A Proposal of Discourse Principles for Resolving Classroom Conflicts : Based on the Evaluation of Emotional Fittingness

In recent years, there has been a growing call for systematic education on ‘emotion’ and ‘relationships’ in response to students’ mental health and the need to prevent school violence. In Korea, Korean-style Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is being expanded as a national initiative. Within this educational trend in which emotion education is becoming increasingly important, this study regards scenes of emotional conflict between students as potential opportunities for learning about emotion and relationships. The purpose of this study is to construct and present principles of discourse through which students, in situations of conflict, can mutually evaluate whether their counterparts ‘had reason to feel such an emotion’ and thereby reach reconciliation. This study maintains that conflicts among students can be substantively resolved on the basis of emotional understanding and agreement when they move beyond the norm that they must accept others’ emotions without evaluation and instead examine the issue of emotional fittingness within an argumentative dialogue structure. This study further argues that a dialogue in which claims and rebuttals concerning a particular emotion are reciprocally advanced takes on a discursive form that is distinguishable from everyday conversation. It also contends that reconciliation achieved through such discourse does not remain merely formal. Rather, it produces an educational effect in that it encourages students to make voluntary efforts to prevent future conflicts. To establish its theoretical foundation, this study reviews the development of the philosophy of emotion, rational sentimentalism, and the theory of communicative action. On this basis, it proposes a four-stage discourse procedure: ‘empirical dialogue–interpretive dialogue–evaluative dialogue–commitment.’ Furthermore, it argues that when disagreements intensify during discourse, participants can reach agreement by distinguishing types of ‘validity claims’ and resolving them sequentially. By presenting principles of discourse through which ‘empathy accompanied by evaluation’ can be achieved in situations of emotional conflict, this study proposes a new theoretical approach to school guidance practices and conflict mediation. This study maintains that conflicts among students can be substantively resolved on the basis of emotional understanding and agreement when they move beyond the norm that they must accept others’ emotions without evaluation and instead examine the issue of emotional fittingness within an argumentative dialogue structure. This study further argues that a dialogue in which claims and rebuttals concerning a particular emotion are reciprocally advanced takes on a discursive form that is distinguishable from everyday conversation. It also contends that reconciliation achieved through such discourse does not remain merely formal. Rather, it produces an educational effect in that it encourages students to make voluntary efforts to prevent future conflicts. To establish its theoretical foundation, this study reviews the development of the philosophy of emotion, rational sentimentalism, and the theory of communicative action. On this basis, it proposes a four-stage discourse procedure: ‘empirical dialogue–interpretive dialogue–evaluative dialogue–commitment.’ Furthermore, it argues that when disagreements intensify during discourse, participants can reach agreement by distinguishing types of ‘validity claims’ and resolving them sequentially. By presenting principles of discourse through which ‘empathy accompanied by evaluation’ can be achieved in situations of emotional conflict, this study proposes a new theoretical approach to school guidance practices and conflict mediation.