as incremental (as opposed to non-linear) and impacted by situational factors.42 “Trust” is a socialpsychological approach to relational development assessment, and as *156 such, it is less equipped to account for thedynamic processes within discourse, in interaction

New research in relational psychoanalysis yields promising new understandings of the processes of transference andcountertransference as the context for the negotiation of a relationship.43 Analysis from this perspective is an inter-subjectiveprocess in which the analyst/patient relationship becomes the context in which the healing of the patient’s pathology occurs

As Pizer has noted, this “negotiation” constructs the analyst as symmetrically responsible for changing and growing, andproviding, in that way, the context for the evolution of the patient.44 Pizer has described the unfolding of the analysis as aprocess involving the “negotiation of paradox,”45 and while he details these paradoxes, he does not offer a description ofrelational development except to show, through the careful use of a patient’s case history, the emergence of the ability of

patient and analyst to live with paradox While this is an extremely provocative perspective on human development, themarkers of the development are obscured by psychoanalytic theory that posits the inability to negotiate paradox as a function

of pathology and limitations

Pizer made a notable contribution to our understanding of relationships within the negotiation process by providing a way toframe development as the negotiation of paradox, but that negotiation, by *157 the nature of paradox itself a conflict incriteria for classification defies a sequential or developmental modeling Even though Pizer does not offer a developmentalsequence, his excellent case studies underscore the paradoxical complexity of his relationship with his client However,Pizer’s own openness to multiple interpretations of his work with the client leaves me, as a reader, unsure as to how he wouldmark the developmental stages, if any, of the emerging capacity to navigate paradox As a negotiator and a conflict resolutionpractitioner, I prefer to have markers or indicators, in a developmental sequence, that would signal the evolution ordevolution of my relationship with my client I need something other than self-reflection, or my own dreams, something otherthan the multiplicity itself or the satisfaction of grappling with paradox, as a guide Therefore, while Pizer offers a glimpseinto the complexity of inter-subjectivity and the negotiation of relationship, he opens up but does not reduce this complexity,and the result, ironically, is less, rather than more, clarity as to the means of generating relational evolution.46

Hoffman, in the psychoanalytic tradition, does offer a theoretical frame for generating relational development that hasembedded in it not just description, but instruction for practice.47 These insights have implications to the extent thatnegotiations include therapeutic moments, as do all social relationships Hoffman argues for the creation of a “liminal space”for the transformation within the analytic relationship; this space allows patients to explore creatively who they can become

it is a space between the conscious and unconscious mind, a threshold space between being and becoming.48 It allows for thespontaneous emergence of new ways of being While Hoffman does provide some instruction and recommendations on how

to generate relational development, he also mystifies this instruction by advocating spontaneity, which works against anysystematic understanding of the sequence between these moments.49 He does not hypothesize the creation of a set of turningpoints that are related to the emergence of this liminal space, nor turning points that may follow the creation of this space.Merely formulating or theorizing *158 the “inter-subjective”50 does not imply that there exists a set of turning points thattrack or map change (negative or positive) in relationships Further, with the notion that psychoanalysis is a deeprestructuring of intra- and interpersonal processes,51 Hoffman presumes that transformation will be progressive, long-term,and, by implication, incremental as opposed to non-linear

In sharp contrast, the team at the Mental Research Institute52 created “brief therapy,” which is an approach to thetransformation of relationships that aims to create non-linear change by interrupting cycles in which patients/clients applysolutions to problems that can intensify and worsen those problems Referred to as “ironic processes,”53 this approach totherapy theorizes that solutions to problems lie in getting people to enact less of the solution, or its 180-degree opposite.What is “ironic” in this context is the often chronic way in which people’s “solutions” applied with the best of intentions toproblems exacerbate those problems The focus on “ironic processes” enabled clinicians to attribute positive intent to theseproblem-generating solutions as they focused on the interactional loops that were anchored by those “solutions.” This was aninterpersonal/interactional, rather than intrapsychic, perspective, one that allowed these clinicians to escape the necessity ofcreating definitions of symptoms based on individual pathology In turn, conceptualizing conflict as “ironic” increased theirattention to the role of unintended consequences and patterns of social interaction and the realization that we, even asindividuals, are still embedded in a social matrix with other individuals equally embedded in a social matrix

These communication specialists were not tracking the evolution of relationships explicitly, but rather were focused oninteractional sequences; they were experts at generating turning points in problematic cycles Since they were interested inthe interruption of the *159 problem and the solution traps and not the quality of relationships, these interventions, which can

be seen as turning points, are not tied to any theory on the evolution of relationships.54 However, as Rohrbaugh and Shohamhave noted,55 the communication specialists did document the way that relationships deteriorate through the application ofsolutions that exacerbate problems Interrupting problem/solution cycles leads to new interactional patterns that hold overtime, so this approach provides some theory on relational devolution and strategies for intervention that generate long-term,second-order change in relationships.56

In summary, there needs to be a shift in emphasis from descriptions of relational stages to descriptions of the process ofevolution, from an emphasis on outcome to an emphasis on process Description of relational development as a non-linearevolutionary process, not as a set of stages, would enrich our understanding of negotiation, as we would then be in a position

to design, not just identify, changes in process Pizer’s link between well-being and the ability to negotiate paradox highlights

complexities of the inter-subjective spaces that I will elaborate in Part II, addressing the dynamics of positions in discourse.

So while the research reviewed in this Part offers descriptions of changes in interaction, or changes in relational states, oreven change processes themselves, there is much we need to learn about non-linear change processes, as well as the sequence

of the turning points that accompany those processes This is a new area of research in negotiation that has, to date, focused

on retrospective analysis of the turning points in negotiation.57 However, given the *160 high stakes of many negotiations,nationally and internationally, it would potentially be very useful to be able to not only identify turning points prospectively,but also to generate them We need to be able to identify them, in situ, as the interaction unfolds Thus the dynamics ofrelational evolution could be evaluated in the action, not in the outcomes of that action In Part II that follows, I offer adefinition of turning points, as well as a theoretical framework for positing them as a sequence

II A Model for Turning Points as Positions in Discourse: A Narrative Perspective on Relational Evolution

As the above survey of the literature of relational development makes clear, models in psychology and sociology arecommonly rooted in the assumptions of evolutionary trajectories, however implicit, that either move or deviate along acontinuum I argue that this linear approach does not sufficiently account for the ways in which turning points contribute tothe evolution of relationships in the negotiation process This Article offers a spiral model for the development of turningpoints Drawing on Harré and van Langenhove’s concept of “positioning theory,”58 I conceptualize turning points in terms ofSelf/Other positions elaborated in discourse.59 Harré and van Langenhove’s theory of “positioning” provides a foundation for

a new analysis of turning points in the interaction itself, rather than in relation to the outcomes of the interaction Further, thisanalysis sets the stage for a set of prescriptions as to how to generate turning points

A Conflict Narratives, Positions in Discourse, and the Relational Struggle for Legitimacy

A conflict narrative is a story that contains specific features: first (and perhaps foremost to the parties involved), the narrativeprovides legitimacy for Self, while de-legitimizing the Other Additionally, it is often the case that the character roles aresimplified, both in number and in nature It advances a plot line that has a linear causal structure with the initial conditionsresiding in the bad intentions, bad actions, or bad traits of the Other It is often the case that the plot is simplified; at times ithas no future, at times no past Finally, *161 it provides an evaluative schema based on binary and polarized moral values,and it is often the case that the moral themes are deeply resonant with a cultural value system, which makes it seem natural toprivilege their centrality.60

Conflict narratives function rigidly to maintain, if not increase, polarization Accordingly, turning points that generatepositive change would need to destabilize the core features of a conflict narrative (character roles, plots, and moral themes).Ironically, the fact that the discussion of the relationship itself can easily activate conflict and reduce mutual inquiry,particularly in the context of protracted conflict, makes it more difficult to reach a negotiated and sustainable outcome, sincesuch an outcome depends on the development of the relationship

Destabilization of a conflict narrative is not likely to be effected through confrontation or pleas Further, efforts to “focus oninterests, not positions”61 on top of a conflicted relationship can lead to outcomes that do not, fundamentally, alter the nature

of the relationship, as is clearly the case in failed peace negotiations As Rohrbaugh and Shoham note, conflicts arethemselves very ironic in that persons apply solutions to problems that all too often reproduce and intensify the conflict.62The complexities of conflict narrative and the irony of conflict itself begin to account for how difficult it is, from within, toalter One’s own conflict narrative, much less the conflict narrative of the Other The intractability of conflict narratives can

be seen, in turn, as a function of the positioning process

Harré and van Langenhove define “positioning” as the process, in interaction, in discourse, by which persons come to occupy

a moral location in that discourse.63 A “position” in discourse is a function, they argue, of the storyline that is underdevelopment in a conversation or social process.64 Positions are locations in moral *162 frameworks they are not roles orscripts because they are fundamentally reciprocal and oppositional, particularly in conflict narratives where each personpositions Self as victim and Other as victimizer Positions confer rights, duties, and obligations on persons and, in theprocess, instantiate the moral frameworks and narrative structures that constitute these positions

Furthermore, positions confer or deny social legitimacy on persons and, given that access to resources (relational, financial,organizational, etc.) depends on legitimacy, the struggle over position is inevitable precisely because these positions areoppositional and reciprocal.65 All positive positions constitute the presence of their negative the person constructed in anarrative as “kind” will be contrasted or would have been (in the history of that relationship or organization) contrasted with

a person who was not.66 We only know what is positive through the shadow presence of the negative.67 And even thoughcriteria for constituting a positive position varies with the context, there is certainly enough patterned regularity within and

across cultures to be able to know, ahead of time, the criteria that could be mobilized in narrative for the construction ofpositive and negative positions For example, “patriotic” is clearly a term that has been mobilized since September 11, andOthers who are not “patriotic” are often constructed as “disloyal” to “our men and women in uniform.” This positional set(patriotic/disloyal) has been used so often that it contextualizes every conversation about, for example, the war in Iraq In theaftermath of the attacks, disagreement with the Bush administration has been all too often framed as “callous” to thesacrifices our troops make, or as being “soft on terrorism” another version of a negative position.

*163 In summary, the conflict narrative is the locus for the struggle over meaning, which is, in turn, the locus for the struggle

over legitimacy who is right, who is wrong, who is good, who is bad, and why.68 The criteria for legitimacy emerge in thesocial construction of positions in interaction, reflected in the conflict narrative.69 In the process of negotiation, the strugglefor position is complicated by the story that contains the substantive issues that populate the definition of the problem thenegotiation over any resources is a negotiation for access to resources,70 which is a function of the legitimacy that isconferred on people via the positions they occupy in discourse.71 Further, legitimacy is the discursive condition on which theprivilege of access to resources depends, so it is not the resources themselves, but the access to them that is at stake in thenegotiation process

B From Conflict Narrative to “Better-Formed” Stories

Luckily for those of us who have ever been de-legitimized, legitimacy is fluid always incomplete, slightly unstable, and *164 evolving Because positions are unstable, even the best relationships, where positive positions are reciprocally androutinely constructed,72 can become problematic And once this is so, it is very difficult for the relationship to evolve ordevelop in a positive direction, despite the inherent fluidity of positions Once instantiated, these positions become the basisfor the relationship, and characterize the present as well as the past and the future of that relationship.73 The tenacity ofdiscursive positions is a function of their triadic interactional structure, including:

partial (1) A “proposal”74 of the position set (for speaker and Other, as positions are always reciprocal) by a speaker, complete withthe criteria for the evaluation of good and bad, and a narrative framework that provides the logic for a position;

(2) The interactional elaboration (acceptance, rejection or modification) of that proposal, by Others whose positions areimplicated; this elaboration is itself a proposal;75 and

*165 (3) The elaboration (of Other’s elaboration) by the original speaker.

Because elaborations of a given position, which can themselves be proposals, are chains of elaborated proposals, it is verydifficult, if not impossible to locate the beginning of the chain, even if (or perhaps especially if) participants’ perspectives areused to identify the beginning of the chain.76 From this perspective, a position in discourse is not a static outcome of theconversation; it is itself, by nature, a negotiation of the narrative system that contains the criteria for constructing legitimacyitself

The narrative system is dynamically constructed through interaction, and its hegemonic power is a function of the coherence

of the plot (the causal sequence of events that structure past, present, and future), character roles, and themes or core valuesthat are used to evaluate those roles in the context of that plot Changes to this narrative system, when elaborated by others,destabilize the hegemonic control of narrative and open it to new plot events, new causal logics, new themes, and newcharacter roles.77 When negative positions are elaborated, they generate changes in the narrative that reduce the complexity

of the plot and themes, as the de-legitimized make counter-accusations, denials, excuses, and/or justifications Rather, *166the process of “opening” the narrative involves the construction of positive positions for the Self and the Other, owningparticipation in the unfolding of the events past, present, and future and participating in the elaboration of a moralframework that “contains”78 the (discourse) positions of both parties This, in turn, generates the conditions by which personscan, at the meta-level, take responsibility in the narrative for the conditions for the emergence of narrative itself The result is

a narrative that is collectively elaborated and generates interactional patterns that contribute to relational development.Narratives that display these conditions can be said to be “better-formed” and have the following characteristics:79

(1) Roles that offer positive positions for all parties;

(2) Plots that display circular logic, rather than linear “punctuation,” creating descriptions of interdependence between actors;(3) Plots that display circular logics and temporal complexity, with elaboration of past, presentn and futures; and

(4) Moral frameworks that are complex, rather than dualistic and polarized

The “better-formed” story generates interactional patterns that are collaborative and constitutive of sustainable relationships.Thus, the “better-formed” story can provide another lens on sustainable agreements Further, “mutual gain” can beunderstood as the construction and elaboration of a narrative that contains the features of a “better-formed” story From this

perspective, Pareto optimality80 can be re-defined using narrative and positioning theory: it is the narrative, collectivelyelaborated, which contains the features listed above that *167 generate resilient narratives, creating a positive spiral that itselftends to inoculate the interaction against relational devolution.81

While “optimality” can be seen as a function of narrative features, this lens alone does not describe the pragmatics thatgenerate the narrative features associated with a positive relational spiral In other words, knowing the narrative features doesnot tell us how to generate them This Article offers a theoretical model for a pragmatics of narrative changes as “turningpoints” that contribute to the positive evolution of conflicted relationships

C Turning Points as Narrative Transformation: Generating Positive Relational Development

Drawing on the research on “better-formed” stories which provides the basis for a normative narrative model,82 there arethree dimensions of narrative that require transformation in the movement from conflicted to “better-formed” narrative:(1) Plot (from linear to circular logic, as well as from temporal simplicity to complexity, i.e., past, present, and future);(2) Character roles (from de-legitimized Others to legitimized Others, as well as less than totally legitimate Selves/Speakers);and

(3) Themes/values (from dualistic to complex value systems)

Turning points,83 (TP) can be seen as elaborated proposals in discourse which contribute to these shifts (see Figure 1 below)

Figure 1

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

KeyNote: Stage 1 is the initial condition; Turning Point 1 follows Stage 1 However, in all other stages, the turning pointsgenerate the stage, so they precede the stage

Stage 1: High in legitimacy for Self, Low in Legitimacy for Other

Turning Point 1: Reducing Legitimacy for Self (speaker explores their ‘underbelly‘); involves a proposal made by speakers,elaborated by their Other(s), that constitutes the speakers themselves as less than perfect

Turning Point 2: Increased legitimacy for Other (a proposal made by speakers, elaborated by their Other(s), that constitutesOther as less than totally de-legitimate (or slightly legitimate)

Stage 2: Moderate Legitimacy for Self and Other

Turning Point 3: Creation/elaboration of ironic (circular) plot (a proposal made by speakers, elaborated by their Other(s), thatconstitutes a circular logic in the plot)

Stage 3: Reconstruction of Shared History

Turning Point 4: Creation/elaboration of multiple possible scenarios (a proposal made by speakers, elaborated by theirOther(s), that adds complexity to the temporal dimension of the plot (developing the present, past, or future)

Stage 4: Construction of a Shared Future

Turning Point 5: Reflection on shared/distinct values, from overlapping traditions (a proposal made by speakers, elaborated

by their Other(s), that adds complexity to the value system in the narrative, reducing the polarization of values)

Stage 5: Construction of a Shared Value System

A systemic approach to narrative would suggest that these five turning points are equivalent in their utility/function in theproduction of a “better-formed” story, in the sense that one could “start” with any of them Positioning theory, however,would suggest that plot and themes serve the production of positive/negative valence of *169 roles (positions)84 as thediscourse position, not as the content of the conflict; plot and themes are primary to social process.85 If the positions indiscourse drive interaction, then we could posit that positions are altered prior to shifts in plot sequence or value systems(themes) Or, to put it another way, if we try to shift the plot and the themes without having made or simultaneously making

some shift toward the legitimacy of the Other and/or toward our own de-legitimacy, proposals to make plots or themes morecomplex will not hold, despite the fact that these changes may “improve” the story For example, in the case of the MiddleEast conflict, attempts to augment the story line to elaborate future scenarios, each building from a different metaphor of thepast, would be less likely to “jell” than if those attempts were made after each side identified how their actions increased theviolence of the Other’s actions how each side has forced the Other toward more violence While this does not producepositive positions, it does require each side to reduce the legitimacy of its own position As we have seen, moving forwardwith peace proposals all too often requires parties to paste solutions on top of de-legitimized positions each side maintains apositive position for Self (victim) and a negative position for Other (victimizer) The result is all too often a “fragile peace”followed by renewed violence.86

The implication here is that even though there are many ways to generate narrative transformation (shifts in plots, themes,and character roles), those changes that impact the legitimacy/de-legitimacy of character roles (reducing victim/victimizer)are most likely to create what Pearce and Cronen called “charmed loops,” or positive interactional cycles in which therelationship becomes the context for the *170 interpretations, which lead to actions that enhance the relationship.87 Theseloops/spirals have a momentum that, once started, have as much force as the cascading effects of accusation and blamecycles Either way, the legitimacy or de-legitimacy of the speakers is primary to relational evolution and devolution

Therefore, there are many ways to generate changes in narrative components; the turning points that alter discursive positionsenable subsequent changes in plots and moral themes to jell The reverse is not the case changes to plot or themes which donot simultaneously lead to changes in discursive positions do not generate cascading effects that lead to “charmed loops.” Inthis way a logic in the sequence of turning points can be posited (with the possibility that TP1, TP2 and TP3 beinginterchangeable, with TP4 and/or TP5 following) For example, it would be more likely for a new set of shared values toemerge from the negotiations of the Middle East conflict after the creation of a circular logic that displayed the tragic irony ofeach side’s role in the production of the ongoing, intractable, conflict that has brought them to the negotiation table.Discussions of shared values, in the absence a circular logic of the past that helps display interdependence, would likelybreak apart under the weight of linear stories where blame is externalized Likewise, efforts to develop scenarios of thefuture, which build in temporal complexity, would likely also collapse under the weight of efforts to maintain Self/victim andOther/victimizer positions in discourse.88 This implies that turning points that contribute to (a) reducing the legitimacy ofspeakers, (b) increasing or enhancing the legitimacy of their Others, and (c) creating a circular narrative logic are core to thedevelopment of the elaboration of a shared value system and future-oriented scenarios

Further, I would suggest that relative to TP1, TP2, and TP3, it is TP1 the reduction of legitimacy for Self that is crucial forreducing, in subsequent turns, the de-legitimacy of their Others Certainly the opposite is not the case; it would be unwise andimpractical to make proposals that would reduce the legitimacy of the Other without first reducing one’s own legitimacy

*171 Finally, the creation of a narrative that displays a circular logic could be elaborated, in principle, without shifts in the

legitimacy of either party or their Others, although it is unlikely from a practical viewpoint Parties want to externalizeresponsibility, which in turn, help them maintain their position as “victim.”89 As circular logic reduces the externalization ofresponsibility, it is unlikely that circular logic could be elaborated unless and until the legitimacy of the speakers is decreasedand the legitimacy of their Others increased Based on this logic, as opposed to empirical evidence, it is possible to prescribe

a sequence that could be more likely to generate positive cascading effects, leading to the creation of a better-formed story.This proposed sequence of turning points is as follows:

(1) TP1: Turning points that reduce the legitimacy of speaker’s construction of Self;

(2) TP2: Turning points that increase the legitimacy of the speaker’s construction of the Other; and

(3) TP3: Turning points that create a circular logic displaying the interdependence of the actor’s actions

While it is certainly plausible that the creation of shared values, and the construction of future scenarios, built on the presentfrom the past, could effect changes in discourse positions, I am suggesting that unless the positions are addressed first, theywill often disrupt the possibility of future orientation, or values exploration

In summary, I have defined turning points as proposals offered by the speaker that generate shifts in narratives, leading torelational development (or to its devolution) I have also suggested that this development is a dynamic process rather than aset of discrete sequenced stages Further, I have argued that the movement from a conflict narrative to a “better-formed” storyimplies not only a set of turning points, but also a logic for their ordering in terms of their import for relational development.But up to this point in this Article, I have not described how to generate these turning points In the Parts that follow, I shalloffer a framework for modeling the creation of these turning points from within the interaction, attending specifically to those

turning points that are generative of shifts in discursive positions.

*172 III Re-positioning Self and Other as “Shift of Footing” in Discourse: The Role of Irony in Relational

Development

Technically, there are many possible ways to generate turning points that alter positions in discourse Some methods, such as

“appreciative inquiry” rely on the formulation of questions that function to connote Others positively.90 Other methodsinvolve “reframing,” which has been widely acknowledged as a method of altering interpretations and opening parties to newways of understanding the conflict/problem.91 However, “reframing” is itself a broad category of technologies and all toooften provides no more than an explanation for change, rather than a prescription about how to change frames in ways thatare generative Some of these technologies involve paradoxical interventions,92 some advocate “shingled” frames,93 somerequire the restructuring of interaction through imposition of ritual,94 and some involve changes in key myths or scenarios.95This partial list demonstrates the complexity that lurks within the concept of “reframing.” This complexity all too often drawsour analytic attention to the “state change” itself (from one meaning to another) without necessarily providing a description

of how that change actually occurs

We know far more about how positions cannot be altered in conflict processes Direct confrontation, challenge, negation,accusation, excuses, etc., are all efforts on the part of speakers to alter the interpretative field in which the negotiation and theconflict are taking place We know from experience and research on “accounts”96 that all too often they backfire, increasinganimosity and even the likelihood of violence For new positions to be elaborated, not only must *173 they be “shingled”97 toexisting positions, i.e., overlapped onto existing positions, like shingles on a roof, so as not to appear out of the blue, but alsothey must be offered in a manner that invites Others to elaborate them From this perspective, re-positioning is not only afunction of new frames (plots, role, and themes), but also a function of delivery and elaboration of the “proposals”98 speakersmake in the process of negotiating a resolution to a conflict In other words, for a proposal to work as a turning point andactually shift positions in discourse, such that the relationship can develop, the proposal must itself be framed in a way thatenhances the possibility of its adoption

A Framing Proposals for Elaboration: Irony as Rhetorical Strategy

In Clift’s discussion of irony as a rhetorical device,99 she provides a description of irony as a practice that favors thedevelopment or framing of proposals that have high potential for elaboration She notes that irony, as performance, involvesthe creation of a frame by speakers, which places the speaker both inside and outside the frame through the way that speakersinvoke and simultaneously disqualify their own perspective Proposals made in this manner are at once advocated by thespeaker and indirectly contradicted The consequence is that ironic performance sets up a resonance between possible worlds,opening a space for play Consider the following example:

In negotiating for more space for my academic unit (ICAR), I had not been able to get a straight answer from a university

*174 official regarding exactly how much space we would be allotted in a new building Without this information, I was

unable to evaluate the offer to move ICAR into that space After I asked several times for specifics, the administrator saidthat there were too many contingencies to be able to provide specifics I finally confessed to him that I was too rigid a person

to deal well with contingencies (while he, on the other hand was more “evolved” and “flexible”) After much hilarity about

my rigidity, we sorted the contingencies into “small c” contingencies and “large C” contingencies He then went on to “help

me with my rigidity” by giving me a baseline figure of square feet that I could count on From that point on, we havemaintained the “joke” about my rigidity last week he introduced me to the contractor, calling me the Director of Rigid (I amthe Director of ICAR) There were lots of joking about “rigid clients,” and I promised the contractor I would go to therapy.When I see the contractor now, he asks me how the therapy is going, and I tell him “terribly.” I then proceed to let him knowabout all the problems I have noticed in the construction, which, were the therapy to take hold, I might not see He threatens

to find me a new therapist, but then addresses the construction problems I now have a relationship with this administratorand the contractor a relationship that works when we play with the problems that arise.100

In this vignette, there was a conflict materializing that would have, could have, pitted me, as an academic administrator,against one of the staff inside of Plant Management Division of the university Within a polarized relationship, that contractorand Division could have stalled our construction project interminably I could have complained to the Provost, perhaps to noavail, and perhaps leading to increased anger on the part of the contractors Anyone who has worked with contractors beforecan see the path that would unfold, and anyone who is a contractor reading this Article is also familiar with the deterioration

of a relationship with clients

*175 While some may argue that this vignette is not necessarily ironic, but rather demonstrates the use of humor101 or

flattery, I would argue that the discursive structure of the episode above is indeed an example of ironic practice, in that theactors, the characters, are both inside and outside they are the framers, and they are the ones doing the framing ofthemselves, explicitly so This ironic performance, maintained over subsequent interactions, is complex on multiple levels,but to simplify, it is an example of ironic performance in the way the speaker de-legitimized Self and legitimized Other But

it is different from instances where I really de-legitimize Self (perhaps detailing my failings to family and friends in a waythat is filled with self recriminations and requests for support) My positioning of Self is presented as play, which contradictsthe move precisely as it is made; truly rigid people cannot bear framing themselves as rigid, while flexible people can framethemselves as rigid So the de-legitimized position disqualifies itself, and, like a double negative, converts to positive.Likewise, the speaker’s construction of the Other as positive shimmers on the horizon of my construction of him as

“recalcitrant”102 (stubborn) There is an intentional play in my construction of Other as “flexible” in a context where he hasrefused to cooperate, and his laugh recognized that “play.”103

*176 Further, as Clift notes, the performance itself locates me, as speaker, both within the frame (rigid) and outside it (being

the person who is framing myself).104 Being inside and outside of the frame at the same time constructs a position of

“detachment” for the speaker, as irony is often used to make negative judgments that otherwise are too disqualifying orimpossible to propose without destroying the relationship and setting a negative escalation in motion: “[S]ince irony makes adegree of detachment possible, it is unsurprising that it should be used to make negative evaluations; there is, after all, littleneed to disassociate oneself from positive judgment.”105 Far from being only an issue of play, ironic performance has an

“edge.”106 It offers judgment and evaluation, often in places where the ironist can “enter potentially sensitive interactionalterritory.”107 The “edge” in irony has historically been fed by its association to power or authority, often mobilized to effectevaluations that could not otherwise be spoken.108 For this reason, irony often has negative connotations: “The negativeconnotations of irony (deception, disparagement, destabilization) which enter theoretical discourse with the word and itsderivation from the Greek eiron are never totally absent from the discussions of irony’s normative politics.”109

*177 Precisely because ironic performance is an evaluative practice, it creates both exclusion and affiliation.110 Exclusionoccurs through the creation and adoption of the dimensions for evaluation of legitimacy (“rigid versus flexible”).111However, affiliation happens as that framework and the positions it implies are adopted and elaborated by both parties.Further, since Others do not elaborate proposals where they are negatively positioned, affiliation can be seen, pragmatically,

as the elaboration of a proposal of a positive position, by speaker, for Other

The affiliated response often appears, as Clift notes, through the play surrounding the extension of the ironic performanceitself, over several turns.112 This was the case in the example above, as the university administrator, and then later thecontractor, extended and perpetuated the joke Laughter is clearly evidence of the irony it is the sign that the “shift infooting” has been adopted

Irony can be performed in a variety of ways,113 both verbally and symbolically For purposes of this Article, I will limit mydiscussion to the performance of irony through exaggeration (Clift calls this the “impossible descriptions” irony114),understatement, and reversals or inversions Ironic performance through exaggeration is clearly present when a speakerexaggerates a trait/feature within a story (a *178 “disagreement” is referred to as a “pitch battle,” or “obedience” is referred

to as “robotic compliance,” or failure to recall a date or face is referred to as “Alzheimer’s”) For facilitators, this kind ofexaggeration creates an inside-outside footing in a negotiation one has to have enough distance from the trait/feature toexaggerate it and can be very helpful in that it pokes fun at the feature being exaggerated However, when exaggeration of anegative position for Other is performed (a temperamental leader is framed as a “chest-pounding gorilla”), the result is notaffiliation but exclusion that could lead to anger, humiliation, and the devolution of relationships, as Hutcheon has noted.115For exaggeration to build affiliation between the parties, it must not be harnessed to the point where there is a production ofnegative positioning in the discourse

Understatement is another mode of ironic performance In the reverse of exaggeration, speakers minimize the feature/traitwithin the story, and again, this understatement can be harnessed to generate relational development or devolution To frameoneself as “cranky” about the decline of stock valuation in conversation with one’s financial advisor is likely anunderstatement that signals a depth of anger not acknowledged; the speaker is, thus, both in the frame and outside the frame,creating the frame in which she and the advisor exist This inside-outside quality creates a “safe” space for the exploration ofthe relationship Because the advisor knows that the speaker actually is much more than “cranky,” and recognizes that thespeaker has chosen a more playful (minimizing) term, the advisor is much more likely to accept responsibility for missedopportunities or mistakes made on his part And from the speaker’s perspective, having the advisor take some (more)

responsibility for those mistakes increases, paradoxically, the speaker’s confidence in that advisor Again, ironic performancevia understatement can effect a “shift of footing” that is generative of “charmed loops” and relational development.

*179 The third mode of ironic performance is reversal or inversion.116 In these cases, speakers reverse the characterization of

a person or event For example, a “tyrannical” CEO of a family holding company becomes a “stressed out Uncle,” unable tosatisfy the never-ending requests of his spoiled family members for more money.117 Alternatively, overworked andpressured, as my boss knows I am, I might describe myself to my boss as having “everything under control.”118 This framecontradicts itself, and simultaneously constructs me, as speaker, as both in the frame and making the frame, positioning me at

a meta-level as positioning myself

While this short description of the three modes of irony is not exhaustive, it does provide the basis for understanding howirony is performed In the Part that follows, I explore how this performance can be linked theoretically and practically to thegeneration of turning points that contribute to relational development

B Irony and the Production of Turning Points in Relational Development

From traditional studies of irony as rhetorical practice119 to more modern and postmodern analyses of irony as dramaticperformance,120 theorists have noted that irony is a method, in discourse and in conversation of indirection, of what Bakhtincalls “sideward glances” at double meaning.121 Irony generates multiple meanings and, in so doing, generates instability,partiality, and incompleteness It confronts (indirectly) and destabilizes the hegemonic power of narrative and opens newpositions in discourse

*180 From this perspective, ironic performance is certainly a core resource for the generation of turning points, or a “shift in

footing” as Clift has called them.122 Rather than directly challenging a discursive position, ironic performance requiresspeakers to hold (and present, indirectly) the implied positive and the expressly negative positions they themselves hold inthe discourse, as well as the positive and the implied negative position of the Other This inside-outside formulation,shimmering in the interaction, pragmatically functions to create a space where neither party is perfect nor terrible Thisduality reduces the entrenched polarization of (discursive) positions in conflict sequences and opens the (liminal) space ofplay and exploration

Returning to the map of turning points that I offered, as implied by the conditions for “better-formed” stories, ironicperformance can be seen as the “shift in footing” that contributed to the narrative and relational development Recall that Iposited five turning points, each one core to the evolution of narrative dimensions central to a “better-formed” story Idefined these turning points as “proposals” that, when elaborated, generate shifts in positions via shifts in character roles,plots, and themes I further argued that these turning points can be sequenced, and that it is possible to argue that the de-legitimacy of a speaker by his or herself should be elaborated first, in an effort to set off a cascading sequence that would lead

to a “better-formed” story and a positive relational evolution Ironic performance allows speakers to begin this sequence,reducing their own legitimacy through exaggeration, understatement, and reversal or inversion The turning points areelaborated below, providing more detail to the “better-formed” story that results from ironic performance

Turning Point No 1: Exploring the Underbelly As speakers construct their legitimacy on the basis of a construct system in agiven conflict or negotiation (which no doubt changes with the context), their legitimacy always carries with it an

“underbelly” the ironic presence of the “downside” of the dimension or trait on which they construct their legitimacy (which

is usually not its linguistic opposite) For example, in a conflict where a boss is constructing Self as “organized,” theunderbelly could be a tendency to be outcome-oriented, rather than people-oriented So to the degree that any of us struggle

to maintain our legitimacy on the basis of one side of a given construct (“organized”), we are working to avoid theappearance of its underbelly (not people-oriented) When that underbelly appears, it *181 all too often looks similar to the

construct our Others are using to de-legitimize us (perhaps “uncaring” in this example).123 Exploration of that “underbelly”

in front of the Other might involve disclosing the ways that the boss struggles to remember, in his drive for organization, thatthere are real people involved with real emotions people that are likely better at “smelling the roses” than him

The proposal of the underbelly of the speaker’s own legitimacy by him or herself must not reduce altogether the legitimacy ofthe speaker the positive dimension remains “organized” but is made more complicated by the fact that it may lead to

“forgetting to smell the roses.”124 As I noted earlier, following Clift, ironic performance allows speakers to be in and outsidethe frame at the same time, signaling that they are themselves playing with the terms of their legitimacy, holding on to it andits underbelly at the same time.125

In the case of the Middle East conflict, for example, the Israelis might note that, in an effort to protect their land and theirstate, they have operated from a position of “insecurity,” fearing all around them.126 Of course, the underbelly of that fear

leads to a way of engaging the Other that in turn requires the Israelis themselves to be less likely to listen and more likely torespond with force, particularly in the shadow of the Holocaust In fact, because the Holocaust could never have beenpredicted from the initial threat that growing anti-Semitism posed, Israelis are now obligated to presume extremeconsequences for any reduction in their vigilance Forced by this required vigilance to become victimizers themselves, forced

to ignore and/or deny the consequences of the birth of Israel for the people living on the land that became Israel, they live in astate where fear rules their days and controls their politics This is a complicated *182 ironic formulation, as it proposes thatIsraelis know they are victimizers and wish for some way to be different even though their fear, confirmed by history anddaily violence, holds them in its grip The speaker’s ownership of their fear, in place of a focus on the Other’s violence,becomes the basis for a new, less legitimate but not de-legitimate, position

Turning Point No 2: (I’m OK.) You’re Sort of OK The second turning point involves moving to constitute the legitimacy ofthe Other through ironic performance For example, should the Palestinian leadership elaborate this formulation, they would

be able to move toward a discussion of the consequences of a politics of fear, acknowledging that they too are run by fear Ifthe Palestinians confirm that the Israelis are impossible to deal with because of their politics of fear, the Israelis could expresssadness that the Palestinians are themselves unable to listen and respond, either to the Israelis or even to themselves, giventhe emerging chaos in their governance, or in the territories, for they too are in the grip of fear This increases the legitimacy

of the Palestinians without condoning the violence they enact, by reducing the attribution of negative intention In this way,the Israelis signal sympathy for the Palestinians without reducing condemnation of the violence This would be a particularlypowerful move as it would also construct the Israelis as inside and outside, or able to be detached This kind of spaceincreases the safety of the space for subsequent conversation, as the speakers, in this case the Israelis, have demonstratedtheir ability and willingness to construct a dimension of legitimacy for the Palestinians Now there is, of course, no guaranteethat a positive spiral or charmed loop would emerge from either of these turning points But clearly, efforts to reachnegotiated outcomes to date have not yet altered the positions in discourse for either side, and, from this perspective, it is noaccident that the violence continues and negotiated settlement seems impossible

Turning Point No 3: What Goes Around Comes Around Once parties have opened the possibility of the legitimacy of theirOther, they are in a better position to reinvent history via the elaboration of an ironic narrative that displays the tragicinterdependence of each side’s role in generating the actions of the other in a “more of the same” negative spiral.127 Again, inthe case of the Middle East conflict, this would involve the public elaboration of a story about how *183 Israelis and

Palestinians fuel each other’s resolve for violence, and how that violence reduced the options for Israelis to respect thePalestinian historical perspective or their current needs While this story may have been told in Oslo, it was not widespread,and today I never hear either side lament the ironic tragedy of its actions Because this story constructs both parties asresponsible for the violence, it is not likely that either side would elaborate this story without first having elaborated its ownimperfection as well as the partial legitimacy of the Other (Note that the dimensions of imperfection or legitimacy for eachparty are different; to put it differently, there are diverse ways to be imperfect, and a multitude of ways to be legitimate Thisdiversity is of course a function of the culture that anchors moral codes and value frameworks.)

Turning Point No 4: Building the “Long View.”128 Having reconstructed an ironic past, the next turning point builds toward

a “better-formed” story and more resilient relationship It involves the creation of a shared future, collaboratively built from aset of possible metaphors that all have implications for both the structure and the process of solutions to problems Scenario-building is an example of ironic performance as it requires participants to hold multiple futures open, which in turn frameseach party as taking responsibility for choosing the preferred futures Again, the result is that each party constructs itself andthe Other as inside and outside as the creator of the metaphors for preferred futures as well as the inhabitant of those futures.Having reduced the polarization of victim/vicitimizer roles in turning points 1-3, this turning point is based on the logic ofinterdependence, shifting the footing from “reactor” to “actor.” This is a crucial point in the development of the narrative, aswell as the development of the relationship because a) it provides the discursive structure for a shared future, and b) it frameseach party as responsible for the creation of the discursive structure for that future (the meta-level)

Turning Point No 5: Remembering What We Always Have Known In this turning point, parties offer and elaborateproposals that construct and anchor a more complex value system, building on the new ways they know Self and Other, thenew (ironic) history, and the new (chosen) future Proposals that offer reflections on existing *184 and dormant values that

have emerged through the development of the “better-formed” story provide an ironic basis for a “shared” future (“we are inthis together”) built on a remembered past In this future, core values are re-discovered, having been buried under a blanket

of hate and fear The ironic performance here is the presence of the reversal/inversion the story of how core values, which