All of us engage in conversations every day, some pleasant
and others not so. Those can be light and easy, serious, strained, or even
hostile, and many will entail disagreement. We often think of the latter as
being unpleasant, and for good reason. Most disagreement conversations usually
are. But they need not be if the manner in which we engage is uplifting and
expansive rather than restrictive and punitive.
In the latter, things quickly degrade into a zero-sum
condition, a conversational death spiral. In this “I-win, you-lose” mentality,
each party seeks to prevail and often to crush the other. The quality and
amount of information articulated, openness to contrary views, and clarity all
decline, if they were present at all. Each party demonstrates his disdain and
disrespect for the other, as well as for his views. Each is operating from a defensive
position that produces only hostility and resentment. And the more emotion
present, the worse the combatants’ behavior.
In a restrictive conversation there are one or more
negative goals (although the parties usually deny this): To show the other
person he is wrong, to convince him to change his mind, and to punish him. Some
people who engage in restrictive conversations argue that they are polite and
respectful while disagreeing, and thus cannot be seen as engaging in
unproductive exchanges. While they may be polite, the game is still “I-win,
you-lose.” Real openness is absent in spite of the politeness.
But what is wrong with trying to convince another person
that he is wrong, or to change his mind? Isn’t that part of what happens naturally
when people disagree? It can be. And it may not always be problematic. But it
is surely so when the underlying motive is to win, prevail, or crush the other
person. Before convincing another that your take on something might be better
than his, you must first understand his perspective in detail. Otherwise you
are operating from a view that is incomplete, if not totally wrong. Naturally,
the other person will object, leading to an undesirable and disrespectful
result.
Hence the need for thoughtful questions, respectfully
delivered.
But restrictive conversations are seldom characterized by
questions that expand and illuminate unclear or complex issues. Neither party has
any interest in the details of the other’s views. Each sees the world in black or
white terms, within which there is no room for subtlety or sophistication. The
goal is singular---to win. It is definitely not to understand. The combatants
engage in counter-punching, a near endless merry-go-round of conversational
idiocy producing only negativity. Neither is able or willing to get off the
“ride.”
Counter-punching is both simple and simplistic---whatever
the other person says that one disagrees with must be instantly counteracted, denied,
and preferably demolished. Anger is a primary emotional force, although other
emotions are often present as well. Any tactic is acceptable: interruptions,
mis-representation, lying, deflection, yelling, ad hominem attacks, or data
avalanches are only a few of the disreputable methods. Clearly,
counter-punching diminishes both the conversation and the combatants.
Happily there is an alternative, at least one for those
with great discipline and courage.
The expansive conversation has no zero-sum game mentality.
The guiding principle is increasing both clarity and understanding. It is
exploratory. Neither person has an agenda, hidden or overt, to vanquish the
other. In fact, each wants the other to feel safe from emotional trashing, but
not from hearing challenging ideas. The parties do not fear having incorrect or
incomplete ideas, and relish the conversation as a way to understand better.
They have not invested huge emotion in their positions, and thus can be much
more flexible in seeing alternative views. There is no need for either to
change positions, although clearly this happens far more often than in
restrictive conversations. Learning is a critical element. And this is true
even when the conversation involves the most contentious issues, such as
abortion, affirmative action, or climate change.
Creating an expansive conversation might look easy at
first glance, but it’s hugely difficult to implement. Most of us engage in
restrictive conversations, and have for many years, often decades. Changing the
old reactive behavior patterns is extremely difficult and usually (if I am any
example) takes many years of practice. That’s why I emphasize discipline and
courage. Practice means using every interaction, day-in and day-out, benign or
not, to work on becoming less reactive and more reflective, more questioning
and more expansive. Paradoxically, we are most tested by, and derive the most benefit
from engaging with people who use the highly unpleasant restrictive
conversation style. Those folks are like gold, to be cherished. Only through
them can we make real progress.
You see and do not see.
You hear and do not hear.
The Buddha weeps.
