Conflicts often occur due to a person’s misperceptions concerning our intentions e.g. they expect us to behave in a certain way, believe that we perceive them in a certain way, etc. Somebody who has become emotional/aggressive with us, will often end up writing a script that second guesses, how we will respond and react to them. Sometimes this will be based on past experiences e.g. they are so used to people not listening to them, taking them seriously, etc., that they’ll assume that this is how we will respond, and treat them. It is also worth noting that we may make the same mistake and have our own unfair and unrealistic expectations about how we expect others to behave and respond to us, and the language that we use, along with the manner in which we communicate may unnecessarily escalate things rather than de-escalate and calm things down. The content of our communication is often more important than our delivery of it, and certain words/statements that we use may act as the proverbial red rag to a bull. However softly and calmly you talk to an aggressive individual, if you use the wrong words, you will be heightening rather than lessening tensions.

When dealing with angry emotional individuals there are only a few occasions when using the word, “You” is productive and beneficial; “you seem angry/annoyed/emotional”, etc., where the word “you” is used in a reflective sense, can help the person self-recognize – and confirm – the emotional state they are in. In almost every other instance, the use of the word “you” will seem accusatory. During my time working door security, I changed the way I interacted with people, especially when I had to enforce a rule, to use the word “I” instead of “You” e.g. instead of saying something like, “You can’t come in because you’re wearing sneakers/trainers”, I’d change it to be something along the lines of, “I can’t let you in tonight, because of the club’s dress-code policy”, etc. The rule of enforcement is the same; both statements suggest the same outcome. However, one puts responsibility on the club, whilst the other puts responsibility on the individual for dressing a certain way. This may seem insignificant and unimportant however, if I’d just let somebody in who was wearing a $20 pair of shoes that conformed to the dress-code, and then had to refuse somebody who was wearing a $200 pair of designer sneakers/trainers, I don’t really want to make it about the individual or the footwear; I’d rather make it about the club/bar’s policy, and put myself in an impersonal role of having to abide with that. By using a term like “tonight”, the interaction also becomes about a “moment” in time i.e. it’s not that the person’s sneakers/trainers are always inappropriate footwear, it’s just that tonight they’re not – even if the bar/club’s dress-code policy means that such footwear is never acceptable.

“You”, is often interpreted as a posturing word/term e.g. “You need to calm down”, “You need to stop shouting” etc. that is, it’s associated with instructions, and commands i.e. telling people what to do. By re-wording sentences so that the word “I” is used instead, this issue can be resolved e.g. “I’m having difficulty understanding you when you’re shouting.” – the difference is, that this is a request which has the addition of benefiting the individual (if they can stop shouting they may have their issue resolved), and takes away the focus from them ‑ rather than giving them an order or instruction, that creates/reinforces a power-differential, which is aimed at putting them in a subservient role. The philosopher, George Herbert Mead, saw interactions and communications as being one of two types i.e. either constructive or conflictive. However, even in constructive interactions where conflict isn’t apparent or evident, power is rarely shared equally between all parties – and the roles that are adopted by participants have hints and echoes of domination and subjugation; level playing fields don’t really exist anywhere, and the people that argue they do, are usually the ones in positions of power, etc. It is important that the language we use when trying to de-escalate a situation, doesn’t make us look like we are adopting a dominant position, and instructing the other person how to act and behave. Restricting or eliminating the use of the word “you” in such interactions, will help us avoid having the other party feel the need to posture back to us, in order to re-establish power they feel is being denied them. In medical/clinical settings it used to be that the traditional goal of de-escalation was to try and calm an emotional patient down, however this has changed to a more collaborative approach of helping a patient calm themselves down, so as to avoid any dominant-submissive connotations.

Any communication should be concise and to the point; an emotional/angry person has a particular need and doesn’t want to hear you ramble on, as you try and feel the situation out. Language must be simple, basic and understandable. When people are highly emotional their ability to process verbal information diminishes, and so if you are using long words, or complex vocalizations that require extra-processing power and time, the result is likely to be frustration and confusion, resulting in an escalation of emotions; moving the person closer to violence. Sentences need to be kept short, and deal with a single point e.g. “I can’t let you in tonight because of the club’s dress-code policy” – everything is about the dress-code policy; something which is impersonal. It’s all too easy to give a potentially aggressive individual too much to work with against you by talking too much and trying to give multiple reasons to justify a position you’re trying to enforce. If there has to be a debate/discussion it should be about one thing, rather than have to hop between different points and arguments; multiple reasons for something, implies that no one good reason exists, which will undermine any position you find yourself having to enforce.

Most fights and violent encounters, even premeditated/planned ones, start with some form of verbal interaction, which means how you communicate with an aggressor is extremely important; especially if you are trying to enforce a position, without escalating things. What you say i.e. the words that you use are key to this, and a soft/calm voice – which rarely has a place in real-world de-escalation - isn’t going to make up for poor content, such as overly using the word “you”.