Dialog across difference #18: Bipolarization disorder

 According to the National Institute of Mental Health: 
"Bipolar disorder (formerly called manic-depressive illness or manic depression) is a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person’s mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration."

Yeah. I think we have something far more pervasive and, frankly, serious in our country than just shifts in mood, unless you count rioting and killing security personnel at the nation's capitol building as just an unusual shift in people's mood. I call it our national bipolarization disorder.

This makes those who suffer from it determined to make others suffer. 
Perhaps it will be local election officials, who report unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment from Trump MAGA followers.

It might also manifest as credible threats against any prosecutor, judge, jury member, or court staffer who has the temerity to work on any case that might indicate that Donald Trump is not above the law of the land.

It can come from intimidation, even by armed MAGA followers.

It has even presented as dire threats, for goshsakes, against librarians, some of the most generally appreciated members of our society, when they are found to permit certain books to be held in their library collection, books that might mention or discuss views that MAGA followers don't like.

Of course it's also found in the more quotidian affairs of our daily lives--at work, in the neighborhoods, and in our families. Old friends no longer speak to each other. Workplaces have become hostile environments. Putting the "wrong" political signage in your yard might get your windows busted--both car and home.

Time to fix this, right? How?

Back at the National Institute of Mental Health, the treatment of bipolar disorder is described: 
"Treatment can help many people, including those with the most severe forms of bipolar disorder. An effective treatment plan usually includes a combination of medication and psychotherapy, also called talk therapy."

Medication is out of our layperson's purview. But talk therapy might help. Who is working on it?

Braver Angels is.

They describe themselves, in part, as "the nation's largest grassroots organization uniting red and blue Americans in a working alliance to depolarize America."

You can find a chapter and see if you like their approach. What if they only saved one librarian from getting attacked? What if they only convinced a small handful of MAGA followers to stop threats?

Or what if they help you and your friend engage in dialog across difference without any dehumanization?

Might be one way to treat our national bipolarization disorder.

Dialog across difference #17: Healthy communication across cultures

Great peer-reviewed research on many aspects of conflict transformation can be found in medical journals. Why is this, when scant pieces like this are found in Political Science or Security Studies journals, for example?

Medicine is a constant learning challenge. Also, it's an economic sector with funding. Since patients and physicians are quite diverse, cultural competency in care becomes a mandate, not just a nice option. Finally, published research is a major help to a career in the medical field. 

For instance, a 2014 Australian conference featured a workshop in cross cultural competencies. A range of skills were studied and demonstrated and the final exercise was for each participant to design their individual learning plan toward strong cross cultural competency in their work. 

This is reminiscent of Anthony Jackson's admonition during Portland Peace Team trainings to use his "grocery store" model--yes, you can see all the various items, but select only what you really want and, in the case of learning, have the bandwidth to work on. Educational theorists point out that andragogy--adult learning--is built best along those lines. Pedagogy--child learning--is far more generalized and inclusive, assuming virtually zero pre-developed knowledge and almost no reasonable discernment about utility of particular knowledge. 

Thus, taking trainings and then constructing a personal plan of further learning to precisely suit individual goals makes excellent sense.

Patel, B. (2015). Communicating across cultures: proceedings of a workshop to assess health literacy and cross-cultural communication skills. Journal of Pharmacy Practice & Research, 45(1), 49–56. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1002/jppr.1062

Dialog across difference #16: From culture war to culture peace

On the application of principled negotiation to a cross-cultural conflict, I am comforted by the cross-cultural work done by Fisher and Ury in particular.* Fisher was a diplomat, working with leaders from around the world, but Ury not only does that, he is by discipline an anthropologist, deeply immersed in knowledge and practice of many cultures around the world. 

Part of the key in understanding cross-cultural conflict work is to take into account the cultural tendencies of all parties but to also understand universal factors. 

For example, a universal factor is that humans almost always require respect. The cross-cultural aspect is then, "How does this culture generally show and receive respect?" It may be by praise that seems odd to someone from another culture, or it may be by seeking out individual discussions--what mediators call a caucus.

It certainly helps when all parties are reassured somehow about intentions and a humility that acknowledges cultural lack of knowledge. For instance, "I want you to know that I never mean any disrespect and I'm grateful for your advice in that regard." Finding ways to remind all parties that your skills are never perfect but your goal is always to preserve everyone's dignity can go further in some cases than trying to show expertise in someone else's cultural practices. 

I ran into this in Italy once when my asthma kicked in badly (this was back in the bad old days when all coffeeshops were thick with smoke and streets were choking with diesel fumes). I practiced my phrases and went into a drugstore and ripped out a really good request in Italian. The pharmacist answered in Italian, probably in a tempo that any native Italian could understand, and my expression of utter confusion was underscored by me reaching into my man-purse for my phrase book. The pharmacist instantly took pity on me and switched to English. He smiled at my efforts and was very kind. I've found this from culture to culture--pretty much everyone appreciates a good try when obviously done with respect for them and their cultural practices. 

This is not to say it is ever necessary to violate your own cultural or personal principles, but you may need to explain them. For instance, I've been a vegetarian for 55 years, all my adult life. I've learned there are ways to make that acceptable to just about anyone in any cultural setting. I've done a fair bit of work with various tribes on issues and have been at many meals. I've learned that one cannot come across as demanding, nor can one appear to be regarding others' practices as subpar philosophically. I've never been demanding nor smug, but I've learned that one can appear to be those ways without any intention to be. So, I will simply make a humble request along the lines of, "My religious beliefs do not permit any meat. Can you help me choose the food that works for that? I'm very grateful for your help." I don't explain my religion, since virtually everyone respects religious beliefs that don't seem arrogant. I don't name my religion since even doing so can appear as if my religion is superior. I leave it at that and virtually all folks--including those who prepared the food with great care and love--are gracious about that. 

In sum, cross-cultural conflict work is complex, but even for those without deep knowledge of others' cultures, it's made much more possible when prefaced by and buttressed by a show of respect, including a humble self-respect.

*Fisher, Roger, & Ury, William (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin. 

Dialog across difference #15: Then came the lame blame and shame game

With some extreme exceptions (e.g., sexual abuse of a child, greed-motivated murder), there are a multitude of practical reasons to eschew the all-too-human tendency to blame someone for anything that isn't perfect, or even for something that is an epic fail. 

Stone, Patton & Heen (2023) line some of them up for our consideration:

·       Usually doesn't problem-solve.

·       Limits learning and learning-based adjustments. 

·       Allows all others who contributed in any way to continue contributing to the next iteration of the failure.

·       Can cause the blamed person to take no future risks and achieve few future rewards.

·       Reinforces the zero-sum nature of adversarial conflict, which incentivizes blaming others in order to own no share of the problem.

All these factors and more inform the best facilitators, who generally shift the conversations from finger-pointing to handshaking on promises to collaborate on problem-avoidance as the best problem solution.

References

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

Dialog across difference #14: Back to Cold War roots

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) existed during the Cold War to facilitate dialog aiming toward cooperation between rivals rather than simply collaboration amongst like-minded nations (Crump, 2016). The dialog amongst 35 European nations arguably helped avoid a land war or an apocalyptic nuclear war even when some leaders and some circumstances seemed pointed toward that destructive outcome. 

The formulation of the CSCE dialog offered two important features. 

One, that it continually asserted that European security was a multilateral and pan-European phenomenon, linking the security of each nation to an indivisible security for all, not just despite rivalries, but because of them.

Two, that it was process, not a limited goal-oriented endpoint action.

These components can teach us a great deal about using dialog when organizations tend toward rivalry. Emphasizing the mutual interdependence of well-being and the never-ending need for the relational benefits of ongoing dialog can help blunt our human tendencies toward sudden extreme turns toward destructive conflict. 

References

Crump, L. (2016). Forty-five Years of Dialogue Facilitation (1972-2017). Security and Human Rights, 27(3–4), 498–516. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02703017

Dialog across difference #13: Hungry for understanding

When we facilitate groups, we do better when we attempt to lower barriers to participation and to cross-cultural understanding. Sometimes that cross-cultural work is between groups with different collective identities; sometimes it is done with groups that are a different ethnicity than that of the facilitator; sometimes there are more than one cultural identities of individuals in the same group. 

Indeed, it is likely more rare to facilitate a monocultural group by a facilitator of the same cultural identity, especially in a pluralistic culture. It can feel as if there are too many factors to be able to either succeed or to properly evaluate the facilitation experience. 

At the very least, then, facilitators might need a checklist to attempt to pre-arrange as many factors as possible toward a successful experience. 

One factor in one five-week cross-cultural facilitation exercise of different racial-identified middle schoolers revealed on factor not commonly discussed in analysis of variables was an observation made nearly at the conclusion of the exercise, that the groups of students in the discussions about racial identity were participating right before lunch (Candelari & Huber, 2002). 

In their evaluations of the experience, the researchers noted that levels of hunger--possibly particularly for the adolescents involved--and accompanying anxiety, anticipation, and growing body signals--were unhelpful in cultivating as much focus and engagement as might have happened if another time or another method (provision of healthy snacks) mitigated that distraction. 

The best facilitators may be assisted by a checklist to make all conditions for a successful group process as conducive to that outcome as possible.

References

Candelario, N., & Huber, H. (2002). A School-Based Group Experience on Racial Identity and Race Relations. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 73(1), 51–72. 

Dialog across difference #12: Judgy? Try assessment

One version of the Tao te Ching offers, "No fight, no blame." 

In the toughest conversations about what went wrong, blame is unhelpful. Thinking about how each party helped produce an undesirable outcome is more helpful. Then all can plan a stronger process and better results next time.

So. Yesterday, our peace team did a training. At the end, we asked the 40+ participants to please fill out evaluations, our simple set of questions that are meant to elicit open-ended assessments about what worked and what didn't. Most were happy about most aspects of our training, though they wanted more roleplays, less lecturing. Good, we can learn from that logical critique.

There was a unique subtext to this training, however. It was meant to help a campus community learn more about deëscalation and bystander intervention in the wake of a campus cop shooting an African American man dead. 

I set it up to foreground two of our top trainers, both African American, both highly qualified practitioners and deeply experienced trainers. I explained to the team that because of the nature of the training circumstances, they were the premier leads. 

Four of us were white males. 

To my horror, while two of us white males said almost nothing, the other two chimed in frequently. 

One, in fact, had very little experience with either our peace team in the street or in trainings. He is highly intelligent, but also highly interruptive in conversations, eager to share his insights, which are frequently very smart, though not much grounded in our team's experience. His intellectual brilliance contrasted with his tone-deaf failure to honor either the racial overtones or the voices of peace team experience. 

The second white man who spoke far too much is deeply experienced. He has a fine mind for the strategic aspects of nonviolence but very subpar verbal facility and clearly entirely missed the repeated messaging to give pretty much all the space to the BIPOC leadership.

It is far more likely that time for roleplays would have been adequate if the two lead trainers had been the voices, and who had set up the flow of the training without frequent unsolicited supplementary mic-grabbing by the white men.

Le sigh. 

Here is where I take the advice of dialog experts in the field of conflict transformation and stop at the cusp of blame, back off, and assess. 

I designed the training. Why on earth did I slot in four white men when two African American trainers of extraordinary skill were committed to conduct it? Why didn't I explain much more bluntly about the primacy of the two voices, the two BIPOC professionals who should have led at every step?

My contribution to the problem was key. Instead of blame on those who overshared and deprived everyone of the wisdom of the key trainers, I need to take primary credit for my contribution, my careless belief that my broad hints were sufficient, and my tendency to overschedule the number of trainers needed for any particular training.

Lessons learned are far more valuable than judgment apportioned. 

Dialog across difference #11: Here's how it felt, so how did you mean it?

Scholars from the Harvard Negotiation Project counsel us to just ignore insults and assume good intentions--not.

No. If someone says something that hurts, they advise, "speak to the impact, inquire about their intentions" (Stone, Patton & Heen, 2023, p. 70).

If you fail to use I messages to describe how the statement hit you and hurt you, the other person may remain untouched, either believing they have done no harm or that they can do so unchallenged. Neither of those outcomes are helpful. 

Speaking to the impact lets them know, either in a way that surprises them--What?--or challenges their willingness to hurt you with impunity. 

Then, when you seamlessly and sincerely inquire about their intentions, it gives them a chance to respond without the burden of defensiveness. 

Of course, when you announce that their words or actions caused you pain, it may help to open the door to allow them to proclaim no intent to harm you at all. 

If your relationship is healthy, you have given them a chance to logically and genuinely ask, in turn, how they can avoid hurting you in the future rather than shoving them so hard they often cannot help but respond in a dysfunctional defensive retort, sending your conversation into relationally dangerous territory. 

You: OK, I'm betting you didn't intend to cause me pain, but you just did.

Them: No, of course I didn't mean harm. In fact, I thought I was doing you a favor. Is there some way I could communicate better to give you the actual evaluative message without causing you pain?

When that harm occurs, I try (and if I hope for best results, remember) to use Bill Ury's advice. Go to the balcony. Pause, self-observe, self-assess, try out most adaptive responses in your mind. 

Then, once you are centered, speak to the impact, inquire about their intentions.

Don't I wish I had that 100 percent default response? We can get closer and closer by practice.

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

Dialog across difference #10: My issues! Read all about 'em!

 One of the trickiest balances in engaging in dialog across difference, in cross-cultural conversations, and in trauma-affected discussions is the use of "I" statements.

This is sometimes misidentified as being any statement that begins with "I..."

No. 

A far more useful and accurate description from the Harvard Chan School of Public Health:

"Let us speak from our own personal experience rather than speaking of another’s experience or generalizing about a group, whether that group is our own or another’s."

The question then becomes how we all might use I statements that work to increase understanding and decrease harmful emotional outcomes. Examples: 

·      I feel that when you say that, you reveal ignorance. Not a healthy helpful I statement.

·       When I hear anyone say anything in general about people like me, I feel nervous. Yes, this is a helpful I statement describing a personal feeling. 

·       I know you mean to demean me. Not a good I statement but instead decides what someone else is intending.

·       That cartoon feels hurtful, possibly disrespectful, to me. Yes, this is a healthy declaration of a personal emotional response to an image. It is a door to exploration of honest feelings.

While I statements may not be a panacea, they are one technique to practice in preparation for cross-cultural conversations.

Dialog across difference #9: The art of facilitation

How can facilitators reduce power asymmetry between people in a mixed group of those who speak the dominant culture language and those whose first language is not of the dominant culture--usually immigrants, refugees, and/or asylees from another country?

Some Norwegian researchers developed creative alternatives to, and additional communication methods beyond, spoken and written language in order to achieve more successful power balance as they engaged in facilitating discussions between native Norwegian youth and refugee youth. 

Participant-created skits, art, and other methods less reliant on the dominant language helped to mitigate the inherent uphill struggle of refugee youth. It deepened relationships, increased respect and even admiration for refugees and their families, and challenged both native youth and the Norwegian researchers to open themselves to permitting the refugee youth to expose themselves and their stories to the extent they preferred, even if that made the Norwegian youth and researchers profoundly uncomfortable.

As most educators will affirm, little learning happens in our comfort zones, little learning happens when we feel unsafe, and the deepest learning often comes when we are uncomfortable but basically safe. A great deal of that learning can be relational, which can be of great advantage to all participants.

Svendsen, S. H. B., & Skotnes, C. E. (2022). Education beyond Safety. Facilitating Educational Meetings between Refugee and Non-Refugee Youth. Journal of Social Science Education, 21(2), 153-173.

Dialog across difference #8: Did you see that? Yeah, no.

 What you see is what you get!

--Flip Wilson as Geraldine

Conflict conversations, say experts from the Harvard Negotiation Project, are informed by what the various parties perceive.

What we see relates to, and is influenced by, who we are, what we've experienced, and what we care about.

Elaine: Those so-called activists stormed our campus library and wrecked stuff.

Mazin: Yeah, well, they did it to protest the university's complicity in killing Gazans.

Elaine: My students have nowhere to study and find materials that help them do their work.

Mazin: Yeah, well, Americans seem to care a lot more about buildings than they do about Palestinian children.

Sherry: Well, as a Native American, I feel a lot of solidarity with Palestinians who have had their land stolen from them.

And so it goes, often building in intensity, deepening the conflict as identity, experience, and priorities clash. 

The idea of such conversations may be to reach some agreement about something, or it may simply be to achieve a level of peace between people in conflict. Whatever the preferred outcome, it will be more easily achieved by the compassionate curiosity that elicits more about why each person concludes what they do. 

One of the least effective phrases in a contested conversation is I assume that...

As the experts put it, "We each know ourselves better than anyone else can" (Stone, Patton & Heen, 2024, p. 41). Assumptions can be quite alienating and feel disrespectful.

Instead of announcing assumptions, inquire. The honest, caring inquiry can deepen relationships without offensive essentializing. Eliciting with an attitude of willingness to learn brings us closer and closer to a shared body of knowledge and can show each other that there are vast areas about which each of us knows more than anyone else in the room, and that tends to build the tone of dignity and respect on which conflict can turn from destructive to constructive.

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