Author: Anthony Rella

  • Social Diplomacy, Part 4: Identifying What Matters

    • Identifying what matters

    Diplomacy requires we know what we value, what I am trying to bring about in the world: deep values like Justice, Equality, Liberty, or Respect. In the larger sense, these values are always aspirational—they point in a direction but they are rarely a destination at which we’ve arrived. Having a clear sense of values helps guide my thinking and behaviors. I can name what’s not working for me and suggest a direction I think would work better.

    What’s useful about knowing my values is that it keeps me in balanced relationship to my “side.” Knowing my values is also to some extent recognizing my “side,” my home team, my people. The traditional role of a diplomat is one who crosses boundaries to help a relationship between two larger groups, particularly to represent their home group’s interests in that relationship.

    Image of a bird, white with black spots. Image by Giovanni Calia.
    Image of a bird, white with black spots. Image by Giovanni Calia.

    With that, however, the diplomat comes to know and understand everyone else’s perspective and appreciates the reality that no one can get everything they want. They also begin to see how the other “side’s” arguments and criticisms of the home group make sense from their position.

    Nationalistic or tribalistic attitudes resist this kind of diplomacy. They want to split groups into all-good and all-bad, and the home group is “naturally” the all-good one. Warhawks on each side would rather push for conflict and dominance and not engage in the compromise and mutual understanding that is the diplomat’s turf.

    I find that becoming defensive or overly protective of problematic behavior interferes with effective conversation. It becomes clear I’m less interested in a solution and more interested in promoting my “side”. None of us are free of problematic behavior or exempt from criticism, though some of us have more power and potential to cause damage with our problematic behavior.

    Knowing what matters also helps me to focus. In any discussion there are so many issues that arise and opportunities for bad behavior that it’s easy for issues to become wholly derailed, or lost in a sea of problems. In any confrontation, we need to be focused yet flexible, able to honor the complexity while also staying centered around the particular value that matters most. It’s rare that I will change someone’s mind in one conversation, so I might consider the most important task to be stating my case effectively, listening to and addressing arguments, and then walking away so we can all think about it. Other times, I need a specific change to happen and I’m not going to leave until I’ve gained ground on it. 

    What I value about diplomacy is stepping out of the need for one side to be right and the other wrong and instead building workable connections. With this value, I am willing to listen to other “sides” and attempt to understand what’s valuable about their perspective. I do not have to wholly agree with their viewpoints, but if I can find something of value in their perspective then I have an opportunity for connection and transformative conversation. I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of this further in the next post.

  • Social Diplomacy, Part 3: Inviting Us into Our Best Selves

    • Recognizing that we want to be seen as our best selves

    Image of a boy surrounded by bubbles, either running or playing in front of a house.
    Image of a boy surrounded by bubbles, either running or playing in front of a house. Photo by David Schap.

    My approach to diplomacy draws upon the concept of self-evaluation motives, the premise of which is that people are motivated to have a positive self-concept and seek to have that self-concept validated in their relationships with others. In other words, we want to be seen as our best selves. And we are not always our best selves. In my observation, every person I’ve met has contained complex and contradictory, sometimes opposing, parts, impulses, or desires. We contain multitudes, to paraphrase Walt Whitman, and in those multitudes are a host of parts that are not always helpful. 

    Most of us are, at one time or another, hypocrites. We say or believe we want to be one way, but we are not always that way. We might let ourselves get away with behavior we would not tolerate in others. There are things we consider “wrong” that we insist we would never, ever do, completely blind to the fact that we’re doing them. Or, we’re hoping no one will notice that we’re doing them. This is a human problem, but it is not an excuse. It is the irritation that spurs us toward greater integrity. We can make our beliefs and our behavior more and more aligned, but it requires practice, patience, contemplation, and openness to feedback.

    When another person notices that our words and actions don’t line up, we may respond defensively. When someone points out a quality that we don’t like about ourselves, we often respond defensively. It’s easy to experience shame and humiliation when someone sees and names these contradictions. Even the most gentle, loving call-in may stir Shame Dragon.

    When the Shame Dragon stirs in me, I’m not very open to growth or positive feedback. I don’t sit in the moment, thoughtfully reflecting on the lesson you are offering—not without a lot of deep breathing and emotional self-care. (Also: writing and deleting several drafts of comments on Internet arguments.) Even if you are 100% correct and I recognize this, I need time to soothe my shame before I can fully take in what you’re saying and make effective changes.

    Typical unproductive responses to the rousing of the Shame Dragon include:

    • Denying the contradiction or wrong
    • Emotional shut down
    • Responding with toxic insults
    • Walling off with excessive and fake politeness
    • Breaking down into excessive apologizing or self-abasement until the other person backs down or says it’s okay

    The person who is lashing out because the Shame Dragon scours their inner landscape has work to do. In a confrontation, it’s not our job to soothe their feelings, but diplomacy offers tools to deal with contradictions and hypocrisy that help us reduce the intensity of these responses. It comes back to acting in good faith and inviting people to their best selves, addressing problematic behavior as though it was an unrecognized mistake or failing from someone who aspires to be better.

    From this position, we can invite people to recognize their behavior and return to their best selves while allowing them to save face. We’ve already begun discussing these strategies by talking about the problem instead of the person. More will be the subject of future posts.

  • Social Diplomacy, Part 2: Depersonalizing Problems

    • Talking about problems rather than people

    To be clear: when discussing political, group, or interpersonal problems, we are always talking about people. What helps is to discuss problems in ways that are not personal.

    I’ve heard people savvy in mental health language claim they can identify people with personality disorders, and I am cautious about this. Many of us have personality features that at times resemble disorders, particularly in times of great and unusual distress.

    Image of a beachfront town. There appear to be geometric patterns on the beach due to the arrangement of what may be tables and umbrellas. I
    Image of a beachfront town. There appear to be geometric patterns on the beach due to the arrangement of what may be tables and umbrellas. Image by Max Boettinger.

    My preference is to focus on the impact of behavior, problematic patterns, and systemic issues; giving others the opportunity to stand in good faith and rise to their best selves. If they do not do so, or they do so and later prove they were acting in bad faith, then that is the end of my diplomatic dealings with them. I’m not going to spend my personal time trying to fix or coerce people into constructive behavior.

    To break the focus down:

    • Impact of Behavior
      • Rather than accusing you of ill intent, I let you know how I or the community experience your behavior. “When you promise to be kind to me but then make fun of me in front of your friends, I feel hurt and unsafe. I have a harder time trusting your promises.”
      • One of the strengths of this position is that there’s nothing to argue with. I’m not saying you’re a liar. I’m saying if you want me to trust you, this behavior is getting in the way of your goal. It takes the judgment and accusation out while letting everyone involved take responsibility for their experience.
      • This position is necessarily vulnerable and requires some authenticity. The other person might take this opportunity to explode or gaslight. That is a good sign that they’re not acting in good faith. However, if I myself am not acting in good faith, the other person might be responding to that.
    • Problematic Patterns
      • In a systems approach, problems are not caused by one person but arise in relationships in which each participates.
      • Framing a problem in this way empowers all involved to consider how their behavior contributes to the problem, particularly one that keeps recurring. This is particularly useful in intimate relationships and groups.
      • In groups where there’s always one person causing trouble, it’s easy for people to think getting rid of that person is the solution, only to find that someone else takes that person’s place. If that happens, then the problem is systemic.
    • Systemic Issues
      • This takes us into larger contexts than the impersonal, and reminds us to look at dimensions of power, privilege, access, and environment.
      • When I have a problem with my boss, I am always aware that they have more power and influence than I do; whereas my boss might not be, and might think we are having a conversation between equals. 
      • In some ways, we are equal because we’re human. In other ways, we are not equal because we have unequal influence. I find it helpful to name this.

    None of these are meant to be excuses or replacements for holding people accountable; rather they are ways of bringing accountability while offering the person an opportunity to save face and rise to their best selves. Too often we attack people’s character and put them in verbal boxes, we offer our criticism as a prison. “You’re a jerk and you never care about my feelings” is a trap, it freezes that person in a role and there’s nothing they can do to get out of it. “I felt hurt when you said that in front of my mother” is feedback that gives the person options to make amends or avoid further problems.

    My approach to diplomacy comes from the belief that most of us crave to be seen as our best selves, though we all struggle to be that. I’ve seen people respond well when I frame issues in non-personal ways and invite them to step into their best selves. This topic will be explored further in the next post.

    All posts in this series:

  • Social Diplomacy, Part 1: Conflict with Connection

    A while back, I wrote a post about how much we need the art of civil discourse. Since then, I’ve heard more about the need for this kind of approach to dialogue and conflict in a world that feels increasingly fractious and polarized. We know we need to have hard conversations but struggle to do so with diplomacy and tact. No single blog is going to turn the tide, but for the next several weeks I am offering posts with the premises and practices that help me in navigating conflict.

    According to Merriam Webster, diplomacy is “skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings”. A synonym for this is “tact.” Diplomacy is not about conflict avoidance or being a doormat. Indeed, diplomats stand for something, rooted in loyalty to a core set of values or a community; they are simply willing to extend themselves in dialogue and effort across lines of conflict. Diplomacy enables us to meet hard truths and advocate for change in ways that include, that call people into the process. Diplomacy is a set of practices as much as it is a path. We are all capable of developing these capacities.

    Image of a person from behind wearing a metal crown and a red cape with furry white fringe. The person is facing a backdrop of trees.
    Image of a person from behind wearing a metal crown and a red cape with furry white fringe. The person is facing a backdrop of trees. Photo by Pawel Furman

    What we seem to default to, however, are shame and alienation. When someone does something wrong, it’s too easy to pile on, call out, shame, and chase people out of our social circles. Everyone who’s left behind feels momentarily satisfied, having been an “us” against a different “them,” but then all live under the threat of being the next person to step out of line. There are times when people’s behavior is toxic, disruptive, and intractable and the community must be unflinching in its rejection or face dissolution. I do believe, however, that we can become so guarded and protective that we assume bad faith too quickly. I have also noticed that toxic and disruptive people become adept at using shame and alienation against others.

    Diplomacy offers us a set of practices to invite in more good faith in our interactions. “Good faith” is the assumption of honesty and sincerity. Whether we think someone is coming to us in good faith or bad faith tremendously changes the way we experience another person’s behavior. If you behave in a way that feels disrespectful, but I believe you are acting in good faith, it is easier for me to manage my reactivity and let you know how your behavior affected me. I assume that you do not want to hurt me and did so on accident. Good faith elicits harmony, respect, and coöperation. If I believe you are acting in bad faith, I am going to wall off at the first sign of disrespect. Maybe I’ll explode at you with a barrage of insults and shame, or maybe I’ll behave in a completely friendly and civil way to your face but go around to all of our friends talking badly about you. Bad faith fosters division, discord, and distrust.

    The next few weeks will feature posts on principles and practices that I find helpful in developing diplomacy. These include:

    Where I come from: I am a cisgender White gay man who is able-bodied. I have a history of painful shyness and conflict avoidance, yet I’ve often been inspired by the great reformers. People who stand for justice and change in ways that pushed societies to transform, although there is always more work to do. I’ve worked hard to become more conscious of issues of power and injustice in my communities, and I continue to push myself to engage the hard conversations. I do not believe unfriending someone on Facebook is an act of courageous activism, though sometimes it’s what I need to do.

    And I’ve messed up and embarrassed myself. I’m not being self-deprecating. I’ve said and done things for which I now feel regret, and I’ve been called out for it. I’ve responded to call-outs with defensiveness and self-justifications, making matters worse. I’ve confronted the limitations and consequences of my privilege. I am not “done.” I will say embarrassing things in the future. I will say things that are worthy of critique. I will likely respond at times with defensiveness, but hopefully less and less often, with less damage.

  • Grounding and Expansion

    For your ease and wellness, I have recorded a guided meditation practice that I do often with clients. This meditation has been useful for people struggling with PTSD triggers, anxiety, chronic pain, and other overwhelming physical and emotional experiences.

    The meditation is not about eradicating uncomfortable experiences, rather finding our inner capacity for spaciousness and presence with discomfort, distress, and pain. When we have spaciousness and presence, much becomes possible that is not when overwhelmed.

    I recommend you use the meditation in a space where you feel safe and will not be disturbed for about ten minutes. I recommend that you practice with the full meditation the first few times when you are relatively calm—not in an urgent crisis. As you get more comfortable with this, you can very easily simplify it and draw upon it during your day.

    This is freely offered. I ask only that you share it with attribution to me, and not use it for your own profit.

    Download link to Grounding and Expansion

  • Book Referral: Health at Every Size, Linda Bacon, PhD

    Health at Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight

    I was a fat kid for most of my childhood. When I look at old pictures now, I see that the range of my weight fluctuated throughout childhood, but when I was in it I just thought of myself as fat. I ate lots of food with high sugar and fat content and little nutrition. Coordination was a challenge, and often when I played sports I felt humiliated by how terrible I was at them. Until my dad and my Boy Scout Troop got me into hiking, I avoided most physical activities.

    I remember in particular a music teacher in my elementary school, who for some reason always seemed to go out of her way to point out that I was fat. One time she was teaching us a particular line dance, and dancing was one of the few activities I’ve always enjoyed. She came up to me while I was practicing and said, with this syrupy sweet patronizing concern, “This is hard, isn’t it?” I wasn’t winded at all, I didn’t feel tired. I had no idea why she was saying this to me except to point out I was fat. I was probably about nine years old. Kids aren’t stupid.

    These days, I am not as fat as I was. Others don’t believe I was ever that kid; part of me may never believe I’m not still that kid. I’ve been through lots of phases: wearing too-tight clothes as “motivation” to lose weight, shaming myself for what I ate, feeling guilty for eating “bad” things anyway, calorie restriction, and more. I’ve been recently reflecting on the great irony that some of the most thin, muscular people I know still fixate on their food choices and the specter of becoming fat; while some of the people who most fervently indulge in all their desires struggle with discomfort and dissatisfaction in their bodies. Doesn’t anyone just get to enjoy food and love their bodies?

    Upon the urging of several peers and clients, I recently picked up Dr. Bacon’s Health at Every Size (HAES)The introduction alone inspired feelings of deep discomfort and tearfulness. Her approach suggested that the impossible was possible: we could learn to love and trust our bodies to regulate themselves while enjoying food and movement. We could become more deeply acquainted with the body’s instinctive weight-management system and worry less about external measures of what and when we’re supposed to eat. That sounds so wonderful, I thought. And then the fear: But will I be thin?

    HAES takes its name from a larger movement of fat acceptance and body positivity, people who are challenging the shame and bad science around body weight and size. This movement questions the idea that being fat is intrinsically an awful, undesirable experience. They point toward the consequences of bariatric surgery and oppression against fat people as greater health risks. Dr. Bacon points to the increase in life expectancy that occurred during the same period as an increase in average body weight in the United States.

    Dr. Bacon spends several chapters addressing commonly held beliefs about obesity, diet, and weight loss, and lays out for us the science that undermines and contradicts those beliefs. Instead, she lays out a convincing case that our efforts to manage weight are more harmful, such as: widely practiced dieting habits trigger the body’s instinctive mechanism of putting on more body fat to compensate for famine. One of the things I appreciated, too, was her exploration of all the different biological, social, economic, and genetic mechanisms that contribute to body size and body fat. If anything, this was my greatest challenge with the book: she spends so much time, necessarily, addressing and challenging all of our beliefs that I kept wanting to skip ahead to the part where she tells me what to do. Just tell me what to do!!!

    A cursory reading of her approach may leave some thinking she’s saying not to have any concern about exercise and what we eat, but that isn’t what she’s doing with HAES. If anything, this movement is leading us toward a way to honor food and movement while also giving up the “war on obesity.” She provides structured practices and suggestions to follow, all of which help you become more deeply acquainted with your body and its unique needs and signals.

    This is not about externally regulating ourselves by eating only these kinds of food, doing X amount of exercises per day, or only eating Y amount of calories. This is about learning your body’s signals for hunger and fullness, and more importantly, respecting them. This is about learning what kinds of movement you enjoy, things that are fun for you. Dr. Bacon argues, with scientific evidence, that taking pleasure in the foods we eat increases our body’s efficiency at absorbing and processing their nutrients. This is not simply about eating foods that taste good; it’s about slowing down and being fully present while eating, truly savoring the food.

    When we tune into our bodies, Dr. Bacon suggests, we arrive at our “setpoints,” the body size and weight best for our own health. This means some of us may find ourselves in thinner bodies because we’ve eaten past our setpoints for years, while others may find themselves in fatter bodies because they’ve been under their setpoints. Our bodies have all these wonderful instinctive mechanisms to help us move toward wellness, but the overculture teaches us not to trust them. Instead marketing programs sells us ways to “hack” them, ignore them, overcome and subvert them. We devalue our emotions and then wonder why we’re empty inside. We don’t take naps when we’re sleepy, we drink more coffee and then can’t sleep at night. We deny ourselves when our bodies crave food and then we indulge past the point of fullness.

    The approach promoted by HAES resonated deeply with me and my therapeutic approach to lasting change. Shame, in my opinion, is a terrible strategy for creating healthy long-term change. Shame at its worst keeps us stuck in unworkable patterns. As someone who has emotional eating patterns, feeling shame about my eating only leaves me feeling defeated and like “What’s the point? I might as well keep eating even though I feel gross.” Shame says, “I am worthless, so what I do doesn’t matter.” Even when Shame leads us to change a specific habit, often we end up in another unhealthy pattern, like people who exercise to the point of severely harming their bodies. Healthy pride says, “I am worthy, so I will do the things that help me to feel good, energized, attractive, and healthy.” HAES to me speaks to an inside-out relationship to my body: what matters is that I am happy in and with my body, not about how much fat my body has.

    HAES has shown me that there’s conditioning that I still need to question and unpack, and yet it also connects with the practices that have helped me to feel good in my life. Years ago I decided it was unhealthy to wear clothes that made me feel unattractive, so I started buying pants that I liked and fit me comfortably. I also started doing the exercises that I enjoyed and changed my food habits away from chips and soda and toward carrot sticks and salads. I went out dancing and had fun. In the end, with all those healthy behaviors, does it matter what number was on the scale? If your answer is “Yes,” then the next question to wrestle with is “Why?”

    More Reading

    After the Biggest Loser, Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight” – by Gina Kolata, about the scientific studies that followed former participants in The Biggest Loser, whose bodies demonstrated severe decrease in metabolism.

    On ‘tough love’ and your fat friend’s health.” – by Your Fat Friend. An excellent article about living as a fat person subjected to constant unhelpful, oppressive shame and scrutiny.

  • Where to Start?

    We are a world in need of healing, living lives in need of healing. Our communities and families need healing. I need healing.

    Sometimes when clients come in for therapy, they feel overwhelmed when laying out all their problems. There seem to be so many, so varied, so extensive that it is unclear where to start, what to do. They have psychological houses in need of new plumbing, a new roof, extermination of the bedbugs, a fire extinguisher for the stove that keeps igniting, and they have to live in these houses while doing this work.

    A small dog wrapped in a blanket.
    This guy wants to hide out a while. Photo by Matthew Wiebe

    Perhaps you are in good health, but you are looking out to your communities in need and finding a similar dilemma. The temptation is simply to abandon the house. The temptation is to run around screaming making inept efforts at all the problems. It is horrible to think about living in this place; we sense it could be so much more but the work of repair seems so big and so costly.

    Where to start? If you were sitting with me, I’d ask you to take a deep breath, filling your belly, and then let it out. Breathing doesn’t solve anything. Breathing helps us to slow down to figure out what needs doing. We must live in our houses to work on them. Many of us wish that we could simply avoid our houses and then come back to find them all better.

    The good news is; in some ways you can start anywhere. All of these things are problems, but working on any of them will immeasurably improve your house and make the other projects easier. What feels most pressing when you slow down? What problem is most urgent? What can we do to slow down the damage? If the stove is spontaneously igniting, then disconnecting the gas or electricity seems like a good first step. Things aren’t better, but they’re not getting worse.

    Now you’re thinking about all the other things to do, but remember to breathe again. What is your body telling you? What do your feelings tell you? What does your mind tell you? What’s the next step? If you become paralyzed trying to figure it out with your mind, acknowledge those thoughts and drop deeper.

    The challenge of deep, long-term healing is balancing the urgent and the important. What helps is diving inside and reconnecting to what I want to manifest. What kind of house do I want to create? What is the next step that will make my house more like my vision? Emergencies arise and want our attention. Sometimes it is necessary to address the emergency–the curtains are on fire. Other times the emergency is a distraction–the neighbor doesn’t like the color paint we’re using on the walls. No one can tell you which is which, they can only offer feedback and help you figure it out.

    Holding the big picture, the vision, helps but focusing on all the ways our house is not that vision paralyzes. It is a difficult skill, holding the vision while keeping our focus small and practical. We take the steps in front of us. We make the phone call to the exterminator. We wash all the bedding with hot water. We do a bit each day and the house improves. Emergencies arise, we deal with them, we get back to work.

    Where to start? If you can’t decide, just pick something and spend some time with it.

  • Mistrust, Hope, and Meaningful Connection, Part 3

    In the past few weeks, I’ve written about the experience of mistrust and the work of identifying trustworthiness. Today I will talk about repairing broken trust and accessing the virtue of Hope. This is a topic much bigger than a simple blog post, however.

    Repairing Trust 

    As human beings, we will inevitably disappoint, fail, and hurt each other. We will have lapses in attention or ethics. We may cause harm without knowing we’ve done it until someone brings it to our attention. Rather than committing to the impossible goal of being or finding a perfect partner, we can explore the more workable and profound practice of repairing damaged trust in relationship.

    Put simply, the process of restoring trust involves: addressing the upset or harm; re-validating trustworthiness; and then making amends or releasing the upset.

    Address the upset or harm. Oops. Someone messed up, and now you feel hurt, angry, overwhelmed, abandoned, betrayed. Simply ignoring this doesn’t go very well. It may simmer in the background and erupt at the worst times. We may end up looking like the asshole because we’re expressing appropriate anger in an inappropriate context. Then we’re dealing with the other person’s justified anger with our own buried resentments.

    You don’t have to address every single problem at the moment you have it. Indeed, it is okay and sometimes really helpful to take some time away to reflect and then bring up the issue to discuss later, when you’re all in a state to have a constructive conversation. What helps with all this is learning to be with your feelings, validate them, and then discuss them in non-blaming ways. For first offenses, I work on bringing up the issue while giving the other person the benefit of the doubt. “You did this, and this was my experience.” Not blaming the person for “causing” the feeling or accusing them of doing it on purpose, simply giving information so they know how they affected me.

    A brown bear and her two cubs walk a rocky ridgeline. In the background is an expanse of forest and snow.
    photo by Adam Willoughby-Knox

    Re-validate trustworthiness. Now we observe how the person handles the confrontation. If they can take some measure of responsibility and apologize or make amends, that validates their trustworthiness. If they can explain where they’re coming from in a nondefensive way, that validates their trustworthiness.

    If they ignore your confrontation; attack you for bringing it up; apologize but repeat the behavior; or offer a confusing rationalization that doesn’t take any responsibility, that erodes their trustworthiness. These aren’t necessarily deal-breakers but they’re not good indicators for a strong partnership long term unless you can address and improve them.

    If they minimize your hurt, insult you, call you crazy, flagrantly repeat the behavior and taunt you while doing so, or reject your experience outright, those are RED FLAGS.

    Release the upset. Based on how trustworthy the person has proven themselves, we need to check in with ourselves. Is there lingering resentment or hurt. You might ask this part of you: is this all related to the current situation? Is any of this from the past? If it’s related to the current situation, what needs to happen for this part of me to feel okay with re-committing to the relationship?

    Is there mistrust? Ask this part of you what your next step needs to be. Perhaps the resolution is that you’re not okay with re-committing to the relationship, instead you need to distance yourself, change the terms of the relationship, or end it safely.

    Either way, resentment is not a desirable long-term feeling. It is an indicator of unresolved issues.

    Finding Hope

    I have been using “relationship” in the most generous interpretation, because issues of trust and mistrust come up in all of our relationships.

    Once we no longer depend on external caregivers to meet our needs, the most important relationship becomes the one with ourselves. We behave inconsistently, we doubt ourselves, we make promises we don’t keep, we engage in behaviors we know are harmful to other parts of ourselves.

    Becoming trustworthy stewards of ourselves is a journey, and it supports everything. The work is to cultivate more qualities of trustworthiness in how we relate to our parts. How can I be more consistent in response to my needs? How can I be respectful of my feelings? What promises can I honor?

    I believe this is the virtue of Hope: I trust myself to work through the upsets of living while creating the life I deeply desire. If it is your desire to cultivate this, I wish you strength.

  • Mistrust, Hope, and Meaningful Connection, Part 2

    Last week, I wrote about how we experience mistrust, its value, and the barriers it creates to meaningful connection. This week, I want to write about trust.

    An image of a woman crossing a wooden bridge. The bridge appears narrow, and ahead is a thick forest.
    photo by Michael Hull, via Unsplash

    Qualities of Trustworthiness

    As a Boy Scout, we frequently stated the Scout Law, a series of twelve qualities to which we aspired. The first point is to be Trustworthy.

    What makes someone trustworthy? Think about people you trust and why. Connect to the feeling of trust you have around them, but more importantly think about what it is about them that makes them trustworthy. What did they do or not do that helped you to feel trust?

    In brief, I think a trustworthy person behaves with consistency, genuineness, respect, and integrity.

    • Consistency – This person responds in a way that feels reliable. There might be some fluctuation in mood, and certainly the person will grow and change, but in general you feel confident that you know how they will respond to you. You don’t have to guess and worry about how they’ll act.
    • Genuineness – This person’s words, personality, and behavior all align. They may have multiple facets of Self that vary depending on the situation, but you sense a coherent core that is there in every situation. You know where you stand with them. When they smile, it reaches their eyes. When they are angry, they tell you what they’re angry about.
    • Respect – This person treats you with dignity and consideration. They do not put you down, coerce you to do things you don’t want to do, or take advantage of your vulnerabilities. When you set a boundary, they show willingness to abide by it. They listen to you. Even if they disagree, they do not minimize your thoughts and feelings.
    • Integrity – This person follows through on promises. They do not promise what they are unwilling to do. If they cannot keep promises, they acknowledge this and do what they can to rectify the situation. They don’t engage in confusing negotiating tactics or put the blame on you when they make mistakes. They take responsibility and apologize for problems. You feel that they behave the same whether in or out of your presence.

    These qualities are about character rather than personality. For example, a person who is cheerful and bubbly might be as trustworthy as a sardonic, dour person, or as untrustworthy.

    In the past I avoided sharp-tongued, confrontational people until I met some that were as direct with me about problems as they were about compliments. I found I could trust their praise since I knew they wouldn’t hide their concerns.

    In contrast, I used to love hanging out with gossipy, back-biting people until it occurred to me that we were talking about whomever wasn’t in the room at the time. This meant that I was behaving in an untrustworthy way, and I couldn’t trust my “friends” not to talk badly about me when I was out of the room. This has become a guiding principle for me: pay attention to how my acquaintances treat others, and think about how it would feel if I were treated in that way.

    Trustworthiness is not a fixed, innate quality. We develop these qualities through intentional choice and personal effort. If you picked one of the above qualities to develop and made a commitment to it, you could improve your trustworthiness. Others may not recognize your growth at first, but with continued effort they will begin to notice and treat you differently.

    Next week, I will write about repairing damaged trust in relationships.

  • Some Thoughts on Civil Discourse

    In my communities, and it seems in my country, I have watched increasing polarization and the lines of demarcation run sometimes very close to home. When conversations become polarized, it becomes very easy to forget that you are talking to a human being like yourself and instead imagine yourself fighting a righteous battle against an insidious, cunning, super-human villainous horde. As the climate escalates, it becomes more tempting and “justifiable” to let go of emotional containment, reflection, and dialogue with the desire to understand. Parts of us get activated by the conflict, begin to feed it and feed upon it.

    A reptilian creature poking its head up from the water. Both the reptile and the water are covered in tiny green leaves.
    This guy’s laying low until the argument dies down. Photo by delfi de la Rua.

    As an outside observer listening to a lot of arguments (like a therapist who works with couples, or someone who reads the comment sections on the Internet), and a person who has participated in several arguments (and later wondered “Why was I so mad about that?”), I’ve noticed a few things:

    • 20% of conflict is about the thing you are discussing, and 80% is about the emotional experience of the relationship.*
    • If you are accusing another (person/group) of bad behavior, the likelihood is that (you/your group) have participated in behavior that the other (person/group) perceives as similar.**
    • When you are the person accusing the other of behavior you’re engaging in, it is very hard to stop and admit this.
    • At times both parties will make parallel arguments and accusations of each other, but each will focus on a different facet. To offer an oversimplified example: Republicans and Democrats both share Liberty as a value, because America. Democrats point toward socially liberal attitudes as pro-liberty, and accuse Republicans of being anti-liberty for socially conservative policies. Republicans focus on economic and financial liberty and point toward reduced taxes and free markets as pro-liberty, and criticize Democrats as anti-liberty for taxation and regulation.***

    We need the art and discipline of civil discourse. It is worth reading and rereading about logical fallacies, as they characterize the worst habits of rhetoric. What I want to focus on is what to do when things get heated. My observation is that escalating emotional reactivity occurs when we feel misunderstood, disrespected, or dismissed.

    Think about a time when you felt misunderstood, disrespected, or dismissed. How did you respond? Did you stay in the conversation? Did you stay civil and rational? Did you say something you later regretted?

    Think about a conversation where you felt understood, heard, and treated with respect. What was different about the experience?

    We’re social beings and we are constantly seeking to be understood. Unfortunately, at least in the United States, the dominant cultural norm is to treat other people’s emotional responses as manipulative, irritating, or a sign of weakness. (Whereas our own emotional responses are always completely correct and justified.) It is when we dismiss, ignore, or patronize other’s feelings that they tend to become more intense and reactive. We do it to ourselves, too. But when it happens in relationship, we can give ourselves the plausible deniability that the other person “lost it for no reason.”

    Defensiveness is a great example. We understandably become defensive when we feel attacked, but from the outside it usually looks like we’re attacking, which makes the other participants become defensive. Defensiveness shuts down effective communication and leaves everyone feeling guarded and hurt.

    This makes for bad communication. By which I mean, we actually make it harder on ourselves to be understood when we dismiss and belittle others’ feelings. Instead of listening, that person’s mental and emotional energy goes toward managing their reaction. I find this to be true even for those who seem calm and collected. They might have developed some effective skill and flexibility in coping with their reactions, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have them.

    But you have power to improve communication when things get heated! Even the smallest effort to show consideration and understanding goes a long way to lower the reactivity in a conversation. I’m not making this up. The Gottmans have spent years researching relationships in conflict and they have identified some simple, effective, and difficult practices to improve communications.

    I want to offer some phrases to help you think of ways to try this out. When you read these, you might find these too simple, but I think we need simple, easy go-tos when we begin to get emotionally reactive:

    • “I see your point.” Or, better, try to accurately summarize their points. If they correct you, accept their correction.
    • “I can appreciate why you’d feel that way.” Here, you are not agreeing that the other person’s version of reality is completely accurate and yours is wrong. You are acknowledging that their response makes sense based on where they are coming from—their background, their beliefs, their position in the discussion.
    • “What do you mean by this?” In this moment, you have just caught yourself about to launch into a defensive counterattack and asked yourself, “Am I hearing them correctly?”
    • “I am feeling [a feeling] when you say that.” This is about sharing your subjective experience and helping them to understand the impact of their words and actions on you. It’s not about accusing the other person of making you feel that way.
    • “…” This phrase is the long pause you make when you are about to accuse someone of behaving poorly and stop to reflect on whether there has been a time in which they might have felt that you’ve acted this way toward them.

    You may be so polarized that you feel reluctant to step back from the hard, accusing stance. There is vulnerability in seeking understanding, particularly if the other parties do not offer it in return. It is also true that making this effort will not always result in increased safety and respect, but I believe that a great way of finding out if someone is willing to act in good faith is to give them the opportunity to do so. If you earnestly try this and find that it is met with disrespect and hostility, then of course figure out what you need to do for self-protection.

    I have seen tremendous changes occur when all parties in a dialogue commit to this kind of conversation, particularly when a neutral party supports the process by holding both sides accountable to it. I aspire to the wisdom of Sun Tzu, to whom is attributed the statement: “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” This quote speaks to me of conflicts avoided, relationships not destroyed, friendships sustained, all because of a willingness to address and resolve conflict before it escalates into war.

    ****

    *Source: I made this percentage up.

    **I have mixed feelings about the way I’ve phrased this bullet point as it lacks nuance with regard to conversations between people in different states of privilege and oppression. For example, some people argue that the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers are equivalent because they are nationalist groups based in racial identity. I fully disagree, as the Ku Klux Klan emerged to preserve white supremacy and the Black Panthers emerged to address the harms white supremacy does to Black people. The problem I am trying to speak to is that we get locked into defending ourselves and our groups at all costs, and unwillingness to acknowledge that the other party has ever been hurt or we have ever acted poorly interferes with finding resolution. For lack of certainty about how best to rewrite these statements, I want to emphasize that this is a perceived subjective equivalence.

    **What’s interesting to think about with regard to the difference in where each group prizes Liberty is that they are also arguing about the shadow virtue of Restraint. Unfettered Liberty is not conducive to a group identity and somewhat implicitly at odds with any kind of centralized government, so Liberty must be balanced with Restraint (or, more negatively, Control). You could look at the argument as a difference in belief about where Liberty and Restraint should occur. Social conservatives say people should be free to spend their resources as they wish, but should also participate in monogamous sexual marriages and be financially responsible for their families. Social liberals say people should be free to live their lives as they wish, but should also be involved in an equitable distribution of resources so that all may be financially supported. Since Restraint is not a well-loved virtue, however, it is politically more effective to focus on where one is pro-Liberty. I think this is worth thinking about in any polarized argument. What virtues do the arguing parties share overtly and covertly, and where do they disagree about the implementation of these virtues?