I noticed my character going out the window the other day when a vendor was being unreasonable about a cancellation. I wondered if I was the only one who wanted to give up being loving and kind and honorable when faced with injustice or ignorance. And as I was reading the paper, I read about others in difficult straits and wondered if they too struggled with the maintaining their ethical values in the face of life’s trials.
For instance, what about the hockey player whose neck was broken after he was rammed against the wall – how did he and his parents keep from fury at the game, the coach, the other player? Were they tempted to “lose it,” lose their ethics, and take out their anger and fears on others in the face of their potential loss?
What about those “Occupy” protesters around the world using their collective might against corporate greed? Clearly, they were advocating for what they believed was right. And in the face of economic tumult around the world, many of us have been reevaluating our values related to money. Or perhaps reevaluating the values of others who committed the crimes that contributed to our economic crisis – crimes for which many have yet to pay. We read that some of the protesters followed the law, were peaceable, and used their numbers to speak their values or concerns loudly. Others –the papers say outside trouble makers – became violent and destructive, values I would hope we would not aspire to.
And what about the police officers trying to ensure peace and safety during the protests – Did they use wisdom and restraint in handling the protests? Or did they find themselves fearful, and as a result, lose their commitment to promoting peacefulness? Did they become belligerent in the face of the anger that was being expressed?
It is natural to become angry in the face of someone harming us or ours, or in the face of losing something that we value. The question is, what do we do with that anger? Do we lash out or retaliate? Does our fear lead us to do things that are not honorable? Or do we remember that conflict is a normal part of life, and that learning to handle it in helpful ways is a necessity? Do we remember that the person on the other side or the conflict is a human being too, with needs and desires and hopes? Or do we only focus on our needs and desires and hopes?
I certainly know I have trouble thinking about the other person when my needs are thwarted. Or when I am depressed or hurt or sick. And sometimes I justify my “crazy” behavior with those excuses. But afterward, I am drawn back to asking – “Did I behave honorably?” “Was I loving?” “Respectful?” “Kind?” And more importantly – “What would happen if everyone behaved as I did?” Because really, isn’t that the most important thing – realizing that we are all critical cogs in the wheel of our communities – and that we can start a hostile, angry ball rolling downhill fast if we don’t remember that everyone is important in creating a positive community. Won’t you instead stand up and let your character be counted as one who continually aims to grow ethically? To refuse to let circumstances pull you from your central values? To invest in creating positive change in your family and community and school, rather than following along with negativism and harmfulness? I’m going to try to stay there – won’t you join me?
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Disagreeing, with Respect
In this week's Palm Beach Post, a discussion about a political conflict in a nearby county generated an interesting response from a man at a party. He said, "I wish that we could disagree without being so disagreeable." The article's author wondered if that had ever been possible in that particular county. Isn't that a sad commentary on our times? That we can't disagree very easily and still remain friends, still work on needed projects, still feel like part of the same community? Why do you suppose that is? What makes us draw lines in the dirt and dare people to cross them? What makes it so hard for us to be able to state what we feel or believe or want, and, if it conflicts with what someone else feels or believes or wants, merely use the difference as an opportunity for growth or learning?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Winning or Growing
Two newspaper articles struck me this week as illustrations of the lack of respect in our society (Cerebino; Pitts, Palm Beach Post), rather than an acknowledgement of tremendous opportunities to teach respect in the face of values differences. One article described a situation in which students expressed the very strong religious opinion that the earthquake in Haiti was God’s punishment for the Haitian people’s pact with the devil. Their teacher, a non-Christian, called their perspective “a bunch of fairy-tale nonsense.” The conflict escalated into other teachers spraying “holy water” on the first teacher, who, in turn, filed a bullying complaint. It further escalated when a community preacher joined the fray with his lawyers to support the students and the holy water sprayers.
In the second article, some Mexican-American teenagers celebrated Cinco de Mayo by wearing the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag; and their principal called the shirts “incendiary” (because emotions are running high about public policies related to illegal immigration), and asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.
In each case, people with power who disagreed with an expressed opinion tried to force their opinion on those with lesser power. And when they did so, they were met with an attempt to take back power in response. The power approaches were the attempt of one side of a values dispute to “win” over the other, to say, “You are wrong, and I have more power, so I get to say that you are wrong and keep your perspective from being heard or valued.” And this approach means, generally, that the person(s) with the most power win, even if their perspectives harm others. Clearly, women and people of color’s experiences illustrate the damage that can be done to those without power if their perspectives are not heard and honored.
Is winning always best when there is a dispute? Doesn’t winning always imply that there is a loser who will want to fight back? Might such power approaches actually create dangerous escalation? What might be an alternative approach?
But just as important as these questions is asking ourselves, didn’t these teachers and principals miss tremendous opportunities for teaching their students about character and about making difficult ethical decisions, based on critical thinking, rather than on merely following the crowd? Didn’t they miss the chance to help the students to learn how to respect others, even when they find themselves in a conflict? Didn’t they miss a phenomenal chance to help their students to develop into independent thinkers, instead of merely followers of the loudest or most popular speaker? Isn’t this what we want for our children—to develop into people with the capacity to make quality decisions in the face of difficult circumstances, so that they won’t get sucked into following a dangerous and destructive leader or crowd?
It takes a great deal of respect to really listen and understand another’s perspective. And we have to be open to the fact that if we really listen, we might actually learn something and, in turn, change in some way. The teens in each of these situations might have been able to face the developmental challenges posed by such conflicts with the help of older, wiser souls capable of shepherding them through an experience of carefully weighing differing perspectives, of considering what to do about these differing perspectives, of using the conflict to become clearer on the higher values or virtues that we ought to aspire to, and on what to do when these higher values conflict.
For instance, what might have happened in the Haitian earthquake situation if the teacher, instead of using his power to insist that the students were wrong, respected the students enough to try to understand their perspective. He might have asked, “How did you come to believe this?” And if they said, “Our pastor told us,” the teacher might further have asked, “And what do you think about your pastor’s opinion?” or “How have you decided that your pastor is right?” He could pursue the questioning with a spirit of trying to understand their perspective, while at the same time asking them to develop the skills necessary for carefully weighing what they hear against some internal standard, and further, to decide what that standard might actually be.
The teacher might also have shown respect for other students’ opinions by asking about other class members’ perspectives; and he could have pursued the same line of inquiry with respect to their alternative perspectives. Further, after demonstrating respect, concern for all of the students’ perspectives, and a commitment to developing the students’ commitments to a set of higher values or standards, the teacher could ask students to research the issue and to hold a respectful debate during the next class. And he might have upped the stakes by indicating that people’s lives (or their grades) might depend on the diligence with which they researched the issues, the ways that they conducted the debate, and their abilities to find a solution to the conflict that did not conflict with the higher values that they were committing to.
The teacher might even have asked the students to grade themselves on the results of the debate, asking them to evaluate their feelings, the degree to which they stayed respectful of others with different perspectives, the degree to which they were able to contribute to possible solutions to the differences, and the higher values that they were willing to commit to in order to determine whether to live with the differences, create a better solution than either of the perspectives, or eliminate one perspective because of the damage it was doing to other people. Because, after all, some perspectives are far too dangerous to far too many people to support merely because they are different. In fact, believing that Haitian people should not be helped, should be left to starve and die because of their beliefs or choices, might very well be one of these dangerous perspectives. Immigration policies that result in hatred or discrimination against people of color would also be dangerous.
The students might, as a class or school, have talked openly about what they learned about conflict, values, and respect during such a process; or about how participating in the process changed them. The teacher might have evaluated their ability to be respectful, to think carefully about the issues and perspectives, and to commit to and demonstrate higher principles.
As Mr. Pitts pointed out, the students might then have learned the very valuable lesson that “reasonable people reason their way through disagreements,” that it might be important for people to be able to express their opinions, but it is just as important to give others the chance to do the same. Some of those opinions will lead to needed changes and improvements in our society, and some opinions will lead to actions that harm our society. Students of all ages need to learn how to carefully evaluate these opinions for themselves, rather than merely following along with the most charismatic or well-marketed or well-funded opinion stater. But, of course, that would require teachers and principals (and the rest of us) to be reasonable and to have developed enough them(our)selves to see the value in going through such a process. Perhaps we are not always there yet – as the newspaper examples illustrated.
In the second article, some Mexican-American teenagers celebrated Cinco de Mayo by wearing the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag; and their principal called the shirts “incendiary” (because emotions are running high about public policies related to illegal immigration), and asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.
In each case, people with power who disagreed with an expressed opinion tried to force their opinion on those with lesser power. And when they did so, they were met with an attempt to take back power in response. The power approaches were the attempt of one side of a values dispute to “win” over the other, to say, “You are wrong, and I have more power, so I get to say that you are wrong and keep your perspective from being heard or valued.” And this approach means, generally, that the person(s) with the most power win, even if their perspectives harm others. Clearly, women and people of color’s experiences illustrate the damage that can be done to those without power if their perspectives are not heard and honored.
Is winning always best when there is a dispute? Doesn’t winning always imply that there is a loser who will want to fight back? Might such power approaches actually create dangerous escalation? What might be an alternative approach?
But just as important as these questions is asking ourselves, didn’t these teachers and principals miss tremendous opportunities for teaching their students about character and about making difficult ethical decisions, based on critical thinking, rather than on merely following the crowd? Didn’t they miss the chance to help the students to learn how to respect others, even when they find themselves in a conflict? Didn’t they miss a phenomenal chance to help their students to develop into independent thinkers, instead of merely followers of the loudest or most popular speaker? Isn’t this what we want for our children—to develop into people with the capacity to make quality decisions in the face of difficult circumstances, so that they won’t get sucked into following a dangerous and destructive leader or crowd?
It takes a great deal of respect to really listen and understand another’s perspective. And we have to be open to the fact that if we really listen, we might actually learn something and, in turn, change in some way. The teens in each of these situations might have been able to face the developmental challenges posed by such conflicts with the help of older, wiser souls capable of shepherding them through an experience of carefully weighing differing perspectives, of considering what to do about these differing perspectives, of using the conflict to become clearer on the higher values or virtues that we ought to aspire to, and on what to do when these higher values conflict.
For instance, what might have happened in the Haitian earthquake situation if the teacher, instead of using his power to insist that the students were wrong, respected the students enough to try to understand their perspective. He might have asked, “How did you come to believe this?” And if they said, “Our pastor told us,” the teacher might further have asked, “And what do you think about your pastor’s opinion?” or “How have you decided that your pastor is right?” He could pursue the questioning with a spirit of trying to understand their perspective, while at the same time asking them to develop the skills necessary for carefully weighing what they hear against some internal standard, and further, to decide what that standard might actually be.
The teacher might also have shown respect for other students’ opinions by asking about other class members’ perspectives; and he could have pursued the same line of inquiry with respect to their alternative perspectives. Further, after demonstrating respect, concern for all of the students’ perspectives, and a commitment to developing the students’ commitments to a set of higher values or standards, the teacher could ask students to research the issue and to hold a respectful debate during the next class. And he might have upped the stakes by indicating that people’s lives (or their grades) might depend on the diligence with which they researched the issues, the ways that they conducted the debate, and their abilities to find a solution to the conflict that did not conflict with the higher values that they were committing to.
The teacher might even have asked the students to grade themselves on the results of the debate, asking them to evaluate their feelings, the degree to which they stayed respectful of others with different perspectives, the degree to which they were able to contribute to possible solutions to the differences, and the higher values that they were willing to commit to in order to determine whether to live with the differences, create a better solution than either of the perspectives, or eliminate one perspective because of the damage it was doing to other people. Because, after all, some perspectives are far too dangerous to far too many people to support merely because they are different. In fact, believing that Haitian people should not be helped, should be left to starve and die because of their beliefs or choices, might very well be one of these dangerous perspectives. Immigration policies that result in hatred or discrimination against people of color would also be dangerous.
The students might, as a class or school, have talked openly about what they learned about conflict, values, and respect during such a process; or about how participating in the process changed them. The teacher might have evaluated their ability to be respectful, to think carefully about the issues and perspectives, and to commit to and demonstrate higher principles.
As Mr. Pitts pointed out, the students might then have learned the very valuable lesson that “reasonable people reason their way through disagreements,” that it might be important for people to be able to express their opinions, but it is just as important to give others the chance to do the same. Some of those opinions will lead to needed changes and improvements in our society, and some opinions will lead to actions that harm our society. Students of all ages need to learn how to carefully evaluate these opinions for themselves, rather than merely following along with the most charismatic or well-marketed or well-funded opinion stater. But, of course, that would require teachers and principals (and the rest of us) to be reasonable and to have developed enough them(our)selves to see the value in going through such a process. Perhaps we are not always there yet – as the newspaper examples illustrated.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Disagreeing, with Respect (October 2008)
In this week's Palm Beach Post, a discussion about a political conflict in a nearby county generated an interesting response from a man at a party. He said, "I wish that we could disagree without being so disagreeable." The article's author wondered if that had ever been possible in that particular county. Isn't that a sad commentary on our times? That we can't disagree very easily and still remain friends, still work on needed projects, still feel like part of the same community? Why do you suppose that is? What makes us draw lines in the dirt and dare people to cross them? What makes it so hard for us to be able to state what we feel or believe or want, and, if it conflicts with what someone else feels or believes or wants, merely use the difference as an opportunity for growth or learning?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Well, we therapists have our perspectives on this, although we may not do conflict any better ourselves: In order to deal with conflict in healthy ways, we need to have confidence in ourselves. We need to know that "I" will be okay and will exist even if someone different from who "I" am comes into my proverbial neighborhood. When that "I" is strong enough, it can't be threatened by another "I". And that's what we are talking about here, aren't we? When conflict turns into divisions, it is because someone is feeling threatened. Someone figures that they are going to lose, get run over, not be respected. But when I have full respect for myself, I know that I will not disappear just because someone disagrees with me. And when I am not feeling threatened, I can be respectful of other people, fully hear them, care about their perspective, and consider how each of our perspectives might be honored and cared for and supported.
In fact, if I am sure that I am not perfect and not "all knowing," then I ought to want to hear other perspectives in order to learn, in order to expand my horizons, in order to move beyond my limitations. But in order to do that, I have to have respect for other people, particularly those who are different from me. I have to acknowledge that there are other people "out there" who know something, who have valuable things to offer, and who can teach me. I have to be open, rather than closed off. And I have to believe that being able to disagree without being disagreeable is something to aspire to. I'm going to work at this kind of respect for myself and for other people. Will you take the challenge to do so as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
