Fluent Essays

The primary goal of the replies is to discuss the threads by offering analysis and critiques to include specific strengths and weaknesses and other insights for consideration. In your replies, address at least 1 strength and 1 weakness per reply. Attached you will find 2 discussion posts that will need 2 different responses. Each response must be at least 250 words.   Each reply must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last 5–7 years, unless citing classic, philosophical, literary, or historical and theoretical content that is foundational to scholarly research, including those sources used in this class. Acceptable sources include course materials, and scholarly peer-reviewed sources, and the Bible.   Please use the rubric attached as a guide to ensure all areas are covered. Dr. Brene Brown is full of affirming strategies for engaging others in the midst of conflict situations. Three of the strategies which stood out during her talk with Marie Forleo were to re-humanize the people we debate with, to be humble and avoid polarization, and to act courageously even when it is uncomfortable. Dehumanization is dangerous because humans are hardwired not to do harm to other human beings. We dehumanize people in order to “morally exclude” them. If they are not human, then doing them violence is okay. Dehumanization is always the first step in systematic genocide (Forleo, Brown, 2017). I could not agree with this more. It is never okay to use derogatory language toward women or any group of people. Once you permit treating anyone you disagree with as subhuman, you are opening the door to more and more dehumanization as it suits you. This is not just an opinion Dr. Brown holds. “We all know, despite what we see in the movies that it’s very difficult, psychology, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities upon them,” so to be able to accomplish this people, “[treat] other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators,” (Smith, 2011). Genocide is frightening, but a current trend that terrifies me today is cancel culture. Dr. Brown addresses this by stressing being humble. She says not to opt out because it’s safe (Forleo, Brown, 2017). If we embrace our humanity and our fallibleness, it is frightening because we are vulnerable, but we also invite conversation and invite constructive criticism, not polarizing cancelation. I like the idea of telling the audience upfront that I do not think I am perfect. If you listen to me, I promise to listen to you. It is a conversation, not a cock fight. If I come to the conversation in a humble stance, perhaps others will, too. If I do not shame people, perhaps others will not shame me. We should try our best not be polarizing. Some people who consider themselves anti-abortion, may be very understanding of exigent circumstances, just as many who call themselves pro-death penalty might actually tend toward mercy in many specific cases. Forcing an issue to be black or white forces people into an “us or them” mentality (Forleo, Brown, 2017). Those who are not for us are automatically against us. This is why we are in such hostile times now. Why not invite conversation and examine the gray areas rather than make enemies? This reminds me of a lesson from our textbook. “Focus on interests, not positions,” (Fisher, Ury, Patton, 2011, p.42). Once you dig in to your own camp or position, your ego is in the way, and you are no longer actively listening or helping to get to a resolution. Lastly, the ladies encouraged action. Have the difficult conversations. Try to understand. Ask the tough questions. Tell your insensitive co-worker he is not funny. I struggle with this one and have already, based upon the things we are learning in this course, challenged myself to be bolder and more assertive. I do not intend to be a bully, but I intend to be heard.  At the heart of all three strategies is humility. The humble person does not force his or her opinions on others and is thus not polarizing, and does not dehumanize others. The humble person attempts to understand his or her peers and meets others in a spirit of love. “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God,” (NIV Rainbow Study Bible, 1973/2015, Micah 6:8).   References Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B., (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3rd ed). New York, New York: Penguin Books Forleo, M., Brown, B., (2017, Sep. 12). COMS 560: Communication and Conflict. Module 4: Week 4: ‘Brave the wilderness’ and find true belonging. Liberty University. https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/130210/pages/watch-how-to-brave-the-wilderness-and-find-true-belonging?module_item_id=15366939 Holman Rainbow Study Bible, Holy Bible, New International Version. (2015) Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers (Original work published 1973). Smith, D. L., (2011, Mar. 29). Less than human: The psychology of cruelty. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human  In order to advance how we engage in potential or real conflict situations, we should try on the other party’s point of view, invent win-win agreements, and insist on using objective criteria. Lederach points out that conflict is “normal in human relationships, and conflict is a motor of change” (Lederach 4). This distinction is important to note because too often, we tend to use the terms “conflict resolution” or “conflict management” (Lederach 4). These terms give conflict a negative connotation, and when we view conflict with negativity it leads to frustration and resentment. Lederach is pointing out that conflict is part of the process of growth and brings progress rather than stunting progress. If we agreed all the time, we would never find new ways or better methods.     For instance, if my brother chooses to argue with me regarding our plans for the day, it may come across with negativity. In the past he has asked, “why don’t we just do [this] instead?” He definitely has a little teenage attitude when he asks the question this way, but I try to remember that he may actually have a point. I try to step into his shoes and try on his point of view. What I usually find is that his attitude has nothing to do with the day’s plans, but more to do with some other frustration that he is projecting into whatever the current situation is. I can then choose to argue with him which will result in more irritation between us, or I can remember that he is my brother and I love him and want to make him happy. I then find a solution that works for both of us, or a win-win agreement. If that still doesn’t work, then I apply to logical, objective criteria. I can tell him, “I’m sorry that we don’t have time for this Jamie, but if you want to do this tomorrow, then we absolutely can and we can do [x,y, and z] today.” In this way, he understands that I am not just telling him “no” to be bossy or mean, but I have a reason and I really do want him to be happy with what I can give at the time.     This example is important to me because my closest familial relationship lies between my brother and I. We have a sense of belonging that I will protect, and throughout the years I have noticed that this method of engaging in conflict works particularly well when we’re having a little sibling quarrel. In “Belonging, Courage, & Constructive Conversation, Brene Brown asks, “what does true belonging mean?...What does it mean to belong?” (“Belonging”). Sometimes, people are afraid to disagree because they believe that with dissension comes a parting of the ways. However, Brown argues that “True belonging is a spiritual practice [...] it’s about the ability to find the sacredness in both being a part of something, but also the courage to stand alone” (“Belonging”). For me personally and as discussed in my Conflict Assessment Brief, I can at times be avoidant when I am dreading dealing with a conflict. However, Brown argues that “Action is the ultimate arbiter of your success” (“Living a Courageous Life”). It is important for me to remember that if I do not engage in conflict, then the other party may think that I don’t care or want to hear them out. In the past when dealing with little brothers, I have just not had the energy to get involved in a discussion about why they are feeling frustrated. With a few years or experience to look back on now, I realize that it probably appeared to them that I didn’t care to hear them out. It is furthermore against God’s wishes to pay little or no attention to your siblings. He says in Matthew 5:23-24, “Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and reconcile to them; then come and offer your gift” (Holy Bible).    Perhaps the most admirable action to take when dealing with conflict is being able to bounce back up when you have made a mistake, and having the courage to admit that you were wrong. Brene Brown says, “because we don’t teach people how to rise, they never take the leap” (“Living a Courageous Life”).  People don’t know how to get back up after failure and disappointment. She responds, “I have a lot of bounce [...] I’m willing to take chances because I’m very secure in my ability to get back up.” What is more, we do not respect people for merely being right, but we also respect each other’s resilience.    Lastly, the importance of vulnerability in dealing with conflict engagement is a key component of successful communication; we must learn how to pick ourselves up after failure. The first important step is vulnerability which is also uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. In school, we don’t teach courage skills in school. She defines courage as the “willingness to put yourself out there when you don’t know how it’s going to go” (Living a Courageous Life”). This personalized view on vulnerability is relevant because authors from European Journal of Social Work also agree that personal vulnerability affects how a group functions. The journal specifies, “instead of vulnerable groups or individuals we should focus on vulnerable life situations” (“The Contested Concept of Vulnerability-A Literature Review”). When you are vulnerable and honest with other involved parties, they are more apt to trust you. Brene Brown describes this as  “breathing trust”, or learning how to trust appropriately. To conclude, being vulnerable and courageous directly affects how we engage in appropriate action to engage in potential or real conflict situations.   References Fisher, Roger, et al. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. Media Production Services Unit, Manitoba Education, 2013. Holy Bible: King James Version. Christian Art Publishers, 2017. Lederach, John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Good Books, 2003.  Virokannas, Elina, et al. The Contested Concept of Vulnerability – A Literature Review.  Criteria Ratings Points Thread – Key Components 9 to >8.0 pts Advanced All key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. 8 to >7.0 pts Proficient Most key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. 7 to >0.0 pts Developing Some key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. 0 pts Not Present No key components of the Discussion prompt are answered in the thread. 9 pts Thread – Major Point Support 20 to >17.0 pts Advanced Major points are supported by all of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts). • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format; and • Integration of at least 1 biblical principle. 17 to >16.0 pts Proficient Major points are supported by most of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts). • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format; and • Integration of at least 1 biblical principle. 16 to >0.0 pts Developing Major points are supported by some of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts). • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format; and • Integration of at least 1 biblical principle. 0 pts Not Present Major points are supported by none of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts). • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format; and • Integration of at least 1 biblical principle. 20 pts Replies – Key Components 10 to >9.0 pts Advanced Contribution made to discussion with each reply (2) expounding on the thread. 9 to >7.0 pts Proficient Marginal contribution made to discussion with each reply (2) marginally expounding on the thread. 7 to >0.0 pts Developing Minimal contribution (2 minimal or only 1 reply) made to discussion with each reply minimally expounding on the thread. 0 pts Not Present No contribution made to discussion. 10 pts Discussion Grading Rubric | COMS560_C01_202140 Criteria Ratings Points Replies – Major Point Support 10 to >9.0 pts Advanced Major points are supported by all of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts); and • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format. 9 to >7.0 pts Proficient Major points are supported by most of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts); and • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format. 7 to >0.0 pts Developing Major points are supported by some of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts); and • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format. 0 pts Not Present Major points are supported by none of the following: • Learn materials. • Pertinent examples (conceptual and/or personal). • Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and co mparing/contrasting concepts); and • At least 2 peer-reviewed source citations, in addition to the course textbook, in current APA format. 10 pts Thread – Grammar/Spelling 5 to >4.0 pts Advanced Proper spelling and grammar are used. 4 to >3.0 pts Proficient Between 1–2 spelling, and grammar errors are present. 3 to >0.0 pts Developing Between 3–4 spelling and grammar errors are present. 0 pts Not Present More than 4 spelling and grammar errors are present. 5 pts Thread – Word Count 5 to >4.0 pts Advanced The thread is at least 400 words. 4 to >3.0 pts Proficient The thread is 399–300 words. 3 to >0.0 pts Developing The thread is 299–200 words. 0 pts Not Present The thread is less than 199 words. 5 pts Replies – Grammar/ Spelling 5 to >4.0 pts Advanced Proper spelling and grammar are used. 4 to >3.0 pts Proficient Between 1 to 2 spelling and grammar errors are present. 3 to >0.0 pts Developing Between 3 to 4 spelling and grammar errors are present. 0 pts Not Present More than 4 spelling and grammar errors are present. 5 pts Discussion Grading Rubric | COMS560_C01_202140 Criteria Ratings Points Replies – Word Count 6 to >5.0 pts Advanced Each reply is at least 250 words. 5 to >4.0 pts Proficient Each reply is 249-200 words. 4 to >0.0 pts Developing Each reply is 199–100 words. 0 pts Not Present Each reply is less than 100 words. 6 pts Total Points: 70 Discussion Grading Rubric | COMS560_C01_202140