Earlier this summer, I had a run-in with one of our neighbors. He inquired about a matter that he saw as an affront to his property rights. (It was. My wife had an agreement with his wife, but…well, it’s a long story.) I asked him a clarifying question, but my tone of voice was all wrong, and in hindsight I can see why he heard it as he did. Things escalated quickly. Expletives were used. I quickly walked away.
In my mind, however, I took one more step.
Incidents like this completely unglue me, and I usually react by writing the person off. This was no exception. I did everything I could not to cross the property line anymore. I didn’t even allow myself to look in their yard (except furtively, on occasion). In essence, I sealed this fellow off from my consciousness.
I started revisiting this run-in during our conversation about last week’s post. Several of you wrote about people who had approached you not just with adamant opinions, but with hostility and vitriolic words. You talked about keeping silence and just walking away.
This type of situation comes up a lot in discussions I’ve had about dialogue. People use it to point out the limits of dialogue, and I agree. In the short term, clamming up and walking away is the best part of wisdom. Our intensity is so strongly engaged that we probably will not present our views in the best or most dialogic light. We may well end up saying things we don’t mean. And even if we could explain ourselves calmly, our adversaries are not at all inclined to hear us.
But that’s not all I did. By writing off my neighbor, I excluded him from playing any role whatever in my life. I also eliminated the possibility of enjoying a peaceful neighborly relationship with him. The best I could hope for was a tense standoff, an uneasy (if permanent) truce.
I’m not the only one who does this. Look at our public square: not only do we argue with the “other side,†we dismiss the notion that they could have anything valuable to say to us. In the process, we dismiss them as people. We lose out on the wisdom that they carry within themselves, and we miss the opportunity for a peaceful—and who knows? maybe even fruitful—relationship.
Several weeks after our run-in, a house caught fire on our block, and neighbors gathered. My wife found herself standing right next to my adversary and his wife. They fell to chatting, and lo and behold, she discovered that he’s actually a good guy. But I, with my stance toward him, would never have found out.
Sometimes, particularly when our safety is at stake, we have no choice but to write someone off. In our culture at large, however, we err on the side of doing so too quickly. What might happen if we held open the channel between us and our adversaries a bit longer?
Walking away works but it isn’t very satisfying. My mind continues the conversation for hours (ok, days), and I always have the smartest, pithiest remarks that win the day (you know, in my own mind). However, it still isn’t very satisfying and I often have to deal with the individual through this icy silence I’ve imposed.
I’ve developed a somewhat new and still mostly untested theory of asking questions when I really want to offer my wealth of knowledge/opinions on the subject at hand, about which I am, of course, an expert. Yet by asking a well-placed question or two I find I calm my own heart and mind and suggest an interest in the opinion of my adversary. Especially with co-workers, this strategy has been effective and new pathways of peace have been paved (ok, there are a few potholes but that was to be expected). Asking questions is particularly effective with teenagers since they know more than I do anyway and it gives them a chance to vent–as if that was necessary!
And just because it’s the way I am, I work very hard to inject humor whenever possible. I do find that getting someone to at least chuckle, we can at least agree to disagree.
GREAT strategies, Phyllis. I think questions hold tremendous power to validate people and extend an invitation to dialogue. But it never occurred to me that questions are also a way to calm ourselves internally. That’s a compelling idea.
And…humor? YOU? I never would have guessed. ; )
Phyllis,
Kind of like “reflective listening”? Where you repeat back what the person says? Something, I personally have to work on, especially when dealing with Katherine….LOL
I just read this blog, and it was like a ray of sunshine to my day. I *so* relate to what you say, and to what Phyllis (above) posts.
My personal strategy has been to adopt a mantra: “give EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt”. It’s part of the Golden Rule, for me: treat others as you wish to be treated. The struggle is when I encounter an “opponent” who – out of the gate – refuses to adopt it too. It immediately puts me on the defensive, and – like Phyllis – I end up internalizing it, to the point of creating an icy silence with him/her.
Lately, however, I’ve been more successful with the “giving the benefit of the doubt” strategy. Part of it is trusting in the innate goodness of people (not easy to do when you live in a major urban city with a high crime rate) or… better yet… believing that they would choose good when presented to them. That understanding helps me be more generous and open to understanding another viewpoint.
OK, now I have some neighbors to talk to…
I think remaining open to someone who is manifestly NOT open is one of the most difficult aspects of dialogue. (Sometimes it’s even counterproductive, as in when the not-open person is hostile to the point of violence.) I tend to walk away from those folks–hoping that maybe we can talk some other day–and instead focus on those who have at least some openness to dialogue. But I like your approach better, Susan. Have you had success with this in someone who’s actively antagonistic? How do you “hold that space open” to continue the conversation, and at what point do you decide it’s no longer productive?
Well, I think there’s a different tactic when you engage someone in face-to-face dialogue, versus email/internet dialogue.
In the face-to-face scenario, I recently discovered that I enjoy doing neighborhood canvassing for a particular political cause/candidate. I love to go door to door and talk to residents in my city. For the most part, people are actually very willing to hear you out if they see you’ve gone the extra mile and knocked on their door. But there were some harrowing encounters, including one with a vicious dog which nearly took my hand off!
One thing that helps me “keep the space open” is to remind myself that I am an ambassador for an idea, and if I come across as rude, intemperate, or condescending, then I am probably sending the signal that my idea/cause is similarly intemperate or inflexible. Second, it helps to have a “fall back” strategy; in the event the non-open person initiates antagonism, I find it helpful to deflect to a different topic that is tangentially related and one that is less controversial (ex: if they really hate my candidate, then I will engage them in discussing the new Voter ID law and ensuring they are aware of its provisions). Third, it does help to say you are sorry if you are accused of misinterpreting the opponent’s position, even if the accusation is false. It’s generally easy to know when the conversation is no longer productive; if the voice stays at a high volume, if emotions continue to run high, and common ground on my “back up (non-controversial) topic” even seems impossible to reach, then I fold up my tent and move on. Of course, a door-to-door canvasser doesn’t want to be too pushy or take up too much of a person’s time in any event.
As for internet communications, it’s harder – oddly enough. People say things on the internet that they would never dream of saying face-to-face. (And I’m no saint either as is manifestly evident from the hard-knuckled debates posted on my Facebook page!) Sometimes the best strategy is just to look for areas of potential consensus or, like you say, ask questions. I have a particular friend on FB that isn’t shy about his opinions and can be quite antagonistic in tone, frequently insulting the people in the community where I live. It’s taken a lot of patience and practice to refrain from doing the same with him and his. I just regale him with positive experiences in my neighborhood. Interestingly, he is now becoming more open, and I’ve noticed a much more civil tone in his dialogue. Maybe it was helpful that I led the way, or maybe he realized that no one was awarding points to the “winner”.
All of the above, admittedly, are still major “works in progress” for me. Still much to learn!