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.

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.