Brook Panneck
The topic of this literary review is mimetic structures within conflict from an interdisciplinary perspective. It examines mimetic structures also known as mirroring from the perspectives of conflict resolution/communication, psychology (both bio-psychology and behavioral), and sociology. For purposes of this paper, mimetic structures represent those phenomena that act as mirrors, aligning with the physical actions, emotional behaviors and psychological characteristics, of various agents as they interact in one form or another. Agent or interactant simply refers to a typical human being as represented by a typical social structure.
Mimetic structures have been discovered and studied from various perspectives and academic disciplines. They have been discovered in the brain as mirror neurons, which is a process of one group of neurons belonging to one interactant mirroring a group of neurons from another interactant. Mimetic structures have also been discovered and worked with in psychology. In psychology we may observe the phenomenon as projection and mirroring. More, psychologists often mirror their patients in therapy processes. There has also been some research done with socio-cultural implications. In this context mimetic structures have been understood as a sharing of identities and a conditioning process. Mimetic structures, to a very large extent, have also been studied from a purely literary function, although this perspective does not satisfy the intent of this paper.
Although there has been much research in various academic disciplines, there is still much exploration needed to understand and discover potential practical functions of mimetic structures. What follows then is a broad-to-specific organization of literature on the topic. This review first explores the problem, identifies gaps in the literature, and analyzes more specific mimetic related phenomena to suggest the need for a more in-depth exploration of mimetic structures and how they affect conflict. The review will also offer possible solutions and further implications of research. As it stands, the research into mimetic structures is woefully inadequate to address and resolve conflict, which might best be approached from an interdisciplinary effort.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
While mimetic structures are often studied within the context of literature there does not exist a large quantity of research relating to mimetic structures within conflict dynamics. There does exist research on the mechanics of mimetic structures as well as how they manifest in interpersonal communication through nonverbal cues, psychological analysis, and physiological processes. However to understand how these mimetic structure contribute to conflict we need more adequate research in the area of conflict resolution relating to mimetic structures from various fields of study. It would be helpful to have more research from the academic fields of sociology, psychology and communication, (specifically conflict resolution) to have a working framework of how the mimetic structures affect conflict and how a mediator or conflict management specialist might better apply their trade. Developing a framework for understanding mimetic structures within the context of conflict management opens the door for a lot of questions relating to human interaction. For instance, when a conflict participant enters a confrontation how much of that participant’s behavior is mirroring the other participant/participants involved? When we make a judgment of someone that might indicate the beginning of a confrontation what signals are we picking up from that person that might contribute to the problem? [And] To what extent do mimetic structures affect groups of people emotionally and behaviorally during conflict? In exploring such questions, a conflict professional might develop techniques that would first isolate the mimetic structures making the actual root of the problems more accessible.
In examining some of the methodologies related to resolving specific forms of conflict there is an evident gap in the research. For instance Gary Furlong (2005), a conflict resolution expert, in his book The Conflict Resolution Toolbox, addresses specific types of conflicts and methods for resolving them respectively. Furlong lays out eight models for addressing conflict:
The circle of conflict model
The triangle of satisfaction model
The boundary model
The interest/rights power model
The dynamics of trust model
The dimensions model
The social style model
The moving beyond model (22).
More, none of these models deal specifically with mimetic structures or how to resolve conflicts that present them. There are a few models that come close, in that the process for handling conflict in these models could address mimetic structures through specific questioning. For instance, Furlong’s trust model has a specific framework for mediating how each of the conflict participants attributes different components of the conflict toward each other (160). Here is a perfect example of how conflict resolution could incorporate a specific framework for handling issues by addressing how participants attribute through mirroring. Furlong’s work is used here to illustrate how models that are used for reference and training by mediators might be leaving out a crucial element- mimetic structures.
The following literature addresses mimetic structures from a nonverbal communication perspective. Knapp and Hall (2006), in their book Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, address a specific mimetic structure in nonverbal communication known as the “chameleon effect” (246). This mimetic structure mirrors body movements between two or more interactants and typically goes unnoticed by those involved (Knapp & Hall, 246). This is a mimetic structure more commonly studied in communication and could potentially be used to observed indicators of mimetic dynamics within conflict as well. More, Knapp & Hall point out the effect of “postural congruence” as “those occasions when both interaction partners exhibit the same behavior at the same time (247). Another effect which has much potential of being linked to conflict scenarios is referred to by Knapp & Hall as “emotional contagion” (250). This happens when interactants mirror each other’s behavior and as a result an emotional response is produced (Knapp & Hall, 250). Physiologically, there may be cognitive explanations of why these instances of mimetic structures occur.
There occurs, within the brains of interactants, synchronistic responses that indicate neurological explanations for mimetic structures. Dr. Vittorio Gallese points to this research in his study on mirror Neurons. Gallese’s (2009) research indicates “action observation causes in the observer the automatic activation of the same neural mechanism triggered by action execution” (2). In other words, if there are two interactants and one performs an action, whether it be picking up an object or throwing a ball, the observing interactant’s same neurons fire (Gallese, 3). At the basis of this cognitive phenomena Gallese’s research indicates a social/cultural dimension whereupon an agent’s “identification” into a larger social network is in part formed by these mimetic structures (1). This research opens the door for not only physiological explanations for mimetic structures within conflict but a sociological explanation that warrants further exploration into mimetic structures from the academic discipline of sociology.
Unfortunately there also appears to be a gap in the area of research that might explain mimetic functions from a sociological perspective. Although there is a limited amount of literature on the subject, most literature of these mimetic structures are more from a psychoanalytic or cognitive point of view. The need then is for a broader framework for understanding sociological and cultural phenomena in the context of mimetic structures. None the less, the subject has been approached by some authors. For instance, Janet Schaller’s (2008) research analyzes the mimetic structures of mirroring and “failed mirroring” from a cultural paradigm. In Schaller’s research, she points out:
A cultural dimension also exists in mirroring or failed mirroring. When, in daily human
interactions, persons have reflected back to them not themselves but the cultural assumptions of others, they experience failed mirroring. Thus, failed mirroring is not merely an interpersonal interaction, it is a cultural phenomenon when societal representations are assumed and projected. (507)
While Schaller’s work paints the way for sociological inquiry into these mimetic structures, there is much to be said from a psychological point of view.
There is a large quantity of psycho-analytic research that has been done pertaining to differing mimetic scenarios. Although the research is from different psychological points of view their exists some relationships to the study of conflict and would warrant more specific exploration. We can pin point this relationship in the research done by Kipper and Har-Even. In Kippler and Har-Even’s study they assemble various groups of people with differing functions. One group in particular- the “mimetic-pretend” group is asked to imagine they are a teacher at which point they proceed to teach an actor from the control group (937). When the actor fails in their responses, they are then administered shocks from the “teacher” (939). Kipper and Har-Even’s research into mimetic relationships between an individual and their understanding of various cultural personas indicate a basis for role-playing in psycho-therapy (940). This is a unique contribution of research in that the role-playing might also be adapted as a tool for mediators in resolving conflict between disputants. In contrast, some existing communication research takes a different approach establishing solutions to problems related to mimetic structures and language.
According to some research, exploration into the field might produce undesirable results. For instance, Ashlen (2007) in her review of mimetics and language asserts that known models for issues related to language and communication should not be reinvented, discarding what is already known and used but paired with viable solutions involving mimetic analysis (314). Despite some possible drawbacks Ashlen contends “in an updated framework, for explaining human communication and communication disorders, mirroring, coactivation and alignment should have a central place and be studied more closely. Interaction would be seen as basic…” (314).
To this extent, Robert Marshall (2006) points out a case study in which a client who expresses, rather aggressively, a clash between the projections and expectations of others (or mirrors) and how she views herself. Marshall in his research points out an approach to using mimetic structures in therapy sessions. The approach, echoing Ashlen’s concern, not only uses new models based on mimetic research but employs interaction and other basic models. For instance Marshal explains, “joining and mirroring do not cure. They do calm the patient and facilitate the first stage in the treatment…Mirroring techniques are employed when the patient is in a preverbal stage, the sessions may be pleasant, but the therapy may be compromised and prolonged” (292). It is precisely this area of psycho-analytic research that should be explored further for its possible contributions to mediation/conflict resolution.
Where Marshall illustrates for us a case study of a woman who clashes with mimetic structures, Jean Knox (2009) determines the role of mirroring between parents and infants in “self-agency” development. Knox further examines unconscious “indexical” language at a certain stage in an infant’s development and relates it to other adults who are more or less stuck at this stage because they attempt to elicit an emotional response from their interactants (31). Again, this type of research may point to underlying reasons in conflict between conflict participants where mirroring might be employed to reach the underlying cause.
Another piece of research indicating underlying causes of conflict can be seen in Harrison’s (2006) Fracturing resemblances: identity and mimetic conflict in Melanesia and the West. In Harrison’s exploration he points out the phenomenon of “shared” identities in a social context and relates this dynamic to “competition” that can happen when such sharing may produce a perception of diminishing resources (36). More, Harrison points out “…people who share, or appear to each other to share, aspects of their identities, a special type of conflict can arise over these shared characteristics – a type of competition in which icons of group affiliation assume the forms of contested possessions” (37). This is an example of where conflict resolution could use specific frameworks for applying or navigating mimetic structures in confrontation.
In my review the most specific form of mimesis applied toward conflict comes from the Conflict Research Consortium at the University of Colorado. The CRC (1988) has identified one particular method for approaching conflict using mimetic structures-“Mirror Imaging”. The CRC defines this as having one side of the conflict circle imagine themselves as others imagine them so they may become aware of unconscious behaviors they in fact accuse the other party of demonstrating. This is a method which shows some potential in applying mimetic frameworks to conflict resolution. The approach may benefit from a more over-arching understanding and practical application of mimetic structures contributed by various academic disciplines mentioned throughout this review.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
While appropriate quantitative research has been done, such as the work presented by Ashlen (2008), it is only suggestive at best. The research points to possible negative impacts of mimetic research without being specific about the consequences and offering specific enough solutions. It is valid in that the research points us in a direction- suggesting we might benefit by paring older forms of treatment with mimetic research. Other qualitative research, particularly that of Kipper and Dov (1984) offer specific contributive solutions to conflict that may result from mimesis. Their research is both valid and specific in that it gives us a technique that conflict resolution could potentially apply toward confrontation. Additionally, Vittirio’s (2009) work on mirror neurons offers us a meta analysis of existing research, it then locates the gaps and offers a new insight into sociological structures. While Psychology offers a substantive amount of work on mimesis Sociology on the other hand only touches the surface of how mimetic structures operate within cultural settings. The question then is how might sociological perspectives of conflict adapt to existing mimetic structures in order that it might offer an explanation of how those structures function in society? Overall communication and conflict resolution do not investigate the phenomenon to an extent that might offer a comprehensive application in relationship to mimetic structures. It is therefore worthy to explore how the academic disciplines of psychology, sociology and communication might collaboratively work to solve conflict related mimesis.
FURTHER IMPLICATIONS AND SOLUTIONS
To answer the question of sociological implications, we can examine conditioned processes, as mentioned earlier in this review from Knox’s research of the subject and then compare adult interactions in conflict which might be indicative of these processes. For instance, if it is true that a child develops, through various stages, a mirroring effect from the relationship of their parents to get certain needs met and one or more of these stages have been compromised then it should follow that the resulting adulthood of that child might be checkered with interpersonal or communicative problems. To compare a child in the developmental process with an adult in their relationships and interactions could give us much understanding of how the adult might get their needs met in the future or how a conflict specialist could work with them. In a conflict scenario, this research could help a conflict specialist separate topical issues, or issues that represent themselves merely on the surface, with underlying developmental or “parent/child” related issues.
Additionally, a social-cultural contribution to conflict resolution on the topic of mimesis could help us understand how cultural conditioning may contribute to conflict. This exploration could examine how culture, through family, environmental and institutional influence shapes our perceptions and world view. Through this examination we could identify how an interactant may be mirroring the values and ideas of their culture where that cultural view conflicts with another’s. This research could help a conflict specialist develop techniques to reveal to the interactants how cultural influences have contributed to the conflict.
On the subject of psychological contributions, the work of Kiper and Dov (1984), as mentioned previously could contribute role-playing methods to help those experiencing mimetic related conflicts. This contribution might benefit from a collaborative effort with techniques such as CRC’s (1988) “mirror imaging”. Role-playing in this way could help conflict specialists develop many different “role-play” scenarios to particular types of conflict.
While conflict, as an independent study, may reside mostly in the domain of communication, it often presents elements of various academic disciplines such as those mentioned throughout this paper. For this reason the specific study of mimesis as it relates to conflict resolution cannot be adequately addressed by the field of communication alone. To have a working understanding of mimetic phenomena and practical approaches of resolving related conflict there must be an interdisciplinary effort.
Bibliography
Furlong, G. T. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley &
Sons.
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Vittorio, G. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social
identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19 (5) 519-536. doi: 10.1080/10481880903231910
Schaller, J. (2008). Failed mirroring as a cultural phenomenon. Pastoral Psychology, 56(5),
507-520. doi: 10.1007/s11089-008-0132-3
Kipper, D. A. & Dov, H. (1984). Role-playing techniques: the differential effect of behavior
simulation Interventions on the readiness to inflict pain. Journal of clinical psychology, 40 (4), 936-941.Retrieved from Academic Search Complete
Ashlsen, E. (2008). Embodiment in communication – aphasia, apraxia and the possible role of
mirroring And imitation. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 22 (4), 311-315.
doi: 10.1080/02699200801918879
Marshall, R. J. (2006). Suppose there were no mirrors: converging concepts of mirroring.
Modern psychoanalysis, 31 (2), 289-312. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete
Knox, J. (2009). When words do not mean what they say self-agency and the coercive use of
language. Journal of analytical psychology, 54 (1), 25-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5922.2008.01755.
Harrison, S. (2006). Fracturing resemblances: identity and mimetic conflict in Melanesia and the
West. Berghahn Books.
Conflict Resolution Consortium. (1998). Treating list1: Treating complicating factors. Retrieved
from University of Colorado web site:
