Conflict Resolution

Running head: CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Conflict Resolution
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

2CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
1. The purpose of each participant at the Interview
Jeremy Praxman: Jeremy Praxman was very rude to ask Russell brand that who he was to
edit a political magazine. In other words he questioned the very existence and the professon
or the person al choice of Brand. They were taking part in the interview process because they
were trying to discuss the solution on the purpose of voting and the different issues that are
created by the tough political system that is prevalent in the society. Praxman wanted to solve
his purpose of asking why Brand has not showed any interest towards voting and why is he
calling for a change all of a sudden
Russell Brand- Brand answers light with a witty and funny tone. He wanted to prove his
purpose that he does not abide by any age old political paradigm. He is looking for
something that is good for the common people.
2. The stories the participants are telling themselves and any specific acts of vilification
Russell Brand- Brand answered in a very polite and light tone from the beginning of interview
which shows that there was no abusive words used by him. He was trying to make sure that there
is no usage of any kinds of bad or un-healthy exchange of words or statements. There are
evidence that the ongoing interview sessions were having several conflicts or many quarrels
within them. However, these conflicts or these quarrels were not being done on any intentional
basis. There was evidence that the two persons were having some kinds of misunderstandings
regarding the right to vote and the kind of measures that have been taken by the Government for
the betterment of the common people.

3CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Paxman- Praxman asked Russell Brand if he was calling for a revolution. Brand understood the
question and answered that he was calling for it. The ending of the interview shows that Brand as
really agitated and he said that they would do anything for bringing about a change in the whole
existing political system rather than thinking about asking for any permission. This shows that
somewhere or the other there is surely a lack of patience and people do want to reach out to an
instant solution without thinking much about what can will happen later (Bercovitch 2019).
Morton’s Fork theory holds good here. This theory shows that people often try to avoid
confronting or discussing things with others as they feel that there are only two options and they
have to select from any of the two. To do this, they always try to avoid asking or discussing as
they feel that there will be more harm rather than any good or positive impacts. However, this
kind of mindset can be solved by following some methods like small group discussions. These
activities usually involve the acts of narrating personal experiences and the lessons that have
been learned by different people. This is evident from the fact that people who had some bad
experiences in the past will be able to understand the situation and make sure that they are no
making any mistakes. They will try to handle the situation patiently and reach to some proper
conclusions. There are some methods like collaborating and problem-solving. In this interview
session, it was seen that both participants were trying to make their opinions seen justified rather
than listening to one another. However, to solve the issue or the conflicts, there must be a proper
collaborative response so that all the involved parties can understand the conflict that is going on
around and can reach out to the right kind of solution (Wallensteen 2018).
It is evident from the interview session that there was the exchange of some angry and some
abusive words going on around between the two participants that is Russell Brand and Jeremy
Paxman. However, this could have been avoided if there was a kind of mutual understanding