Not long ago, I heard an interview on NPR by the founders of the Public Conversations Project. This is a group that works to generate meaningful dialog between prochoice and prolife groups. It was started as a response to shootings at abortion clinics with the hope of “building relationships of mutual respect and understanding; to help deescalate the rhetoric of the abortion controversy“, among other things. I found an article on it on the Internet. Some of their methods will be of interest to us here in the Agora as we discuss issues that raise emotions. In fact, they can be applied anywhere where communication paths are blocked due to emotions running high.
Here is a list of their methods:
[list][*]Careful use of language. The words used during discussion have to be acceptable or at least tolerable to every participant. Words that are “polarizing rhetoric” should be avoided as they merely inflame the other side, push it into the defensive, and close communication routes. These words are called “hot button”. More on that down below.
[*]Respectful style. There should be no interruption (not a problem here on the Agora), grandstanding, or making of personal attacks.
[*]Personal position. The participants should speak for themselves, not as representatives of organizations, a people, a political position, etc.
[*]Move away from argument. The focus should be shifted away from arguing for one’s particular cause. This agreement was designed to prevent rancorous debates. “Knowing that our ideas would be challenged, but not attacked, we have been able to listen openly and speak candidly.“
[/list] Hot buttons
What I found particularly useful is their avoidance of what they call “hot buttons”. These are words and phrases that automatically raise emotions and make it almost impossible for somone to think clearly, listen carefully, or respond constructively. For example, prochoice members were inflamed when called ‘‘murderers’’ and by labels such as anti-child, anti-men, anti-family, self-centered, and immoral. Prolife participants were incensed by dehumanizing phrases such as ‘‘products of conception’’ and ‘‘termination of pregnancy’’ and labels such as religious fanatics, uneducated, prudish individuals, indifferent to women in crisis.
Staying away from “hot buttons” keeps communication channels open by keeping people from being offended, closing up, attacking, and generally straying from the actual issue at hand. Sometimes, before embarking on a discussion, it might be useful to agree on neutral terminology.
Doesn’t this bring to mind ekkis’ old thread? If we weren’t sensitive to rhetoric and didn’t react defensively or aggresively, we could keep communicating effectively. Alas, we ARE sensitive, and we can’t prevent others from being sensitive, either. But what we can do, in the interest of open communication, is use language that is not offensive to others, to use the language they would like us to use.
I’ve been thinking and thinking about this post since I read it this morning. All day, something has been brewing in my mind… it’s an ill-formed question, but I’ll give a shot at it here and see if we can make some sense of it.
The question goes like this: How is it that this is not how people work? Can it work? Why isn’t more prevalent? What are the obstacles to relating to people like this?
I started to formulate an answer (that’s about as well thought out as the question ). Here is the basic thought process I had:
I relate very well with my husband, for example, and naturally utilize the "tactics" presented above in our discussions. I generally assume he has something valuable to say, even if I don’t yet understand it.
If, as happens on occasion, I get riled up anyway, I do have the presence of mind not to indulge in an infantile outburst and instead speak respectfully and inquire about his meaning, for three reasons: respect for him, an awareness of the further difficulties an outburst will bring on, and a feeling that I will not feel as good as I fantasize that I will feel if just lay it all out.
I teach my children to behave respectfully to others as well while maintaining an awareness of their feelings and opinions. I am helping them distinguish between "I feel" ("I feel you’re being unfair") and assessments of reality ("you’re not being fair!"). The former allows me to accept their feelings and at the same time leaves a road open to seeing that there may be something else happening, alongside their feelings, that warrants consideration.
So the question answer goes like this: why do other people irk me sometimes? I’m generally pretty laid back and rarely register "upset;" when I do, I feel it’s my responsibility to handle my own feelings and still deal with others respectfully. I may even learn something. :)
But still it doesn’t always work, and I know a great many people who have a much shorter fuse than I do.
I posit that the above techniques, presented in Ilka’s post, only work if both sides agree to have a dialogue. While this point may seem obvious, I think it speaks a deep truth inasmuch as people do not necessarily agree to it. There are other motives people have that ruins the ability to have a respectful conversation. If the agenda of a group is just a personal front to vent aggression, for example (not institution-wide, of course, but in a particular individual), dialogue becomes difficult and hot-buttons are used—because they are effective tools for venting emotion.
For me, I see that there are times when I haven’t thought my position all the way through, but when it’s challenged, I start to support it anyway, and then my emotions can start to boil. I think it’s not so easy for people to see when (or that) they have convictions that are not based on reason. Instead it’s easy to slip into formulation reasons "post-conviction;" when they are threatened by others’ reasoning, it’s hard, in the moment, to back down and realize one hadn’t thought one’s own positions through. (*afterthought*—I suppose that’s why the techniques work—it’s much easier on the ego to admit one may have been wrong when the "other side" has been using non-confrontational language.)
So, people do not use those techniques when they are not interested in resolutions. If they are, the techniques are excellent guidelines to use to channel one’s own powerful emotions into meaningful language.
Unless a side can show clearly and rationally and fairly why their side is correct, it behooves everyone to see that they feel a certain way, and that the other side feels a certain way too. Sometimes the best that can then be done is a compromise in which no one is happy, but no one feels the other side got away with something terrible either. :(
But wait! Why is it that I have the fewest problems of this sort with my husband?
First shot at an answer: because we share so many premises that there are relatively few for us to iron out this way.
A meaningful dialogue with a person or group who share few premises can be unbelievably laborious and frustrating. It’s hard to hold back and hold back your feelings until you’re sure you’ve phrased your ideas well.
But solution minded people must do just that. With the caveat I stated above: that both sides are willing to do it.
Of course, it’s still a useful technique even with people who won’t treat you equally fairly; you just have to be more creative. ;D That’s anotha’ can o’ worms.
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#5 date=04/08/03 at 19:11:47]A friend and I were discussing how some people in our lives have used their size or strength, or just louder voices to bully us into acquiescing to their point of view. My friend said, "yes, anger is a weapon and a tool. It makes me unhappy to see people so sucessfully use it against others who are too kind or gentle to use them back."
Anger and fear are related emotions, and they stem from the oldest parts of our brains.
When rabbits are attacked, they have no choice. They’re hardwired to run away.
Big cats have almost no choice. They’re hardwired to attack, but they may limp away if wounded.
People (and dogs and many other animals) are more complex. They can choose to fight or to flee, depending on their genetically-bestowed temperament and their evaluation of the situation.
When people are verbally attacked, the range of responses is even more complex and the individual may be quite conflicted internally. The ‘primitive’ part of the brain may want to lash back, but the ‘higher’ part of the brain, the part that is capable of more reasoned analysis, may want to respond in a less pugnacious, more conciliatory manner. It all depends on context, including the fluency a person has with the particular language being used, and the possibility, however remote, that physical aggression may occur.
In a forum such as the Agora there is no possibility of physical aggression. Yet the feeling of being attacked may legitimately occur. It’s up to each of us to word our postings in such a way so as to minimize the possibility of another participant feeling attacked.
[quote author=Agoraphile link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#6 date=04/08/03 at 19:56:28]
In a forum such as the Agora there is no possibility of physical aggression. Yet the feeling of being attacked may legitimately occur. It’s up to each of us to word our postings in such a way so as to minimize the possibility of another participant feeling attacked.
And if one enjoys being the tiger? (The other person, of course). How to hold up your end of the conversation?
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#8 date=04/08/03 at 20:15:42]
And if one enjoys being the tiger? (The other person, of course). How to hold up your end of the conversation?
Oh, you mean likes behaving (virtually, of course) like Saddam Hussein? Well, we know what’s going to happen to him!
On the Agora, we can ‘disappear’ such people, i.e., refuse to take their bait until they tire of the game and either post like the rest of us or stop posting altogether.
[quote author=Agoraphile link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#9 date=04/08/03 at 20:51:36]
Oh, you mean likes behaving (virtually, of course) like Saddam Hussein? Well, we know what’s going to happen to him!
Agoraphile, I’m shocked!
On the Agora, we can ‘disappear’ such people, i.e., refuse to take their bait until they tire of the game and either post like the rest of us or stop posting altogether.
Yes, the route I’ve taken.
I sort of read Ilka’s post as a general suggestion, not just for the Agora. Hence all the musings.
I’m curious, Ilka—which did you mean? As a life’s practice, or as an Agorical guideline? Just so I know how I’m keeping up. :)
Ho ho. The gasser of Kurds, the torturing monkey, the bane of Middle Eastern existence might soon, or already, be no more. Let this be said. If Stalin was a scourge, then Saddam certainly aspired. If he’s already dead: good riddance. If he isn’t, then there’s still hope.
I don’t care how left-wing you are or how much you dislike Dubya. Show me an argument that can defend that illegitimate son of a goat-raper. Torturer, despot, maniac. And, of course, I mean that in the NICEST possible way. ;D
Assholes die. Is that sufficiently unemotional? :)
Palewriter, if I didn’t think you would actually consider an intelligent argument to the contrary, I might be offended by your last post.
Therein lies the only reason I ever get irked: if I think I’m not being taken seriously when I am serious.
Agreeing to disagree on a matter is an option in some situations but usually I find it less than satisfactory. It just closes the door on the discussion; I guess the context and the purpose of the discussion would determine whether it’s an appropriate course.
Here’s something I wonder about. To what extent can and/or does the attempt to sway the minds of others come into play?
I observe two things in my own thinking: if I recognize from the outset that there is no need to convince anyone of anything and I’m just putting information (be it factual or my opinion) out there for the common interest, then it seems there is little chance for heat.
But, if in my mind I really believe I’m right and everyone should agree with me, then I have much more interest in pushing my views…
It’s not black and white, though, is it? I mean, if I never even had the slightest inkling of intent to sway an opinion to my side, what would be the point of argument?
I’m sorry if I offended you. That certainly wasn’t my intention. I firmly believe Saddam and his sons to be evil people. And I can’t subscribe to the Western liberal view that it’s possible to talk evil people out of doing evil things. Sometimes, a bug simply needs to be fumigated. That said, I certainly don’t want to fog up the Agora with bug spray. Perhaps I should have kept my opinions to myself. Again, my intention was by no means to offend you or anyone else in this community. I do, however, reserve the right to have my opinions and to express them. Still, I hope I will always be open to intelligent argument to the contrary.
If we differ in our opinion of current events, that’s sad but perhaps simply in the nature of a free and honest debate, such as is conducted here.
[quote author=Palewriter link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#11 date=04/09/03 at 00:34:35]
I don’t care how left-wing you are or how much you dislike Dubya. Show me an argument that can defend that illegitimate son of a goat-raper. Torturer, despot, maniac. And, of course, I mean that in the NICEST possible way. ;D
I thought you meant Dubya until I read Katy’s post. She likes Dubya, so I knew I had missed something.
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=omni;num=1049802502;start=0#3 date=04/08/03 at 18:21:51]
I teach my children to behave respectfully to others as well while maintaining an awareness of their feelings and opinions. I am helping them distinguish between "I feel" ("I feel you’re being unfair") and assessments of reality ("you’re not being fair!"). The former allows me to accept their feelings and at the same time leaves a road open to seeing that there may be something else happening, alongside their feelings, that warrants consideration.
I want to share something that a professor taught me in graduate school. She would ask students to talk about how they felt about issues that we discussed in class. Almost all the time the response would start like this: "I think that…". She would stop the student and say that she didn’t want to know what they thought, she wanted to know what they felt. To that they would start: "I feel that…". She would stop them again. Any time you say "I feel that" you are about to tell someone what you think. Any time you say "I feel" and it is followed by anything other than a feeling world or an adjective that is about to describe a feeling word, you are telling what you think. Adults have so much difficulty telling how they feel as opposed to what they think, some students could not tell how they felt unless they looked at a feeling "cheat sheet" that she had. It listed about 50-75 feeling words from which to chose feelings. The sentence I made boldface in the quote above doesn’t have any feeling statements. It has an opinion (I think) statement, and a fact (I think) statement. The I feel statement that would most likely corespond with those I think statments would be "I feel angry!", (or betrayed and therefore angry, hurt, unloved and therefore sad, unappreciated and therefore lonely, unhappy, tired, or lonely).
Conversation can be moved along in a very helpful direction if, when feelings are involved and need to be discussed, participants are pushed to share feelings and own them. It is also helpful to call thoughts thoughts, and not feelings. It allows everyone to sort out opinions and facts, verses feelings, which may or may not corespond to the thoughts. Many times if feelings are very out of proportion to what would seem appropriate for the ideas expressed, it can be a clue to some underlying issue. These issues often would not be unearthed if statements like "I feel that…" are allowed to stand.
In my mind, I try to restate feeling statements in my head to see if what is actually being said is "I think." It is difficult to spot these misstatements if you aren’t used to looking for them. However, it seems that adults rarely tell how they feel. I would say that, easily, 95% of feeling statements aren’t feeling statements.
This has been part of the foundation of the "emotion education" I have done with my kids. You know what? What I have discovered is that we are trained from an early age to NOT tell how we feel. If my kids are upset with me because I won’t let them do whatever it is that they want to, and they say "Mom, I am SO ANGRY at you. You are making me very mad and I DON’T like the choices you have given me!" (I hear this at least once a week.) other people will get upset with my kids because they are being "disrespectful". HOwever, if they were to say, "Mom, I feel that these are bad choices and I don’t like them," some would still find it disrespectful, but more would find it acceptable. It sounds so rational! The first example sounds uncivilized. However, the fact is that much of the time my kids don’t think I am wrong, they don’t like the situation. They are just angry. It is so much easier to deal with anger than it is to get into a long debate about whether or not the choices I have offered are good ones.
We teach children from the earliest ages that feelings are invalid or uncivilized. So we have all learned to substitute reason for feelings and to bury the feelings.
Okay.
I didn’t go into all of this because I think you, or anyone else, has made a grave mistake or anything. I have seen "I feel that" statements here at the Agora before this, and haven’t said anything. This is one of my pet peeves. Part of the reason that it is a peeve of mine is that I think that acknowledging feelings as feelings and thoughts as thoughts is one of the first steps toward world peace!
By the way, I wanted to say that I really appreciate this discussion. I have just left (permanently) a very abusive message board. The moderators are, really, fascists in how they run the board, and they are very abusive. They call it debate. Heated debate. But on an almost weekly basis they delete non-inflamitory posts that they don’t like… particularly if their method of running the board is questioned, they change the signature lines of people they are argueing with, and they change the "option" buttons on member’s profiles as a practical joke. The swearing and lude suggestions don’t bother me. However, the tone of the board and the censoring of the moderators… and the unethical treatment of board members has finally caused me to leave. I’ve only been a member for about 2 months there. However, I was sad about leaving because it is nice to have somewhere to go and be able to talk about mothering issues in a forum that doesn’t become shocked about some of the parenting choices we have made (extended nursing and gentle parenting, to name a few) (I get frustrated with boards that dedicate a good bit of time to discussions of how to wean 3 month olds and how to force 1 year olds to sleep all night (crying excessivly) or how to deal with children who are clingy when mom gets home from work, etc.)(There is a place for these boards, but not for me ON them.)
Because of some sick problem that I have (what else could it be) I have been grieving the loss of this other board. I think I miss the potential that was there, much more than the actual board.
This discussion has made it perfectly clear why I don’t want to go back. Obviously the only option is silence. I don’t have the power that the moderators have, so I couldn’t "fight" with them, (not a fair fight, anyway) even if I wanted to. The standard mantra over there, from the moderators, is "put up or shut up". However, if one choses to put up, one does so at the evil hands of the moderators. I can’t believe I put up with it as long as I did. Of course, when they are nice, they are very nice.
Anyway, this discussion has been fruitful therapy for me. Thanks.
What a wonderfully insightful post (or two posts…). As you may have discovered, we run things here with a very light hand. In fact at the moment I don’t have enough time to keep up with most of what goes on here. I check in but really don’t interfere.
Your statements on thinking and feeling are right on. As somebody who has taught interpersonal communication for years I would agree that we need to be more conscientious and mindful of how we speak. That isn’t to say that all conversation should be happy-happy talk designed never to challenge or offend. It is rather to say that we need to be aware of what we are saying, why we are saying it and how it could be interpreted by our fellow communicators.
). Here is the basic thought process I had:
