AAmericans are becoming more polarized, and even family dinners can feel tense, revealing differences that can spark endless conflicts.
Tense conversations often end with a familiar phrase: “Let’s just get it over with.”
As a communications coach and trainer, I’m often asked how to manage these conversations, especially when they involve social and political issues. One piece of advice I would give is that “agree to disagree” or any other phrase that politely means “don’t talk” will not restore harmony. Not only that, but it can also cause permanent damage to those important family bonds.
“forbidden” topics
Conversation is the currency of relationships. When families talk about anything – from “What are your top five favorite movies?” to “What possessed you to load the dishwasher like that?” – They are not just exchanging information. They are building trust and creating a shared story that deepens the relationships within the family unit.
According to communication researcher Mark L. Knapp’s relationship development model, all relationships have a life cycle. People come together and strengthen their connection through five stages, from “initiation” to “bonding”. But many relationships eventually fall apart and go through the five stages of breakdown.
No relationship is as linear as the model assumes, but it can help identify potential danger zones—moments when a link is at risk of breaking. One step, in particular, shows why avoiding these tough conversations is so dangerous: “Limiting.”
Imagine limiting conservation issues with yellow police tape around them – issues that would almost immediately cause conflict. Having a few of these “forbidden” topics in a relationship probably doesn’t doom the marriage or alienate the family. However, marking too many ideas as off limits makes it easier for people to avoid the conversation.
Circumscribing is one of the steps of “breaking apart” in Knapp’s model. If problems are not addressed, a relationship can spiral downward toward the final stage of termination.
We have to talk
Unfortunately, this alienation from loved ones is not a theoretical problem. In a 2022 survey of 11,000 Americans, more than 1 in 4 reported that they are now estranged from their immediate family.
Moreover, these relationships are not always replaced by other close ties. About half of Americans say they have three or fewer close friends. In 2023, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared widespread loneliness and isolation an “epidemic”.
Social communication is a basic human need. Relationships do more than provide support. They play a key role in how people define themselves. According to psychology’s “social influence theory,” talking with immediate family and loved ones deepens relationships while helping people express their deepest values.
So if “agree to disagree” isn’t the answer, what is?
There is no one-size-fits-all process that resolves all disagreements during a family dinner. These techniques require time, patience, and compassion—all things that can be in short supply in the midst of conflict. However, there are two techniques that I not only recommend to others, but also use in my own conflicts: “The Loop of Understanding” and “Reframing and Pivoting.”
Stay informed
Originally developed for legal mediation, Looping helps both people in a conversation understand each other. Feelings of misunderstanding lead to escalation of conflict, so this is a great starting point.
During a “loop,” each person uses active listening, meaning they pay close attention to what their partner is saying without judgment or interruption. The listener then demonstrates their understanding using what is called “empathic explanation”: retelling what they heard from the speaker, but also the feelings they understood. Finally, they ask for confirmation from the main speaker.
This might go something like this: “So, if I understand what you’re saying, you think people shouldn’t get the flu shot at your office because you’re not sure if it works, and you’re frustrated with what your company is telling you to do. Am I right?”
If the speaker says no, the listener “loops” by asking them to explain their mistake and tries to rewrite it again. Participants were asked until the answer “Did I get it right?” They continue to rotate. An emphatic “yes”. This practice ensures that both people are sure of the real issue at hand.
Looping has other benefits as well. In one study, emphatic paraphrasing not only made participants feel less anxious, but also made the speaker view the interpreter more positively. Feeling fully heard and understood can go a long way in de-escalating difficult conversations.
Common ground framing
However, this understanding may not be enough. Once both parties understand each other, another technique, “reframing,” can help move the conversation away from confrontation and toward resolution.
In reframing, speakers find and discuss a single point of agreement. By emphasizing what they agree on, rather than what they disagree on, they seek a starting point for problem solving together rather than confrontation.
For example: “I think you and I can both agree that we want to keep the family safe. However, I think we disagree about the role of having guns in the home in that safety. Is that right?”
It is not always possible to find a point of agreement. However, this reframing shows both communicators as having a key shared value—the starting point for a more constructive discussion. Reframing also steers the conversation away from inflammatory language that can automatically reignite the fight. `
No magic bullet
No technique will ever be a one-size-fits-all solution to every relationship—or a quick fix. Communicating carefully can be mentally exhausting, and it’s always nice to press pause: “I don’t think we’re going to solve our country’s finances tonight, but thank you for talking about it. Let’s get on with it. But for now, I think there’s a pie. Want some?”
It is also important to accept that not all relationships can or should be saved. However, it’s always good to know that the relationship ended for a clear reason, not because of a misunderstanding that was never addressed.
Hopefully, however, these tactics will help keep communication open and relationships healthy, no matter what the topic is at dinner.
Lisa Pavia Hagel is an assistant professor of English language education and technical communication at Missouri Institute of Technology. This article from The Conversation is republished under a Creative Commons license. read the Main article.
