Introduction
As people get older, it is common for many to have fewer friends. Not because they have died, but rather because we have let them die in our hearts. People simply do not invest time and effort into their relationships; it is easier to let your ego ruin your relationship rather than devote efforts and save it. It has been estimated, that relations established during college years last the longest (Bhavnagari & Samuels, 1996). Going even further, lost relationships are the most frequent reasons for stress, loneliness, and low quality of life (The Mirror, 2005).
Process of reconciliation
In the process of reconciliation of two friends who are not speaking to each other, one should start by analyzing the reasons for the miscommunication that led to the breakdown. Friendship is not always idyllic; as people grow and change, their characters change too. System of values and personal beliefs, emotional pressure and relations with others, and even simply a bad mood can result in a breakdown. Reasons for the breakdown might be simple and even foolish, but the situation gets much worse when the reason is betrayal or an attack on one’s system of values. Analysis of the reasons for the miscommunication is the starting point, as the subsequent course of actions to make peace between the two parties entirely depends on the initial causes.
Having determined the cause, one should continue and decide what should be told to both parties and in what manner to prepare both of the friends psychologically to resolve the conflict. One should think clearly and logically, without taking one of the sides to determine mistakes, possible arguments, and counter-arguments that the two parties might have. It is necessary to determine the strongest offenses made by each of the parties. The offense is what one should target to change the mindset of the friends during the conversation.
The next stage is the actual conversation with both of the friends. One should keep in mind, that there are no situations that are entirely black or white. Neither one of the parties is innocent; so, one has to talk to both friends and try to influence their pattern of thinking, make them analyze the situation from a different angle. At this stage, it is also important to choose an important place for the discussion. If another person is busy or tired, the effect might be the opposite of what you expect or hope for. Timing is not everything, but a lot. During the conversation, one should begin with a neutral topic that both parties agree on. Say pleasant, affirm that his or her actions were right, but could have been better. One should also avoid being judgmental or critical since none likes being criticized even if the criticism is deserved. Communicate, since none can read thoughts, so express your thoughts carefully and logically. During the conversation with either one of the friends, one should also not forget the main goal to be attained: to change the mindset and open a friend for further dialogue. Make your friend re-evaluate the situation, protect the other friend, but do it carefully. Sometimes, it is better to talk to each one of the friends over the phone, and still, one should remember, that the greatest effect will be achieved through personal one to one conversation when one can see body language and, consequently, understand what is on friend’s mind and soul.
Once the conversation with both parties has been successfully held, it is high time to arrange the meeting between the two friends. Certainly, the way settings of the meeting depend on the degree of miscommunication. Sometimes, they should meet in person, and sometimes it is necessary to be present personally during the “accidental” conversation to ensure that things run smoothly and the situation does not get out of control. If one feels that the previous one-to-one conversation was very effective and both parties are halfway through the conflict, both friends are open-minded and are ready to make the step forward – arrangement of an accidental one-to-one meeting is the best solution. Friends just need a minor push – so, just give them a chance to correct the situation. If friends are stubborn and still angry, then one should personally be present during the conversation. There might be several reasons why personal presence is an absolute must; oftentimes, the situation gets even worse. The two friends, even if they choose to start talking, might only sharpen the conflict by attacking each other. If this is the case, the greatest mistake is to take one’s side. One should remain neutral and gradually lead the two friends to reconciliation by showing that neither one of the parties is right. One should not let the situation get out of control, as this might be the last chance to establish peace between the two friends. A chance that might be lost easily and still be one of the most valuable opportunities in their lives.
Conclusion
The critical point in the reconciliation of the friends who were not speaking to each other is the effective analysis and planning. The three ideas should be kept in mind: one should show the value of the relationship to both of the parties, one should free the mind of both parties to allow for conflict resolution, and one should always remain in control of the situation and be ready to take the corrective actions. Given the process of reconciliation had been carefully analyzed and planned not only logically, but then let through the heart, there is very little chance the two friends will not find common ground for communication.
References
Bhavnagari, Navaz Peshotan, and Barbara G. Samuels. “Making and Keeping Friends: A Thematic Unit to Promote Understanding of Peer Relationships in Young Children.” Childhood Education 72.4 (1996): 219.
“Dr Miriam: Best of Mates; MORE People Than Ever before Are Living on Their Own. This Week Dr Miriam Explains Why That Need Not Mean a Lonely Existence, as Long as We Recognise the Importance of Making and Keeping Friends.” The Mirror (London, England). 2005: 49.