- Nothing physical. No shoving, no threats.
No "getting in someone's face". It is our self
control (and knowledge that this confrontation
is not a prelude to violence) that makes it a
catharsis, a release of tension and not a
source of fresh tension. If this confidence is
broken, we lose the freedom to truly be open with each
other and the opportunity to feel at ease.
- No cheap shots, at things that one knows to be points
of vulnerability for the other, no gratuitous remarks
about the person or his friends or family. One is
focused on the actions, not on the person.
Discussions about personal traits tend to put people
on the defensive, so they must be handled extremely
gently. In such cases, one shouldn't be going on the
attack at all, unless the situation has become so
extreme that you are seriously considering breaking
off your relationship with the one criticised -
because such an attack tends to accomplish just that,
in time. Perversely enough, this is exactly the sort
of situation where some cultural traditions mandate
going on the attack, which probably is one of the
primary reasons why they are so good at producing
loneliness and isolation.
- Know your adversary and remember that he is not truly
your enemy. Limit your level of heat to what you know
he is prepared to handle at the moment. If you have
successfully browbeaten him into silence - back off.
You shouldn't be viewing that as a success. He needs
to dispose of his anger as well, so pull back a
little, enough so that he feels free to speak. If
necessary, even ask him a few questions that you know
will get him going.
There is a bond between you and your friend or
acquaintance and to know him better, to an extent, is
to know yourself better. In encouraging him to bring
his issues forth and thinking, even in the heat of
anger, about what he is saying, you gain clarity,
realising or remembering issues that you feel the need
to discuss. This brings further release to you. So, if
you stifle another, in some sense, you stifle
yourself, leaving unresolved issues below the surface
of your consciousness, where you will be left ill
prepared to deal with them. You trade your peace of
mind, for an illusory victory, for your friend's
defeat is your own. All lose in this exchange.
- The issue is the issue. We don't bring in ad hominem
attacks or irrelevant side issues until the current
issue has been dealt with. That just escalates
matters.
This should not be construed to mean that one can't
make reference to differing group interests. For
example, if a woman offers the opinion that she
doesn't see what the big deal about the draft is, it's
perfectly legitimate to point out that this is easy
for someone who can't be drafted to say. However, it
is not legitimate, if that same woman is talking about
what trade policy should be, to say that it's pretty
nervy for someone for an undraftable individual who
doesn't share in all of the burdens of running a
society to want to share in the decision making.
That latter statement might sound valid. If you turn
it around a little, and say that its pretty nervy for
someone to want both - lesser burdens and equal
privileges - clearly, it is valid. But, the approach
does matter and the one described about serves to
squelch the free exchange of ideas. What would be
acceptable, in this case, is not going on the attack
about having an opinion on trade policy, but, taking
as a given her desire to take part in such
discussions, to criticise her desire to have an
obligation inflicted on another, which she would
refuse for herself.
This understandin, should not be taken as an excuse
for hair splitting. It is what one is arguing (and not
the rhetorical spin one puts on it) that matters. To
continue our example, if the woman's idea about how
we should alter our trade policy was that we should
invade someone and call up the draft to do it, then
she is really talking about the draft, even if she
pretends that the issue is trade policy. At that
point, there would be no issue with someone pointing
out her nondraftable status, because it is not
irrelevant.
In the weighing of the various goods we desire that
constitutes moral judgement, if your interests are at
radical variance with mine, you may take pleasure with
an arrangment that rationally, should bring me none,
and as such, your tastes may be a poor reflection of
what would reflect justice for me. To refuse to allow
me to speak of this, would be to refuse to allow me to
seek access to justice and that is the most uncivil
act of all. That "etiquette" calls for it is a
reflection of nothing more than the fact that it
is the self serving fashion set by a ruling
subculture that wanted to keep those under its thumb,
docile. In deciding how much trust to put in a gut
reaction, be it individual, or the group one a custom
like this represents, motivation does matter.
Options ..
- continue
- return to previous thread of discussion