This post is about anger, and about positive communication. Just an FYI, because as I'm starting to write this I'm realizing it's taking me awhile to get the core topic.
I've been thinking a lot about this over the past few months, and after last week's apparently very controversial post I have been thinking even harder about it. After last week's post about my struggles with "feminism" as a falsely all-encompassing entity I am left feeling that I might not have the temperament to put myself out there on the internet or in any of those volatile public forums (like politics or activism, for example). Not when it comes to controversial topics, anyway. I don't have the temperament for arguments either, or even for particularly heated discussion.
Here's why: I am stubborn as all get-out, but I am easily persuaded to seriously consider and even adopt a contradicting viewpoint -- if it's presented properly. If it's not... I'm like a shark. Or a bee (my most feared adversary). Or a skunk, or a... platypus? What's the thing that rolls up into a ball if you poke it? An armadillo?
ANYWAY. What I am getting at is this: if I feel like I am being attacked, or if I feel that you are telling me the ground I'm standing on isn't sound, then I am very likely to either snap, or retreat into an icy silence. And I'm not the only one. But I do know certain people who like to argue, or be incendiary, or fight. With one exception I can think of, I don't like to be around those people.
When I was little, I used to fight with my brother and sisters just as often as the next kid. When a fight broke out, we were usually separated and not allowed to look at each other for a slow count of ten. We had to take a breath in between each number. And then we were forced to go back and face each other and work it out. We were not allowed to speak to each other until we had let the initial anger pass.
As I've gotten older and had more of my own experiences, the benefits (or perhaps the results) of this parenting technique become more and more clear. Thanks to a few encounters in which I didn't take ten deep breaths before speaking, I now remind myself sternly (with mixed success) never to have a conversation with anyone who is already yelling or angry; never rise to the occasion of false accusations or implications; always consider someone's motivations for saying what they say and respond to those, not to their actual words and phrasing.
Because if we are yelling or lashing out, we are not listening. We feel threatened. Our first instinct is self-defense, whether or not there is anything truly at stake. You can't have a conversation with someone who's not listening or receptive to what you're saying.
It seems like there has been a lot of arguing lately in the public sphere; and with good reason, because there are a lot of very important issues on the national table right now. But I don't think many of you would argue if I said that we're not really making much progress on any of them.
I was excited to hear on NPR this week Chris Satullo promoting the Bernard Wolfman Civil Discourse Project, where he will be helping "two top experts on health care have a lively but respectful conversation about where they disagree, and as importantly, where they agree about what's not working with the nation's health care system — and what we should do about that." If we could all sit down and start from our common ground, and then talk through our respective solutions, and listen carefully to our opponents' questions and challenges, then maybe one of us could propose a solution that covers more of the bases, and makes less of us feel personally attacked. But the first step is actually listening.
What if the national conversation on gun control turned into a conversation about controlling gun violence? That conversation could consist of all sides offering solutions to the problem we all agree needs a solution -- and the solution we eventually come up with would be that much stronger and more appealing. What if we could address all the issues on the table starting from the most basic, most common good and go from there? We'll start with things like breathing and eating, and when we come up against a conflicting interest we'll figure out a way to work it out so no one feels threatened.
The other day I was hanging out with J. and he got up to leave for work half an hour early. I asked what was wrong and he said, "Nothing, I'm just gonna get into work a little early today." And I said, "Well why don't you come sit with me for awhile first? You've got time. You seem like you're mad at me or something." So he came and cuddled up with me and said he was frustrated and told me why, and after a moment of silence he said, "Wow... It's amazing how much better it feels just talking about it." And then we got around to actually addressing the issue.
I know this is idealistic and seems impossible. But I'm working on doing this every day on a small scale, and it seems to be working. I'm looking at human motivations and the root causes of anger: shame, fear, pain. People do unbelievable things when we are in pain, and we are in pain a lot of the time. It is a painful world we live in. I'm working actively these days to address the root causes of anger and lashing out, to take ten deep breaths before I look someone in the eye again, to resist responding to or prodding a scared or hungry shark. And I've realized that half the time, when someone lashes out at me, it has so little to do with what I've actually done or said it's almost funny. My job then is not to respond in kind, and to carefully defuse the potential explosion.
I can't say that I've mastered this art or that I succeed even a majority of the time, but I'm really, really trying and I wish that we could have some constructive conversation on a grander, more global scale. I wish we could give each other the time of day and realize that our actions and attitudes have an effect on the other people around us -- and, in the meantime, remember that the people around us often forget that this is true. Don't take it personally. Take 10 deep breaths. Try to make magic.
I've been thinking a lot about this over the past few months, and after last week's apparently very controversial post I have been thinking even harder about it. After last week's post about my struggles with "feminism" as a falsely all-encompassing entity I am left feeling that I might not have the temperament to put myself out there on the internet or in any of those volatile public forums (like politics or activism, for example). Not when it comes to controversial topics, anyway. I don't have the temperament for arguments either, or even for particularly heated discussion.
Here's why: I am stubborn as all get-out, but I am easily persuaded to seriously consider and even adopt a contradicting viewpoint -- if it's presented properly. If it's not... I'm like a shark. Or a bee (my most feared adversary). Or a skunk, or a... platypus? What's the thing that rolls up into a ball if you poke it? An armadillo?
ANYWAY. What I am getting at is this: if I feel like I am being attacked, or if I feel that you are telling me the ground I'm standing on isn't sound, then I am very likely to either snap, or retreat into an icy silence. And I'm not the only one. But I do know certain people who like to argue, or be incendiary, or fight. With one exception I can think of, I don't like to be around those people.
When I was little, I used to fight with my brother and sisters just as often as the next kid. When a fight broke out, we were usually separated and not allowed to look at each other for a slow count of ten. We had to take a breath in between each number. And then we were forced to go back and face each other and work it out. We were not allowed to speak to each other until we had let the initial anger pass.
As I've gotten older and had more of my own experiences, the benefits (or perhaps the results) of this parenting technique become more and more clear. Thanks to a few encounters in which I didn't take ten deep breaths before speaking, I now remind myself sternly (with mixed success) never to have a conversation with anyone who is already yelling or angry; never rise to the occasion of false accusations or implications; always consider someone's motivations for saying what they say and respond to those, not to their actual words and phrasing.
Because if we are yelling or lashing out, we are not listening. We feel threatened. Our first instinct is self-defense, whether or not there is anything truly at stake. You can't have a conversation with someone who's not listening or receptive to what you're saying.
It seems like there has been a lot of arguing lately in the public sphere; and with good reason, because there are a lot of very important issues on the national table right now. But I don't think many of you would argue if I said that we're not really making much progress on any of them.
I was excited to hear on NPR this week Chris Satullo promoting the Bernard Wolfman Civil Discourse Project, where he will be helping "two top experts on health care have a lively but respectful conversation about where they disagree, and as importantly, where they agree about what's not working with the nation's health care system — and what we should do about that." If we could all sit down and start from our common ground, and then talk through our respective solutions, and listen carefully to our opponents' questions and challenges, then maybe one of us could propose a solution that covers more of the bases, and makes less of us feel personally attacked. But the first step is actually listening.
What if the national conversation on gun control turned into a conversation about controlling gun violence? That conversation could consist of all sides offering solutions to the problem we all agree needs a solution -- and the solution we eventually come up with would be that much stronger and more appealing. What if we could address all the issues on the table starting from the most basic, most common good and go from there? We'll start with things like breathing and eating, and when we come up against a conflicting interest we'll figure out a way to work it out so no one feels threatened.
The other day I was hanging out with J. and he got up to leave for work half an hour early. I asked what was wrong and he said, "Nothing, I'm just gonna get into work a little early today." And I said, "Well why don't you come sit with me for awhile first? You've got time. You seem like you're mad at me or something." So he came and cuddled up with me and said he was frustrated and told me why, and after a moment of silence he said, "Wow... It's amazing how much better it feels just talking about it." And then we got around to actually addressing the issue.
I know this is idealistic and seems impossible. But I'm working on doing this every day on a small scale, and it seems to be working. I'm looking at human motivations and the root causes of anger: shame, fear, pain. People do unbelievable things when we are in pain, and we are in pain a lot of the time. It is a painful world we live in. I'm working actively these days to address the root causes of anger and lashing out, to take ten deep breaths before I look someone in the eye again, to resist responding to or prodding a scared or hungry shark. And I've realized that half the time, when someone lashes out at me, it has so little to do with what I've actually done or said it's almost funny. My job then is not to respond in kind, and to carefully defuse the potential explosion.
I can't say that I've mastered this art or that I succeed even a majority of the time, but I'm really, really trying and I wish that we could have some constructive conversation on a grander, more global scale. I wish we could give each other the time of day and realize that our actions and attitudes have an effect on the other people around us -- and, in the meantime, remember that the people around us often forget that this is true. Don't take it personally. Take 10 deep breaths. Try to make magic.
No comments:
Post a Comment