Premium
Adversaries? Partners? How about counterparts? On metaphors in the practice and teaching of negotiation and dispute resolution
Author(s) -
Cohen Jonathan R.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
conflict resolution quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.323
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 1541-1508
pISSN - 1536-5581
DOI - 10.1002/crq.36
Subject(s) - negotiation , metaphor , adversary , dispute resolution , set (abstract data type) , competition (biology) , resolution (logic) , conflict resolution , public relations , political science , epistemology , law and economics , sociology , social psychology , psychology , computer science , law , computer security , linguistics , artificial intelligence , philosophy , ecology , biology , programming language
Metaphors pervade the practice of negotiation and related dispute resolution processes. The dominantmetaphors are competitive ones, from games, sports, and war. A second set of cooperative metaphors, often fromdance, is also used. This article argues that, since negotiation and related dispute resolution processesinherently involve both competition and cooperation, language reflecting that tension should be used. Forexample, negotiating parties should be called by the mixed term counterpart rather than thepurely competitive adversary or the purely cooperative partner . Counterpartmay also be a very useful metaphor in teaching these subjects. Language awareness can help us better understandand at times improve dispute resolution practice and teaching.