How to transform autocracy to democracy: Respect all identities in how you frame your messaging

In her 2023 analysis of the case of Thailand campaigns to rise up against the brutal defense of the Thai monarchy, researcher Janjira Sombatpoonsiri found a clear correlation between frames that seemed to inflame and the likelihood of mass countervailing civil society campaigns. Carefully crafting messaging to avoid the appearance of attacking another ethnicity, religion, political party, or cultural identity group is a crucial factor for any campaign hoping to dislodge an autocrat of any stripe.

References

Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2023). “A lot of people still love and worship the monarchy”: How polarizing frames trigger countermobilization in Thailand. Journal of Peace Research, 60(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221142932

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Build teams

Looking at the history of nonviolent campaigns we often presume a charismatic leader is enough; once we have our golden guy it's a done deal. There are two problems with that assumption. 

One, some of the most successful takedown campaigns in history have no charismatic leader. 

Two, a charismatic leader is not an expert at everything; there must be experts leading the necessary work teams in order to accelerate the pace of gain and move it swiftly to victory. Assessing is crucial and assessing about who is expert enough to assess is the work before the work. Identify team leaders: 

·       adaptive management, that is, evaluating steps taken and adjusting to improve next steps

·       logistics--event planners, team support and care

·       finances and fundraising, keeping the organization "street legal"

·       media--develop contacts and strategies, when to broadcast, when to narrowcast, how to incentivize best coverage

·       legal--organize both civil (lawsuit) and criminal (defending nonviolent resisters, develop stable of both lawyers and germane expert witnesses

Develop teams as needed and do not miss out on expertise that sometimes is modest and not visible. Inquire, negotiate, and coordinate. Teams can both bond--almost become foxhole buddies--and bridge--connect between and amongst teams. New campaign members can self-direct toward an existing team or be recruited once a skill-set inventory mechanism indicates valued expertise.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Inoculate against violent flanks

Many campaigns put little focus on preventing outbreaks of violence or the sorts of actions that the public would generally classify as violent. Therefore, they are susceptible to random acts of violence or unsanctioned property destruction or screaming matches. When the image of a campaign is one likely to snap from peaceful to unpredictable skirmishes, such as someone throwing a soda can at a cop, it tends to disincentivize the average observer who might otherwise be open to joining the next action.

All the research suggests that numbers matter a great deal. Old tired theories such as the Che Guevara triggering notion--a violent action done at the right time can trigger the revolution--are generally ahistorical and unhelpful. Empirical research indicates that if just a small percentage of the population can participate in civil resistance on a sustained basis--roughly 3.5-4 percent--the campaign will succeed. 

When violent flanks alienate far more than they attract, it is clear that the effective campaigns will do all possible to set themselves up to resist and even repel violent actors. 

When some organizers, who often mean well, say that we shouldn't reject anyone who is "on our side" and "wants the same thing" no matter what they do to try to get it, the smart organizer will help them understand that a so-called "diversity of tactics" will diminish the movement, alienating the general populace, and render the campaign far less effective. When someone who is generally sympathetic to a campaign turns on their tv and sees pepperspray, instances of physical clash, and even rubber bullets, they are far less likely to come into the next one.

Indeed, every decision made by the campaign should be run through the filtering question, "How will this affect recruitment?" There may well be some circumstances that are more crucial than recruitment numbers, but that prioritization should be accepted by the organizers and at least considered in deliberative discussions.

The recommended components of preventing the harm inflicted by the actions of a violent flank: 

·       Decide on a strict nonviolence code of conduct.

·       Form a peace team dedicated to nonviolently enforcing that nonviolent code.

·       Publicize that each event will be nonviolent (family-friendly, peaceful).

·       Announce that the peace team is there to remind everyone of the code of conduct.

·       Liaise with media and law enforcement to reinforce the image of the campaign as absolutely nonviolent.

·       If there are dedicated groups insisting on a diversity of tactics, meet with them. Negotiate, insisting on mutual respect as a baseline, and let them know you will not renounce them in general unless they come into your event and disrupt it, at which point you will indeed denounce them and let everyone know they are not part of the campaign. Let them know they are quite welcome to your events when they can abide by your code of conduct. Let them know they may riot on a different day or on the other side of town and you will make no comment, only reserving that for any time when they act out in your event. This works. What does not work are philosophical arguments, or even strategy arguments. Focus on mutual respect and clear boundaries with predictable outcomes.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Be transparent

There are so many reasons for any campaign to be as transparent as possible (but not more so--if Anita and her child Jorge are living in sanctuary in your weekend woodlands cabin to keep them safe from ICE you are obviously not going to be transparent about that): 

·       Being forthright with media, opponents, law enforcement, and others is the only path to trust.

·       Being honest about the meta-goal (e.g., ending racism, transforming the government, seeing the autocrat resign) makes it harder to accuse a campaign of something else, of just promoting smaller goals to convert to oppressive communism or to seize power to make fortunes.

·       Being truthful can reduce the number of times the armed agents of the state commit violence against members of the campaign because the combination of openness and nonviolent conduct even in the face of violent oppression opens a sympathy gap more and more in favor of the campaign.

This commitment to truth, trust, honesty, and transparency enhances the reputation of the campaign even as it erodes how the populace views the aspiring autocrat. This can affect power dynamics and even help lead to a willingness to negotiate, especially as the sympathy gap helps a burgeoning recruitment to both supporting ranks and participating numbers.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Decide how to decide and stick with it

One of the most dysfunctional approaches to campaign success is revisiting basic functional decisions again and again, relitigating tired arguments for one method or another, so that membership gets confused, stays confused, and becomes increasingly alienated and begins to drop out. 

Make this decision about decision-making early on, stick with it, and do not entertain amendments or revisions to it for quite some time.

Of course, this means the relatively small group of original organizers should be quite deliberate and consensus-driven (even if consensus is not the final choice of making decisions as the campaign grows). Deciding without such deliberations can result in a capricious decision that leads to internal strife and movement stagnation.

Deliberate, employ curiosity about alternatives, visualize ranges of presenting problems, barriers both necessary and unnecessary, and outcomes that propel or inhibit your campaign. Once serious consideration has been given to all suggested modes, choose on and commit. That will save grief and time and keep the focus where it belongs: solutionary tracks.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Liaise with everyone

There are so many reasons to be in regular communication with all parties from the entire spectrum of players in the realm of your campaign: 

·       Be in dialog with potential coalitional partners to work on overcoming any barriers to building your coalition (John, we are hosting a weekly lunch at the church on 9th Street, for all coalition partners and potential partners. We would value you or someone you can send at these conversations. Your views are very important to us.)

·       Liaise with police at every level--local, state, federal--in order to build trust by demonstrating transparency, even in the aftermath of not being transparent at times (Commander, we didn't let you know ahead of time that we were going to occupy the hearing room because you naturally would be duty-bound to prevent us from that. Please know that nothing we did was in any spirit of disrespect toward you or your officers. This was a strategic move, not meant to embarrass your authority in any way. I hope you noticed that we offered a respectful reference to your officers in our publicity.)

·       Don't simply send out press releases. Follow up and get to know editors, reporters, photographers, and videographers personally. Ask questions in those conversations (Hi Deborah, can you give me some guidance from your perspective as editor on best practices when working with you? I noticed that you sent a crew to cover our demonstration two weeks ago, but not anyone for our demonstration yesterday. What am I missing and what advice can you offer?)

·       Stay in talks with deciders and influencers (Joyce, as the Congresswoman's Chief of Staff, can you help us understand what we can do to help the Congresswoman feel empowered to act to prevent the President from imposing his diktats that are hurting so many, including the Congresswoman's own constituents?)

Listen to everyone. When they stop talking to you, ask why. Your campaign is one of action and even deeper than that is a learning project done by a learning community.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Nonviolent code of conduct

Whether you are stopping an aspiring autocrat from taking power or bringing down an autocrat already in power, nonviolence works better than all alternatives--more often and with far fewer costs than violence and, of course, better than apathy or fantasizing, no matter how fervent.

Part of the key to creating a movement that sticks to nonviolent conduct is to develop a code of conduct, preferably one that can be printed up and carried by all participants. Gandhi had one, Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights movement had theirs, and so have other successful nonviolent movements. 

I personally feel the Einstein adage applies best: Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. In other words, there really isn't any need for an elaborate code covering all possible permutations of scenarios, so it should be simpler than that. However, a code that is too simple may be seen as, well, simplistic. Either problem can make it seem unrealistic.

Once your relatively small original core leadership agrees on the code of conduct, it may used as a filter for joining the movement, whether for individuals or for groups. Here is one sample: 

Code of conduct

·       We will harm no one physically

·       We will treat all with respect

·       We will express no hatred for any person 

·       If we are attacked, we will respond only with nonviolence

signed_______________________

Some codes of conduct include points that deal with property destruction and some do not. Some codes of conduct include points that deal with scrupulously following the law and some don't. Some include faith-based points, some include loyalty to leadership, and some include state of mind promises. The important job of the code of conduct is that it starts as a promise and develops into a tool to defend participants in the media, to armed agents of the state, in courts, and to their neighbors. Carrying a signed copy on your person is a surprisingly valuable tool in your nonviolent toolkit.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Multiple prongs

Problem: Your country has been a democracy and is now facing an aspiring autocrat backed by a huge team of clever advisers and an entire political party. 

Start by understanding that one tactic will not stop him. Indeed, there are hundreds. 

Reverend James Lawson, named by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr as one of the architects of the US civil rights movement, said (paraphrase): Show me a winning campaign and I'll show you one that is multipronged, intercultural, and intergenerational.

What did the Rev mean by multipronged? There are many, but mostly what he meant was that one action, one tactic, one repeated action is essentially a pathetic one-trick pony. 

In an institute bearing his name, African American journalist Deb Mathis echoed the Rev. She pointed out in her years in a newsroom as an editor, she would frequently assign a reporter to cover a new and promising campaign, but if they did the same thing the next time, she stopped assigning anyone to cover it. 

Indeed, when a campaign has news on the street, in elected officials' offices, in the courtroom, in houses of worship, in the leadership circles of unions, and even in the lives of celebrities, that multipronged effort raises the campaign into the minds of many more people.

Don't get stuck with one exciting tactic that swiftly devolves into crashing boredom. 

Transformative psychology #15: Ubuntu, adoption, appropriation

Ubuntu is African in origin but universal in potential application. 

That brings up an issue with which I've struggled over the years. What is a culture featuring best practices learned from any and all sources versus cultural appropriation? To me, it is a bit like writing. Cite our sources! Give credit. Acknowledge. I wore a braid for many years (until I broke my wrist and was unable to braid) and I always credited my Anishinaabe friends whose braids I loved. That's a little thing.

The other factor is to not only acknowledge cultural origins, but to acknowledge privilege and relative lack of cultural depth. If I love Aretha Franklin I'm only ethically correct, in my view, if I do so acknowledging that I can't possibly understand the full measure, the authentic depth, of the African American experience or roots of gospel fusion. 

This is all easy and natural for those who study and practice conflict transformation because at the heart of our field is respect--for others and for ourselves. When that is a higher value than feeling superior to others, we lean into our own variant of ubuntu.

Nigerian philosopher Philip Ogo Ujomu describes ubuntu as " a set of human values central among which are reciprocity, the common good, peaceful relations, an emphasis on human dignity and the value of human life, as well as consensus, tolerance, and mutual respect" (2024, pp. 53-54). He further suggests that, with all the external contestation for development of Africa, decisions about that should not only rest with Africans but should be guided by reliance on the values of ubuntu as a necessary endogenous filter in such decision-making.

In many ways, then, although development of African resources--both human and natural--by external parties during the colonial era and beyond has been far more predatory than collaborative, this school of thought and proposed reliance on ubuntu would bring back the sovereign agency to indigenous Africans to the extent ubuntu is in fact made crucial in such decisions. Struggling to foreground ubuntu might indeed be the most crucial factor in remediating the extractive approach associated with external parties from the export of slaves to the dark history of conflict diamonds and other profoundly oppressive practices. Basing decisions on ethics such as mutual respect changes the psychological foundations of conversations amongst Africans and between Africans and external parties. It would be one of the greatest social evolutionary steps in the history of humankind. Impossible? It would be wise to heed Henry David Thoreau in this inquiry, who said that we should aim high because almost certainly we will never achieve more than what we aim to.

References

Ujomu, P. O. (2024). ‘Ubuntu’ African Philosophy or ‘Ubuntu’ as a Philosophy for Africa? Philosophical Alternatives Journal / Filosofski Alternativi, 33(5), 53–90. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.58945/UYHB1683

Transformative psychology #14: Changing default settings for bystander intervention

Bystander intervention is when you, as a witness, see a bully, a predator, an aggressor or an attacker target someone and you, as a decent human, intervene.

One of the hardest pieces of this is to convince yourself that you should, in fact, intervene on someone who is hostile, dominating, aggressive, threatening, and just plain scary. We may be culturally opposed to such intimidation or we may even be hard-wired to want to stand up for the vulnerable, but humans also seem wired to seek any justification for not being involved. 

I'm not strong enough. They will figure it out by themselves. Someone else will intervene and fix this.

Our ability to justify our impulse to "let George handle it" is impressive--and a straight-up abdication of our duty to the vulnerable as humans. 

Research helps us understand and prepare (Peck, Doumas & Midgett, 2024). Critically, "when individuals find they have acted in a way that contradicts their moral compass, they may activate 'disengagement' mechanisms to avoid the discomfort of negative self‐sanctions" (Gotdiner & Gumpel, 2024, p. 634). 

Thus, forgiving ourselves for shameful conduct in past bystander intervention fails is the first step toward learning how to gain agency and a stronger chance to be an effective intervenor in future situations where we observe an aggressor and a targeted person.

One of the strongest deterrents our minds wrestle with in the real-life moment of witnessing a bully attacking a targeted person is "perceived costs" (McCary[1], 2017). To accurately calculate these perceived costs is critical, and then to calculate the costs of not intervening, compare the two, and make a decision.

Tactics that reduce the perceived costs are thus vital to enable bystanders to intervene. 

One may imagine the bully refocusing on oneself instead of the original target. When that happens, are there tactics that can mitigate that possibility and thus reduce the perceived costs? 

Approaching the targeted person as a friend, or at the least a friendly other, can help the intervenor attenuate the tension without calling out the aggressor. 

Treating the interaction as something to dismiss rather than shout about can de-couple all parties' moral engagement, investment, and need to either assert dominance or survive by abject surrender. Not making eye contact with the aggressor can assist in not engendering an atmosphere of dominance calculation in the moment. Making eye contact instead with the targeted person can evoke a measure of trust in many situations. Smiling or even laughing "with" the targeted person can relieve some tensions in some cases and thus psychologically deëscalate all parties. Affecting non-dominating but reframing behaviors can often significantly reduce risks to all parties. Asking questions rather than making statements cedes one form of power in order to enhance another form of power.

Reframing reality is altering it and creating a new reality.

Are these guaranteed strategies?

There is no such thing.

References

Gotdiner, V., & Gumpel, T. P. (2024). Bystander intervention style and motivational factors influencing behavior in bullying situations. Psychology in the Schools, 61(2), 631–646. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1002/pits.23075

McCary, Jennifer (2017). Teaching bystanders to intervene. TedxGettysburg College. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY_X4O-wno

Peck, M., Doumas, D. M., & Midgett, A. (2024). Examination of the Bystander Intervention Model Among Middle School Students: A Preliminary Study. Professional Counselor, 14(2), 119–134. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.15241/mp.14.2.119

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY_X4O-wno

Transformative psychology #13: Internal conflict resolution under duress

While the field of conflict transformation is generally concerned with conflict management methods between and among parties to a conflict, in recent years neuroscience research is studying how we manage our inner conflicts--a melding of neuroscience and psychology relative to conflict response. 

Brain scientists have been helping us understand the aspects of how we humans are hard-wired--or not--to respond to threats, but most interestingly, how we can manipulate or even rewire that hard wiring. In a recent study, for instance, researchers tested responses to presenting problems using situations that were resolved by normal methods and comparing those to test participants who faced atypical conflict scenarios--could they successfully flex and adapt? (Sauter, et al., 2024)

References

Sauter, A. E., Zabicki, A., Schüller, T., Baldermann, J. C., Fink, G. R., Mengotti, P., & Vossel, S. (2024). Response and conflict expectations shape motor responses interactively. Experimental Brain Research, 242(11), 2599–2612. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1007/s00221-024-06920-w

Transformative psychology #12: Neuroscience of consensus, or what part of the brain produces groupthink?

In 2011, a Stanford psychologist discovered a function of the:

"ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain's reward centre that lights up when we encounter things we want, like a chocolate bar. Zaki's team found that it also activates when people are told what others think. And the more this part of the brain responds to information about group opinion, the more someone will adjust their opinion towards the consensus" (Rutkin, 2025, p. 32).

Some wrote about this decades ago when analyzing the process of the "best and brightest" American officials in John F. Kennedy's cabinet, who all came to agree to invade Cuba's Bay of Pigs in an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro, an invasion that was so poorly thought out that it ended in abject humiliation for the US. 

Achieving real consensus is more than a powerful and persuasive person convincing a group to get along by going along. Part of the successful application of psychology toward genuine consensus is credible humility by the figure usually regarded as the decider--the owner of a company, the founder of a group, the most credentialed member of a group, the person who is looked to for wise decisions by others, or even simply a dominant personality. 

Checking ego, checking any ability to pull rank, checking any potential for retribution, checking one's high position in a hierarchy--all this is requisite to authentic consensus process, a process that, when done well, produces wise decisions and high commitment to results by those who were participants in that process (Dressler, 2006).

References

Dressler, Larry (2006). Consensus through conversation: How to achieve high-commitment decisions. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Rutkin, A. (2015). We Are Wired to Conform. New Scientist, 227(3034), 32.

Transformative psychology #11: Unfreezing conflict narratives

In current research on attempting to alter, abolish, or transform the conventional conflict-supporting narratives that enable nations to continue destructive conflict, an Israeli team of psychologists and conflict resolution researchers are finding some promise in what they refer to as Information Process Model (IPM).  

These interdisciplinary researchers describe their work in unpacking formulation and interruption of conflict-supporting narratives using this intervention method:

Specifically, an IPM-based intervention includes the following four elements: (1) clarifying that conflict-supporting narratives evolve to fulfill the needs of society members involved in intractable conflicts; (2) explaining that these narratives are common among all societies involved in such conflicts; (3) adding that these narratives come with a cost of fueling the conflict and describing the immense costs to society that come with it; and (4) suggesting that there is a benefit to exploring alternative means of fulfilling these needs, as found in other peacefully-resolved conflicts, which may end the cycle of violence and proceed to peacemaking. (Rosler, Wiener-Blotner, Heskiau & Sharvit, 2024, p. 1151).

Selecting other conflict narratives that did transform and seeking components that can be shown as paradigms worth possibly adapting to the protracted conflict experienced by members of the nation involved can lower barriers to acceptance of methods that may hold a promise in lowering the tremendous costs of destructive conflict.

References

Rosler, N., Wiener-Blotner, O., Heskiau Micheles, O., & Sharvit, K. (2024). Understanding Reactions to Informative Process Model Interventions: Ambivalence as a Mechanism of Change. Behavioral Sciences (2076-328X), 14(12), 1152. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.3390/bs14121152

Transformative psychology #10: Nonviolent Communication, cultural differences, post-traumatic stress

In one study of the efficacy of a three-part use of Nonviolent Communication,[1] using the Nonviolent Communication Behavior Scale, researchers found that self-connection, authentic self-expression, and empathic listening were useful in reducing cross-cultural miscommunications and in dampening communication difficulties with people suffering PTS (Fung, et al., 2025).

In principled negotiation, the care for others and care for self is balanced, which tends to move agreements away from mere compromise and toward collaboration. When the three elements of Nonviolent Communication are utilized in principled negotiation, the new possibilities of progress toward a win-win outcome are enhanced. 

Self-connection is the honest inner exploration of needs. Authentic self-expression is the honest communication of those needs. Empathic listening is eliciting the needs of others with a dual lens of openness to cultural differences and tolerance for PTS.

Application of Nonviolent Communication competencies tends to open minds and hearts more than any communication method that is simply oriented toward self-aggrandizement or control over the discourse.

References

Fung, H. W., Chau, A. K. C., Yuan, G. F., Liu, C., & Lam, S. K. K. (2025). The Nonviolent Communication Behaviors Scale: Cross-Cultural Validity and Association with Trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress. Research on Social Work Practice, 35(1), 88–96. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1177/10497315231221969

---

[1] Nonviolent Communication is capitalized as it refers to a method of communication developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg. It is a specific practice method, not merely communication that doesn't happen to be violent, which would logically perhaps be called nonviolent communication.

Transformative psychology #9: Choose your metaphors wisely

Scholars in both Communications and Conflict Transformation have researched the psychology of metaphor choice as we work on our identities, our problems, our relationships, our sense of morality, and much more, including, it is hoped, effective solutionary paths.

Interviewing Restorative Justice (RJ) practitioners and analyzing the results led Communications researchers Ian Borton and Gregory Paul (2015) to posit that the common metaphor of regarding the RJ, healing, might be far more problematic than a less fraught metaphor of gardening. 

Underneath this work is the vast cultural differences and injured parties' logical struggles with the idea of a perpetrator being part of healing the injuries. But tending to a garden is a more modest and less loaded metaphor, still with positive imagery and associations. 

When the Jesuit priest, literati, and nonviolent resister Dan Berrigan explained the process by which he developed and presented the metaphor for their bold act of direct action interference with the draft sending young Americans to kill or die in Vietnam, he told us, "It took me all winter, after our initial attempt in October 1967, to say 'Fire.' Then we made homemade napalm, which was killing and maiming so many civilians in Vietnam, and burned the draft files in the parking lot." That metaphor, reified in the blaze of draft files, caught metaphorical fire and it literally and figuratively sparked a series of what became known as draft board raids, more than three dozen of them, across the US, grinding at least some of the Selective Service system to a halt and lighting up the public consciousness.

The right metaphor, rooted in the right psychological approach, can alter reality. 

References

Borton, I. M., & Paul, G. D. (2015). Problematizing the healing metaphor of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(3), 257–273. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/10282580.2015.1057704

Transformative psychology #8: Cassandra complex and women who warn us

Cassandra made a deal with Apollo, it is written, that he would grant her the gift of prophesy if she would have sex with him. He gave her the gift, then she decided she really didn't want to lie with him, so he kissed her and cursed her to be unbelieved. For the rest of her short life, she warned her fellow Trojans of impending catastrophes, and all her dire predictions were both ignored and then came tragically true.

Psychologists have written about the "Cassandra complex" for many decades, with varying interpretations (Azriel, 2023). Those who observe public policy debates have seen women give serious warnings and been dismissed as "hysterical" or emotional all too often. Is this a simple psychological problem inherent in patriarchy or can it in turn produce actual psychological problems for the "Cassandras" who offer terrible predictions and are dismissed--even when they have been correct in the past?

References

Azriel, N. (2023). Rethinking the Cassandra Complex: Toward Collective Reclamation of the Capacity to Listen. Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, 17(3), 25–38. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/19342039.2023.2224710

Transformative psychology #7: Emotional intelligence and conflict transformation

Conflict transformation is transforming destructive conflict into constructive conflict. The types of destructive conflict are typically associated with forms of violence, including direct, structural, cultural, sexual, and emotional (Rapp, 2006). Emotional intelligence is one element in the process of transformation, but not just as regards emotional violence; emotional intelligence can assist in transforming any destructive conflict, in no small measure because all forms of destructive conflict impact emotional well-being.

Emotional intelligence is both self-oriented and other-oriented, affecting our behaviors and thus the outcomes of what we attempt. Other-oriented emotional intelligence is a positive factor in workplace productivity and sustainability of a positive workplace culture (Marinova, Anand & Park, 2025).

References

Marinova, S., Anand, S., & Park, H. (2025). Other-oriented emotional intelligence, OCBs, and job performance: a relational perspective. Journal of Social Psychology, 1–20. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/00224545.2024.2439944

Rapp, H. (2006). The four chambers of the heart of peace: the role of emotional intelligence, counselling skills, and living systems thinking in the transformation of violent conflict: part one. Psychotherapy & Politics International, 4(3), 157–174. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1002/ppi.107

Transformative psychology #6: Neuroscience of empathy

Psychological researchers have found that "work in humans and nonhuman primates converges in describing a close relationship between emotional contagion, mimicry, and social closeness" (Ferrari, 2014, p. 300). While there is no scientific claim or basis in any assertion that mirror neurons guarantee an empathic response in all individuals in all situations--mocking disabilities is an example of the opposite and of course there are many others--neuroscientists are possibly moving toward consensus that without our animal innate ability to mirror others behaviors, including facial expressions and body movements, empathy might not be as possible as it clearly is.

Of course there is a continuum of empaths, all the way from those who almost eagerly put their lives in danger to protect others to those who operate only transactionally and strictly in their own self-interest. Most humans seem to fall some distance from both endpoints of that spectrum or continuum.

When deëscalating someone, the psychological empathic approach is crucial, as is the role of empathy in moderating, facilitating, and mediating. Given our natural range of empathic choices in the heat of conflict, we can instruct ourselves to come down where it will do the most good.

Scenario One: 

Mandy and Jim are escalating in an argument in a dinner party. You choose how to use your empathy. You back Jim, showing him great camaraderie and protective friendship, discounting Mandy's points. Your empathy escalates the conflict, assisting in damaging the long friendship of Mandy and Jim, as well as you and Mandy.

Scenario Two: 

Mandy and Jim, dinner party argument--same start. As they escalate and each start becoming louder and more aggressive and dismissive of the other, you choose to practice your empathy by quietly asking questions, first of one, then the other. Your quiet search for the most rational components of their arguments is your mirroring approach, your empathic approach, connecting possibly less to their physical expressions and more to the variables of their intellectual constructs, constructs that you are asking them in turn to reveal more clearly to you. If your empathic approach works, you (or one of them) may well discover enough common interests to maintain their mutual respect, if not agreement.

Both of your approaches are rooted in empathy.

Does that make empathy categorically good or invariably effective? Hardly. 

Thus, merely asserting to ourselves or to others that "I was trying to protect my friend," or "I acted out of sympathy for him," is not a legitimate claim to either good relational upkeeping or even smart intentions. Empathy expressed in ways that uplift and strengthen social bonds can show social evolutionary adaptiveness. Empathy that seems based in more of a zero-sum analysis can possibly do more harm than good.

References

Ferrari, P. F. (2014). The neuroscience of social relations. A comparative-based approach to empathy and to the capacity of evaluating others’ action value. Behaviour, 151(2/3), 297–313. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1163/1568539X-00003152