Dialog across difference #7: Your feet. My feet. The fire.

 A formal dialog session can benefit from some shared ground rules. I have three on which I insist: 

1. No identity slurs nor ad hominem attacks.

2. Be respectful of time--allow for all voices equally.

3. All agree that we want a fair outcome.

The reasons for the first rule are obvious. No one should have to anticipate being called names based on any portion of their identity, nor should anyone be expected to enter into a session in which their character may be attacked. As one facilitation guide says, "Criticize ideas, not individuals."

The second ground rule is also obvious. No mic-hogging.

The reasons for the third rule that I require are less obvious. Those reasons, for me, include: 

• setting the aspirational tone as seeking a fair outcome
• seeking to reduce any asymmetry in power by getting a commitment from all, however vague, to try for a fair outcome
• providing a default reference when one person suggests a particularly lopsided outcome so that anyone can then ask, OK, does that seem fair to everyone? If I am moderating it gives me permission to hold their feet to the metaphorical fire in that regard. It may seem like a weak tool, but it does keep the door open to discussing fairness at any sensitive point. And when I agree to that ground rule as a party myself, I am ceding that same right to all others, thus doing a small bit to build the trust we need to either create or rebuild.

Dialog across difference #6: Let's assume I am right...

When we begin an innocent conversation and it turns to discussion of a problem, we know it's not our fault. The only question, whose fault is it?

That is the trap we've set for ourselves and we are likely to step right into it. 

Snap!

"I read your email to our client and I wanted to throw up." 

WTF?

Yes, my colleague just said that. What is the next sequence of events or dialog moments?

Grrr... I wait. That's a helluva provocative statement. 

My mind races. Am I a dialog artist or a dialog dummy? Do I care? Am I good at conflict negotiation or do I stumble when it's a verbal grenade thrown at me?

If I fight hard enough to right myself, I will turn this into a learning moment, I think. 

But then my colleague accuses me peremptorily of failing in that regard. 

"This is something that you should learn from," she says. 

Oh the hell with you, I think. 

We go 'round and 'round about how it went, and how it should have gone. 

In the end, I realize that my colleague has some need to throw a bomb (she is something of a bomb-tossing aficionado) for her own emotional reasons. Whatever those reasons might be (get everyone's attention, underscore the seriousness of the issue, start the blame negotiations in her favor), I cannot fall for it. I either default to a calm compassionate curiosity or it gets unproductive and ugly. I may get defensive for my own emotional reasons, but it's not helping.

IRL (in real life) this is messy, with an eventual landing on learning and agreement to move to next steps. 

My challenge to myself is to get up after each grenade toss, dust myself off with self-talk, and seek a reset toward a constructive conversation. I may need to swallow hard and thank my colleague for a productive, if challenging conversation. If I can, and if I want to produce some tiny progress, I may suggest a mutual commitment to calling each other in instead of calling each other out. When I feel attacked, I will do better if I seek to elicit what trauma has fed my colleague's decision to lead with an accusation. 

Refusing to assume I'm so right that it should obviate any need to scrutinize my own interactions is my best hope for collegiality and creative constructive conflict. Shared commitment to compassionate curiosity is easy rhetoric, but also gives us a gold standard to which we can always attempt to return, no matter how messy it can be.

Dialog across difference #5: If it bleeds, it leads: Media and our malinformed citizenry

How can journalists stop contributing to polarization and a growing radicalization of groups across a gap?

Journalist Eve Pearlman and some associates began to acknowledge that problem as evidenced by the drive to readership, or viewership, that occurs somewhat when comments are sought from the most incendiary positional actors and the moderate, rational voices are not dramatic enough to be quoted. They have been trying to develop alternative approaches. 

Historian Heather Cox Richardson points out two reports that help us understand why mainstream media is not only reviled by Trump and his MAGA base, but why that base is so radically misinformed.

She posted: 

"Lauren Aratani of The Guardian reported earlier this week on an exclusive Harris poll showing that 56% of Americans believe incorrectly that the U.S. is in a recession. Those following the stock market are slightly more informed: 49% of them think the S&P stock market index is down for the year. Almost half of those polled—49%—think unemployment is at a 50-year high. Seventy-two percent think inflation is increasing. Fifty-eight percent of those polled blame Biden for mismanaging an economy that is in fact the strongest in the world. 

Tempting as it is to blame the media for its relentless focus on bad news rather than good, a study from NBC News at the end of April showed that those who follow national newspapers and media swing heavily to Biden, while those who either don’t follow politics or get their news from YouTube and social media favor Trump or Robert Kennedy Jr."

The American free press has a long and checkered career. It can exacerbate our "bipolarization disorder," but can also seem quite moderate and valid when compared to the output on social media, which is rarely fact-checked or legitimated by robust citation. It is increasingly important to triangulate sources, and to reference trustworthy data that can shed light on these drivers to deep mistrust of each other.

Dialog across difference #4: My bad

A tough conversation can be launched with greater equanimity when I start by acknowledging my role in creating the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves. That serves multiple purposes. 

• It eases the fear of blame.
• It reduces any power or legitimacy asymmetry.
• It starts to open the minds of everyone. 
• It shows humility, honesty, and integrity and invites the same from everyone.

No matter how much or how little I might initially feel like I contributed to the mess we have to clean up, if I lead with this frame it reduces anxiety and invites collaboration. 

Dialog across difference #3: Messaging or learning?

Entering a difficult conversation--whether between you and your spouse or between representatives from several disputing nation-states--is greatly facilitated when you adapt what Harvard Negotiation Project veterans (Stone, Patton & Heen, 2023) call a learning posture instead of a message delivery stance. 

This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of times when a message delivery stance is quite important and appropriate. That, in fact, seems quite natural in the concept of leadership in many, if not most, cultures. 

But to show up ready to listen and learn is often seen as only appropriate for the party that is power-down, the outranked and inferior person or group. For many, that is the first ego-hurdle to overcome. Let. It. Go.

At times, it's helpful to announce that. 

• I'm here to learn. 
• We are a learning community. 
• Please help me learn. 
• My role here is to learn, not to pronounce. 
• I'm not here with any big message except I'm seeking your help in understanding. 
• Obviously, I have a lot to learn and I'm here hoping for your help.

Stone, Douglas; Patton, Bruce; Heen, Sheila (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin.

Dialog across difference #2: Why chance it?

When we believe we might be the only person in a group to disagree with an opinion the group seems to share, what do we do?

• I am silent on it, not wishing to ruffle any feathers.
• I quickly bring it up, knowing it will be a fight that I will likely lose. 
• I caucus with others one-on-one to seek thoughts on a path forward. 
• I announce my position and resign from the group.
• I seek an outside authority who will back my position, whether that is someone with actual authority over the group or moral authority by position of recognized expertise.
• I bring it up to the group and ask for a session facilitated by a neutral third party so we can discuss it with shared ground rules.

Is there a "right answer"? Perhaps, but to gain clarity on that we would need far more context. 

• Is this a group that is vital to my life?
• Is this a group that I just recently attended meetings out of exploratory interest?
• Is there a sense of civil discourse in this group?
• Does this group seem vulnerable to groupthink?
• Are fractious fights common in this group?
• Is there an official or informal dominant personality whose opinion always rules?
• Does mutual respect seem the norm in this group?
• Does the group seem to tolerate a diversity of thought or is that choked off by a janky lack of process?

In the end, having a difficult conversation is a highly individual choice based on many factors, including a highly personalized cost/benefit analysis. 

Dialog across difference #1: Life at the edge

"The ability to handle difficult conversations well is a prerequisite to organizational change and adaptation" (Stone, Patton & Heen, 2023, p. xviii).

Like it or not, if we expect our organizations to flourish, they need to get past the overt or covert stance of, I talk with those who are collegial; everyone else is an annoyance to avoid.

Since I began to study ecology some 35 years ago, not as my primary focus but with some interest, I've been impressed by the lessons that conflict workers could take from the natural world. One of those lessons is the notion of the edge environment. 

Riparian environments are amongst the most diverse, with species of plant and animal that favor land, water, and a combination. Inland environments are most diverse where open land meets forest, for the same general reasons. Any patch of land or sea that has greater diversity of species has a greater chance to adapt to shifting conditions and maintain abundant life.

Diversity correlates to resilience. 

Recognizing that ecological principle in our organizations is a key to success, nimble flexibility, good management of differences, and long-term resilience and sustainability. The barebones beginning to such organizational health is having and managing difficult conversations.

Stone, Douglas; Patton, Bruce; Heen, Sheila (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin.

hyper-local thoughts on one campus protest of the genocide in Gaza

What did the Portland State University library ever do to oppress?

In the aftermath of the destruction and senseless vandalism of our campus library in the name of protecting the people of Gaza (huh?), the library workers have mobilized and are working very hard to bring as many services to students and faculty as possible as soon as possible. Watch for announcements here: https://library.pdx.edu/library-closure-faqs/

It feels in some ways like what we are faced with on a local campus scale what we will be faced with if Trump loses the election and violent mobs continue to try to destroy democracy. I mean, the campus may need to attempt to offer nonviolent defense of the library, as some so-called anarchists continue to try to retake the library for godknowswhat reason. 

The pop-up library aims to open in the basement of Smith Memorial Student Union to offer limited in-person services, including access to books placed on reserve, and other limited but valuable services. I suppose a PSU peace team should be on hand to help mobilize mass nonviolent defense of what we used to take for granted. 

Now the anti-PSU people have at least also targeted the administration building, the logical place if the administration is being told to make certain decisions. Evidently, one campus public safety officer was hurt and sent to the hospital. I will try to find out more. 

These activists have avoided the very basics of good nonviolent campaigning, including declaring a code of conduct that might begin to engender any trust. It is obvious they have had no basic training in nonviolent resistance. They have failed to seriously try to educate the campus community about the PSU role in waging genocide in Gaza. They've lost the hearts and minds of the PSU community and Portland in general. 

Another PSU professor and I will be offering one or more workshops over the summer on designing and carrying out a campaign that wins in the court of public opinion and wins a stated goal. We will do our best to publicize it. It works.

• When we wanted our US Senators from Oregon to oppose any further funding for the occupation of Iraq, we negotiated with their staff, we went into their offices without using spraypaint, without wrecking anything, and even without interfering with any constituent business. We were just a presence discussing stopping an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of someone else's land. In one case, we got the Senator to publicly support us and vote the way we wanted him to. In the other case, we helped defeat him and bring in someone far better. 
• Where I started teaching, in northern Wisconsin, we nonviolently blockaded a thermonuclear command base. In that case, we used hand tools to dismantle some of that base. We didn't go after a library that had nothing to do with anything, but instead went straight to a portion of the nuclear arsenal itself that threatens all of life on earth, and took a bit of it apart. We were open, transparent, and we turned ourselves in. No masks, no smash and dash. We won. That entire base is gone. We built an unstoppable coalition of peace, environmental, and tribal rights activists. It takes a great deal of "work before the work," with many educational events, a great deal of lobbying, and lots of nonviolence training. We won the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. 
• The tribes did the same thing and regained 100 percent of their treaty rights. They were disciplined and completely nonviolent. Unlike the Standing Rock compromises that included camp areas where there was no commitment to a peaceful protest, the Anishinaabe were disciplined and there were no gaps in their beliefs, their decision to use only nonviolent methods even if they were attacked (which they were), and I was happy to help in ways that they said they wanted. They not only won in the courts, they completely flipped public opinion, which began in polls that were approximately 90 percent opposed to Native treaty rights in 1986 and by 1992 were more than 90 percent in favor of Native treaty rights. 

These are the stories of serious, disciplined nonviolent campaigns and there are thousands more. There is no guarantee, of course, but the model is clear and more likely to win than any other approach. I am always sad when activists don't get that. I am sadly confident that they will alienate the public, even when their cause is good, which is a great mistake and great disservice to that cause.

Deëscalation tip #61: More policewomen, please

What about the intersection of gender, deëscalation, and the po-po?

Over the past half century, various studies into policing and gender have come to the same sort of conclusion, echoed from this Washington Post piece that references several studies: 

In a 1988 article in the Journal of Police Science and Administration researcher Joseph Balkin reviewed the U.S. and international research spanning 14 years on the involvement of women in police work. He found uniformly that women not only perform the job of policing effectively, but are better able to defuse potentially violent situations: “Policemen see police work as involving control through authority,” he wrote, “while policewomen see it as a public service.”

This is so illustrative of the even greater gap between peace teams and many members of the police. As a member of the peace team here in Portland, Oregon, and as someone who knows peace team leaders from across the US and Canada, I cannot think of one of my many colleagues who is doing this for any other reason than public service and toward an outcome in which everyone is safe. That is part of what we stress in training and to organizers of events who seek our help in keeping things nonviolent, that we have zero authority other than the moral authority conferred on us by the organizers to remind any and all participants of the code of conduct the organizers have stressed.

Remind, not order or command.

When the event has been publicized as nonviolent, then all we do is remind. That feeds into the avoidance of escalation, helping to obviate the need to deëscalate so much. 

And, as might be expected, women on peace teams are often the most effective. The most effective men are almost always aspiring feminists.

Deëscalation tip #60: Sheila Heen on Kwame Christian's podcast

 Deëscalation communication--it's both truly simple and profoundly complex. 

In previous posts we've covered much of the simple, the CLARA method in particular. 

We've also dealt with some of the most complex, such as that practiced by Unarmed Civilian Protection teams.

There are many opportunities to avoid escalation in-between. 

In one of Kwame Christian's Negotiate Anything podcasts, Sheila Heen of the Harvard Negotiation Project discusses the escalation and time/energy wasting around conflict and blame. 

Heen advises resetting the focus and frame on problem-solving/avoiding for the future rather than sussing out and assigning blame. She advises owning whatever share of the problem one might have, even if it's a tiny share based on inability to foresee or silence while others made errors that produced the conflict.

She doesn't advise ignoring it or accepting undue blame, but rather responding to such assertions with care to save everyone's face. 

For instance, you own your part in the conflict and the other party says something like Glad you can own it, as if you are now the sole incompetent. Rather than flashing back in anger and pointing to the other person's portion (maybe most) of the problem that created the conflict, a wise conflict manager will say something like, Sure, and my concern is that I see no chance I can manage this alone. I will need your collaboration if we hope to avoid this problem, and this conflict, in the future. We clearly each have our part to play.

Keep seizing the narrative every time someone tries to turn it toward blame. Shift it to best plans for the future. Each time you reset away from blame and toward positive plans you have achieved another deëscalation. Congratulations on being the better leader. 

Deëscalation tip #59: Unarmed civilian protection

Deëscalation in hot conflict zones? Most would assume that would involve bringing in masses of armed forces to keep the peace. No?

No.

Unarmed civilian protection (UCP) is practiced increasingly in areas where people are literally under fire, often in simmering guerrilla v government civil wars. There are many success stories--the first small-but-mighty efforts were by Peace Brigades International in the 1980s, Christian Peacemaking Teams in the 1990s, and now the largest and most globally involved, Nonviolent Peaceforce.

Nonviolent Peaceforce and other UCP groups operate like this, clearly beginning with pre-deëscalation: 

"Relationship-building is at the heart of UCP. It is central to all other UCP methods, as it is through strong relationships with communities affected by armed conflict, armed actors involved in conflict and relevant local and national authorities that UCP practitioners can make their presence known, keep abreast of rapidly changing conflict dynamics, understand the protection needs of communities affected by conflict and take informed action. Facilitated by these strong relationships, UCP methods include advocacy, multi-track dialogue, confidence-building, proactive engagement, (protective) accompaniment, interpositioning, protective presence, rumour control, ceasefire monitoring, early warning early response, capacity enhancement and enhancing self-protection."

That is quite a bundle of serious conflict transformation competencies and forward-thinking practices, all done in various measures in any given conflict in any given locale. When violence is the daily expectation, nothing less will work. While we allow folks with two hours training to join us in the streets of Portland, Oregon, on our peace team, those war zone unarmed workers get months of training in multiple skills.

Applied professionally to the earliest warnings, it can indeed pre-deëscalate, dialing down outbreaks of violence, possibly preventing atrocities, and even transforming hostile pre-war tensions into longer term dialog, even ultimate collaborative efforts toward a commitment to only using nonviolent methods of waging conflict. 

Is all this work really worth it? What if it only stopped one war in just one country every century? What if it only saved a few hundred lives every year?

Deëscalation tip #58: OMG--do you know how scary you are?

I was in a gathering at a Catholic Worker house--a community get-together that only the CWs have--impoverished Workers, impoverished street people, local radical progressives, a smattering of more well off liberal supporters of the Worker. 

I was a naturalized community member, partner to one of the founders of one of the houses, living there part-time and volunteering a fair number of hours every week, plus very involved in the political actions with the CW community and other activists. This was some 30 years ago. 

One former guest was a big man, used to being an alpha male in the street, but the CW vibe cut through all that when folks were guests. For example, I've watched a 5'2" gray-haired CW woman evict a husband in the moment when she determined the man was abusing his common-law wife. There is much more of a deep respect for the CW community members amongst street people--all based on relational aspects that the CW philosophy rests on, such as empathy, justice, a rejection of structural violence, shared poverty, provision of a safe environment, and honest unpaid service.

So this former guest, Rick, had not been living in any of the CW houses for more than a year, but kept coming around for various community gatherings. At this one, he brought his alpha-male-of-the-street status with him, so I sort of hung near him a bit. 

Sure enough, a smaller guy, about my size, also part of the street culture in that town, became Rick's target. Rick knew better than to raise his voice or make explicit bodily harm threats inside a CW house, but he towered over this smaller guy and made one or two somewhat mocking comments, followed by a "suggestion" that the smaller guy might be more comfortable in the next room. The smaller guy silently nodded and scurried away. 

"Hey, Rick," I said quietly, moving over next to him, "do you have any idea how intimidating you are?"

Rick looked at me, processing this. 

I continued, "You are a big guy. I am not sure you know how scary you can be to smaller folks." 

Rick clearly felt appreciated for his ability to dominate (goal met!), but also went along with my "analysis," and said, "Yeah, I gotta watch that. Good point." 

"Good man," I said, "Peace." 

"Peace," said Rick, giving me a knowing nod. Instead of working against Rick, I basically enlisted him to help maintain the CW vibe, so we were working together. He deëscalated, essentially claiming a different sort of leadership status which I supported and openly appreciated.

When I told this story to a former student of mine who had worked in a bar, and who was a tiny woman, she laughed and said, "Oh, absolutely. When a bad boy threatened somebody I could always intervene and deëscalate by coming right up to the aggressor, giving him a big smile and a hair flip and telling him he was such a badass but he needed to dial it way down, pretty please. Worked every time." 

This sort of deëscalation is boutique in that it is highly situational, drawing from special understandings in unique situations. The only generalizable concept is that it is, as are so many other nonviolent techniques, based in some way on psychological jiu jitsu, using the aggressive energy of the dominator to help himself deëscalate. If you can manage that, it is a magic moment.

Deëscalation tip #57: Follow this advice: Don't follow advice without due diligence.

Follow this advice: Don't follow advice without due diligence. 

This is certainly true with deëscalation. 

One source will tell you to approach an escalated person and match their intensity and volume and then slowly dial it down. 

Experience plus many other sources will dictate otherwise. Emergency first response to escalation: 

• remain calm and composed without seeming smug
• talk in a soto voce, quiet and few words
• use a greeting that feels respectful, neither inappropriately familiar nor coldly impassive
• use affirming body language, sometimes including a caring expression, sometimes a soft smile, sometimes nodding (but not rote and repetitive, nor overly emphatic)
• without simply repeating them, offer them a brief summation of even one or two points that you heard from the escalated person, but do so in a way that invites them to correct any misinterpretation or misrepresentation you've made
• once you feel you've heard their points and they have clarified them, begin your inquiry toward the reasons, starting with Why do you want that? or Why do you feel that way?

Indeed, your body language is far more important in many ways than your spoken words. All you have is your body language when someone is taking up the entire spoken environment, ventilating with a determination you should not interrupt with your own verbosity. 

Current neuroscience is telling us that it is more likely that we naturally emulate angry behavior via mirror neurons than to reflexively engage in mirror neuron-driven emulation of calm. This means your calm affect and engagement may need a longer application to effectively draw down the rage than rage takes to stimulate emulation. In short, your deëscalation skills take far more discipline.

The overarching message you are conveying is respect. You listen; you don't judge. You respect the emotional content of their behavior by acknowledging that it's intense and you hope they will help you understand. Speak softly. That's your big schtick.

Deëscalation tip #56: Can we read the signs?

 What about deëscalating social conflict, on a scale of group-to-group?

In contemplating social conflict, or intergroup conflict, identity is a key component. 

For example, research into social/intergroup conflict notes that we are developing a high context around identity expression and identity performance, described in this peer-reviewed journal article: 

Lüders, A., Quayle, M., Maher, P., Bliuc, A., & MacCarron, P. (2024). Researching Attitude–Identity Dynamics to Understand Social Conflict and Change. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3022

Conflict workers try to keep up with the high context of certain words, semiotics, and other signals of identity that can escalate or deëscalate conflict. So, for example, in April 2024, I "toured" the encampment by the Portland State University library a couple of times before the actual invasion/occupation, and the eventual trashing of the library was easy to predict just by the aggregate of signals given off, such as: 

·       spraypainted messages on the masonry and windows

·       masks concealing identities of individuals

·       signs ordering others to not take photos of anyone's face (even though they wore bandanas over their faces)

·       zero greeting, zero invitation, only general hostility and impassive affects

·       accumulation of trash, pallets, tarps, and general street camp identity markers, clearly a takeover of space formerly public

I've been part of, and a student of, social conflict for many decades, so I can read all this and be able to see at least likely directions and outcomes. Those who specialize in labor struggles can do the same in their assessments of the identity expressions in those conflicts. Every intergroup conflict falls into one or more categories that are affected by identity and the context of identity performance. Some relate to class, or to ethnicity, or ideological positioning, or other group identity components. The signals may be somewhat esoteric (Go Brandon!) or they may be more widely recognizable (MAGA). 

In social conflict, culture is often generally classified by its elements, though broad classifications can flip or reverse situationally. 

For example, the US is generally thought of as a low context culture, one in which more detailed explanations are required because we are so pluralistic. Some cultures are regarded as high context, where even a gesture can indicate volumes of information. The closer a culture is to an island culture--few outside influences, little pluralism--the more the tendency toward high context. This is, of course, harder in the Internet era, but can also help us understand the autocratic efforts to limit that, such as the Great Firewall of China or the North Korean version of cultural, identity, and viewpoint exclusion. 

Aspects of identity are key to understanding and either escalating or deëscalating social conflict. 

Deëscalation tip #55

Left to our own casual devices, human-to-human responses tend to obey the laws of inertia. If I am escalating, your human senses are perceiving possible threat and you can naturally escalate. We build on each other's behavior, sometimes with dire consequences.

But with intention and even minimal skills, you can meet my escalation with calm and compassionate curiosity, making it harder and harder for me to maintain my rise in anger. 

The neurobiology of conflict helps explain this, as neuroscientists describe how our brains have evolved to almost constantly seek to identify both threats and rewards.

So when I escalate you must overcome your own escalatory response, one that might well happen normally because you now perceive me as a threat. But with your intention to deëscalate, and some rudimentary competencies, you can neutralize your own amygdala hijack and keep your brain operating in the prefrontal cortex, consciously meeting my escalating behaviors with your disciplined calm. 

When you engage your compassionate curiosity, my brain begins to pick up a potential reward instead of a compounded threat. It may be tentative at first, but you are working through your sympathetic gestures and reflective listening to convince me that you are actually interested in what is bugging me so much. 

Someone wants to listen to me? Yeah, that's a reward I wasn't expecting at this point, but if you can continue to convince me, I will gladly switch out my fear of threat for my appreciation of reward. My own prefrontal cortex can take control from my amygdala. You have reversed the direction of the inertia and my deëscalation is now following yours.

Thanks, I needed that. 

Deëscalation tip #54

It's not up for debate.

If you can help reduce escalation toward harm when you and your group are going to be involved in any public event, one of the key pieces of advice, if not instruction, is Do not argue with those with whom you disagree. 

Indeed, this is a key admonition issued nationally by Indivisible, an organization focused not on proving how radical it is, but rather on actually achieving good outcomes in our democracy. They say to their many chapters across the US: 

"Avoid engaging in conversation or any verbal exchange with aggressive, hostile individuals. Participants should be encouraged, if in an uncomfortable situation, to create physical distance, and notify event organizers."

This is not only a way to pre-deëscalate a great deal of potentially harmful escalatory interchanges, it is a great way to avoid wasting time and energy on activities that tend to achieve nothing. This is shown by paying attention to what we know about the Spectrum of Allies. 

When we can do an action, or send a respectful but assertive message, that is pointed at those who support the cause but are not really active, it can help move them closer to actual engagement, even as it nudges those who are neutral a bit closer to agreeing with us, at the same time it might assist in changing the positions of those who disagree closer to neutral, and, hopefully, helping to deactivate those who disagree with us. In other words, targeting your message toward a much broader swath of the populace can inch everyone a bit closer to you even as it defangs the most rabid opponents. Calling others in rather than calling them out can attract without alienating.

But debating them in the street or any other public environment tends to have the opposite effect of simply causing them to solidify their opposition to pretty much all you say. Plus, it can escalate them toward possible harm, compounding the ineffectiveness of arguing with the most vocal, excited, or even enraged opponents. 

But if arguing with them is not advised, how can we engage in debate that can illuminate the facts, the arguments, and the evidence? 

Clearly, it's not working in the spotlights of the political arena, which is looking increasingly like a pack of jackasses bent on braying and kicking rather than achieving much. 

This has given rise to initiatives like Braver Angels, citizen-to-citizen civil discourse efforts to be able to dialog across difference. If it seems nearly impossible to engage in helpful public conversations based on disagreeing without being disagreeable, people are figuring out how to do so with ground rules that keep it civil and that strive toward seeking to reduce fear and loathing of each other even as important topics are aired. 

Returning to an ability to actually converse, even about difficult topics, without escalating toward harm, is going to be crucial if we wish to save our democracy. The values of deëscalation are enormous in many ways.

Deëscalation tip #53

Why?

Why would you call me that?

Why are you insisting that my friend doesn't "belong" here?

Why are you upset?

To deëscalate, you seek to identify the interests below the positions. The classic simple example of deëscalation by doing this is the story of the busy Mom and two scrapping daughters, yelling at each other in the kitchen with one orange in a bowl. 

Busy Mom grabs the orange, whacks it in two, gives a half to each child, and is off to her next task. Girls still give each other the stinkeye as they take their half. Their next conflict isn't far off.

The position of each daughter was that she wanted the orange. 

If Mom had the time, she could have inquired about those positions. 

"Why do you want the orange, Taneesha?"

"To get the juice, Mommy." 

"Why do you want the orange, Beryl?"

"To grate the peel into a cake recipe, Mommy." 

Now busy Mom has investigated and found out the relative interests of the girls. She can resolve this by giving the entire peel to Beryl and all the juice to Taneesha. Each child gets everything she wanted. Classic win-win.

If Dad would help out more, perhaps busy Mom would have the time to teach Taneesha and Beryl to engage in this process themselves, to become skilled at principled negotiation. Instead, busy Mom has to act as arbitrator (whack the orange in half) or mediator (investigate to determine interests and seek win-win outcome). She brings in the elements of principled negotiation but doesn't have the time to do the ultimate labor-saving act, that of education so that the next potential conflict between Taneesha and Beryl might be processed successfully by them, with their new skills.

If the school system would fold principled negotiation into education with the same priority it gives history or math, perhaps our society wouldn't be chock-full of folks who manage conflict poorly, escalate easily, set new records for gun violence, divorce at high rates, and send more people to prison than any other country, and spend more on the military preparing to kill than any country on Earth ever has. Perhaps.

Just sayin'... deëscalation starts with education, in the home, in the schools. Otherwise, we play Whack-an-Orange forever and it more frequently escalates to Whack-Each-Other.

Deëscalation tip #52

Find a group to provide unarmed nonviolent public safety for your event or a group to provide trainings via listings on Princeton University's Bridging Divides Initiative. 

Deëscalation tip #51

Not everyone is on a peace team, nor trained in to be. When activists find themselves in a place where conflict is escalating in unhealthy ways, even rudimentary training can help to calm the waters. While the gold standard deëscalation is CLARA, thoughtful groups have their own version to disseminate, including this one: 

"BREATHE 

Breathe. Ground. Notice your sources of support.

Remember The Humanity of All

Empathy Before Education

Ask First - Is the other person ready to hear your perspective? A is also for Authentic expression

BreaTHE. Debrief with Support"

Deëscalation tip #50

It was long ago--2004--and the Republican National Convention was in New York City. A student of mine, a young indigenous woman, wanted to go and to write about it. She was raised as an indigenous radical--her father was part of the occupation of Alcatraz way back in the day. 

I made her a press pass for The Oregon Peaceworker, a newspaper for which I was Associate Editor. I laminated it and wished her best of luck. 

She did two amazing deëscalation actions in the course of the days in New York. 

The first was at Central Park. Demonstrators were massing up against the police barricades. Cops were massing on the other side. My student--and writer on assignment--started a chant, grinning at everyone around her: Give the cops a raise! Give the cops a raise! She told me later, "It totally broke the tension, everyone relaxed, and no one got beaten or arrested."

The second was at Madison Square Garden, the site of the actual convention, and the Republicans from around the country were packed in there, with a growing mass of protesters surrounding the building. She saw police snipers on the roof. Someone had brought reflective pieces of paper to spell out messages. By this time she was seen as the Idea Woman and she argued that for the benefit of the snipers the message should point up first, not forward, and the message should be one simple word: PEACE. Others agreed, and they pointed the message up for a few minutes and then toward the police massed at the entrance. Again, she later told me, no one got shot, beaten, although there were a few arrests, just folks who stepped past the wooden barricades.

Conflict can be creative and constructive or destructive, depending on our approaches and responses. My student taught me how to deëscalate an entire mass of police--I will never forget her lesson for her professor.

Deëscalation tip #49

We are all palimpsests. 

A palimpsest is a piece of writing on paper or other material (stone, wood) where the original writing is effaced, but traces remain. We can overwrite our own brains, even though the original settings still exist, but are less often or eventually never used. 

What if I have a long history of responding to conflict negatively, with anger, with a quick retort, and even with threats? How can someone like me ever learn to deëscalate?

Brain science is showing through many studies that we can do this, as noted by the National Library of Medicine:

"Neuroplasticity in the brain plays out on a variety of levels. The most fundamental version has been recognized for half a century, and concerns synapses, the connections by which one neuron communicates with another. Excitation in one neuron (an 'action potential') is not guaranteed to similarly excite the next neuron in line, and repeated stimulation of a particular synapse leads it to be 'strengthened,' which is to say that excitation in one neuron is now more likely to be propagated to the next in line. This potentiation of such pre-existing synapses has long been viewed as one of the fundamental ways by which learning occurs."

And so our challenge is to learn and practice more adaptive responses to conflict and practice them until we change our "natural" responses, being aware that reversion to old negative habits can occur when we have not sufficiently practiced the new and improved methods. 

When we fail, our job is not to quit, but to get back to more consciously and persistently overwriting our old less-functional settings. 

Deëscalation tip #48

 What if you are threatened with a weapon?

The Crisis Prevention Institute says: 

"If the person senses that you're losing control, their behavior will most likely escalate. So keep the following tips in mind until professional assistance arrives:

• Take threats seriously. If anyone communicates any possibility of using a weapon against you, assume that they have one even if you can't see it or verify it immediately.
• Step back. Try to negotiate permission to take at least three steps away from the individual. If allowed, the increased distance can reduce both anxiety and weapon accuracy.
• Avoid reaching for the weapon. Attempting to disarm a person with a weapon can be extremely dangerous.
• Focus on the individual rather than the weapon. When threatened, we tend to focus on the weapon. Shifting your focus to the individual will remind you that the real danger is not in the weapon itself, but in the aggressor's behavior.
• Negotiate. Make basic requests to solicit affirmative responses. The more the aggressor says "yes" to you, the less likely the weapon is to be used against you.
• Buy time. Time is an asset. The longer you can talk to an aggressive individual, the less likely it is that the weapon will be used."

Perhaps most important of all, remember that any previous interactions will play a critical role in the outcome of an incident involving a weapon. Not all gun violence involves people who know each other. And no one can guarantee that if you treat people well they will never attempt to use a weapon against you. But if you consistently interact with people in a considerate and respectful manner, you are less likely to become a target of violence.

Deëscalation tip #47

It was at the Portland Oregon building permit and records building, but it was the City Council taking testimony on some issues. We had been invited to provide a peace presence.

She was yelling and she clambered over the railing and onto a beam. I made a beeline for her. She came back, still yelling at the uniformed security guards. She sat down for a second, still loudly proclaiming that she had a right to smudge. First two, then three security guards hovered over her. I stepped in-between, in front of her and looked at her. 

"I like your earrings," I said, "and especially your brim." She was identifying as Native American and I wanted to acknowledge that. 

She glanced at me, apparently prepared to take it as sarcasm, as a veiled racial insult. 

"Thanks," she said, quietly. 

She got up and bolted. Another fellow was darting around. I refocused, on him. Eventually, one floor down, I caught up to her. By this time, four security guards were in a half-circle around her, but she was more or less deëscalated. 

That was because Anthony, another member of our Portland Peace Team, was with her. Anthony is a professional conflict transformation specialist, both in mediation and ombuds roles, and has been for approximately 20 years. Anthony was telling her how he had visited both Canada and Alaska and had found the dominant cultures there much more respectful of inherent Native rights. 

We clearly had the advantage when it came to deëscalating because our methods were not in line with official policies. We could take the time, whereas armed security were instructed far more to focus on establishing dominance and moving it quickly to close-out. We stayed with her for as long as it took, and it took relatively little time because we showed what Kwame Christian calls compassionate curiosity. She and I made eye contact and she started to cry. She had been yelling. We tag-teamed some compassion and some listening and it hit her and moved her. 

When you see a dysfunctional failed deëscalation, you may be the one to get it right. 

Deëscalation tip #46

Deëscalation at a dog park?

Here is where I turn to others without any personal expertise. I am not a dog owner and my nonviolence has been working well on humans, but dogs? I am not the dog whisperer.

Here is part of what some dog experts say: 

"Don't use your body; use aversive tools.
You should always bring emergency tools to the dog park, just in case. They will prevent injury to both dogs and people. People are known to get severe and damaging bites by trying to break up dog fights with their hands and bodies, as the dog may not realize they are biting a human, and may not inhibit their bites as they normally would if they feel they’re being attacked, or think they are biting another dog. Dogs have protective coats, whereas humans just have skin, so the same bite can be much more damaging to a person than another dog. ​

Try tools in the following order: clapping, using a strong voice (not yelling), water/spray bottles, insert chairs or boards or other furniture, spray with a hose or dump a bucket of water, citronella spray, or set off an air horn in the faces of the fighting dogs."

OK, I confess: I laughed to myself when I thought of using the same methods with scrapping humans. Bucket brigade! Deploy citronella! Pass the lawn furniture! Clap everyone! Where's my air horn?

Deëscalation tip #45

 "Meet animosity with curiosity." 

"Taking a couple of long deep breaths--in and out--helps calm the nervous system. Breathing decreases the level of cortisol, the stress hormone, in our bodies and lowers our heart rate and blood pressure. In short, breathing can change our state of mind."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Bill Ury, 2024, p. 60

Deëscalation tip #44

Paying attention to deëscalation in key moments of rising conflict can literally be a matter of life and death. I was just an expert witness on it in a civil case and helped convince a jury of 12 regular folks that police, in particular, have a high bar in this regard, by law and by good sense. 

The case involved an unfortunately familiar 911 call, dispatch of emergency workers, and mental health crisis conflict exacerbated by use of meth. 

One officer on the scene was primary, or contact officer. He was young, and was following best practices, establishing a rapport with the fellow--who had himself called 911 for help--but the second officer, a big man, fingered his weapon and then just bulled in and started barking commands. The fellow, who had been sitting down as requested by the first officer, stood up and pulled out a screwdriver and the cop shot him dead.

The jury got to see that footage. It didn't take much to convince them of the obvious, that one cop's work to deëscalate was ruined permanently by another's failure. That shooting might have generated no big notice years ago, but deëscalation efforts are expected now, sometimes by law. And while this shooter was cleared criminally by a grand jury, the bar is different in a civil case. Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt," it's "preponderance of the evidence," in other words, was the plaintiff's case made so that a jury felt convinced that at least 51 percent of the case was made?

We convinced the jury and they awarded a $million. Deëscalation counts. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/05/jury-awards-1m-to-family-of-suicidal-man-fatally-shot-by-portland-police-in-2021.html

Deëscalation tip #43

 More on bystander intervention: 

• Distract everyone in whatever fashion comes to mind.
• Delegate--suggest to another that they do something to assist.
• Document--but only as an ancillary tactic after you determine someone is doing something directly.
• Delay--if you miss the chance to intervene, at least comfort the targeted person afterward.
• Direct--if you are confident in doing so, confront the harasser and strongly request that they stop. This is the riskiest and after you say something briefly, turn your attention to the targeted person to ask what they need, as opposed to getting into an argument with the abuser.

Note: there are many YouTube vids on bystander intervention that are not particularly helpful, and can place the intervenor in serious danger. Use caution in following such advice.

Deëscalation tip #42

When operating with a peace team, meeting aggression is sometimes best managed by surrounding the target of the aggression, often completely ignoring the attacker. Facing the targeted person without coming off as saviors, but rather just as friends, is often most adaptive. Asking the targeted person what might make them feel the best is often the best approach, unless they are so overwhelmed they can't offer much coherence. There are many comments and questions in the moment, including but not limited to: 

• Hi friend, how are you?
• Hi, can we help? 
• Would you like us to walk away with you?
• If you like, we can stay with you until you feel safe.
• We are not meaning to interfere if you prefer we walk away. 

If there has literally been a physical assault, do not repeat NOT call 911 unless the person specifically asks for that or agrees with it. Perfectly innocent people have deeper fear of armed agents of the state than they do of random aggressors. 

Obviously, if a person has been grievously wounded or if there are gunshots, everything changes. A 911 call is directed specifically by 911 operators and dispatchers. Some will not result in armed agents responding and some will. 

For instance, if someone is being verbally abused and it precipitates a heart attack, and you legitimately call 911 for the heart attack, you may or may not wish to not mention the verbal aggression that seemed to trigger it. This is highly situational. It's one reason we on our team say that we teach a standard method used by deëscalation experts around the world, but in the real world of the streets it's an art and each person becomes a unique artist.

Deëscalation tip #41

Should police waste time trying to de people on drugs? When 911 calls are so frequent, should police waste time trying to deëscalate people who claim to be suicidal?

Well, maybe. It sure would have saved the life of one 40-year-old fellow in my town. A bullish cop rushed in, started issuing commands, and the person having a mental health issue was overwhelmed, lost his ability to think straight, and stood up to confront the cop, who then shot him dead.

I testified in court as a deëscalation expert and critiqued the police officer's approach. The jury agreed and awarded more than a $million to the family of the shot guy.

The same police force in my town, on at least a couple of occasions this year, took hours to eventually deëscalate someone intent on suicide. Was it better to "waste" time instead of wasting a life? 

There are no guarantees with deëscalation except a guarantee that a person committed to it will not be adding to the level of violence and loss in the world.

Deëscalation tip #40

We can easily find a great deal of advice for police on how they should deëscalate, but where is the advice on how we can deëscalate the police? When they go bonkers they hurt people with a great deal of "qualified immunity" to pad them, legally, so they have little or no "window of exposure." 

On the Portland Peace Team, we deëscalate police at demonstrations by thanking them for not hurting protesters, or resisters. We remind them that they are doing well in public opinion and will continue to do so if they don't hurt people. If protestes start chanting inadvisable messages such as "All cops are bastards! All cops are bastards!" we apologize and thank them for their ability to see the trauma behind such chants. 

Will it always work? HTTFN (Hell To The F__k No). Almost nothing always works. But when it does, what if we "only" save one young one from getting smashed by a police baton? What if we "only" save one young Black woman from getting beaten or pepper sprayed? For some of us, that is worth it.