Isaacs and My Mother had a framework
Isaacs presents a framework for human interaction that interestingly parallels some of the basic principles my mother would often cite to me – particularly in the midst of disputes with any one or more of my three sisters. It’s not surprising to find these principles, stated somewhat differently, in Isaacs’s work being applied to a broader context: these are principles based upon timeless truths (dare I say ‘absolutes’?).
Said and Funk (1996) call such fundamental conflict resolution perspectives “spiritual”: perspectives which “suggest that human beings have inherent value and affirm that empathy, intelligence, and persistence are better resources for dealing with conflict than egotism, strategic acumen, and deadly weapons.” My mother would have agreed.
Isaacs’s framework includes four foundational areas that have value not only in resolving conflict, but also in creating a lifestyle that redeems conflict and brings transformation. They match neatly the four principles my mother drilled into me.
Listening –
“Our language is holographic” (Isaacs, 1999). This metaphor speaks volumes about the ways in which we ignore or fail to perceive all that is meant by what we and others say. Listening must be an attempt to go beyond one dimensional processing of sounds, to a multidimensional exploration of the breadth and depth of context, emotion and thought that precedes each word, each sentence and each paragraph.
Isaacs also points out that listening is empathetic. This is an area in which corporate culture fails consistently. Empathy is the antithesis of the kind of internal and inter-corporate competition that is encouraged. Rather than focus on how others are similar to us, standard US corporate culture focuses on differences, distinctions and contrasts. As a child, I sometimes heard the phrase “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” I didn’t fully realize what that meant until, as an adult, I encountered people whose lives were vastly different than mine – but I perceived that the only differences between them and me were a handful of choices we each had made. When I began to realize that I was capable of the same kinds of decisions, and therefore capable of being in the same state, I realized that the cliché could actually be a statement of empathy, not of self-righteousness.
When I saw the movie Nuremburg, the most poignant moment was when U.S. Army Psychiatrist Captain Gustav Gilbert concluded the trial with his observation about the defendants:
Respecting –
Empathy should naturally flow into respect. Isaacs says respect is “to look for the springs that feed the pool of their experiences.” By honoring the boundaries of others, by making ourselves available to them, and to be taught by them, we acknowledge the legitimacy of others. We grant them significance.
In my home, the issue of respect comes up often in discussions among my teen aged children. They often don’t feel they receive it either from their parents or each other. In Isaac’s definition, they may be right: they do not feel legitimized. The need to belong is a fundamental need of humans in social groups. Legitimacy brings significance and the realization of belonging.
My mother often cited two other verses that she applied to the idea of honoring others and granting them legitimacy. She believed that when we acknowledged that others are what she called “significant,” then we will recognize their needs. Again, empathy is at work.
Respect not only gives legitimacy to the person, but also acknowledges their values. An enormous amount of conflict can be circumvented if our conversation and actions would acknowledge the values of others. For example, when the US military took positions throughout Baghdad, they put troops on the rooftops, and immediately incensed the local men. Why? Because the rooftops put the private courtyards of adjoining homes right in the line of sight of these young American men. The courtyards were the one place where the women could uncover themselves at all – and now that sanctuary had been violated.
This was perhaps my mothers most often cited verse: “Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12.17-19 NASB) She usually added “and ‘all men’ includes your sisters!”
Suspending –
We’re often expected to engage entertainment such as films with a certain frame of mind which will enable us to accept the otherwise absurd assumptions and bases of the plots. This is called a “willing suspension of disbelief,” in which we voluntarily set aside the truths to which we hold tenaciously, so that we can experience the movie in a more holistic way. For Isaacs, suspension is a means of holding our opinions and dangling them openly in a way that lets us and others examine them. “We simply acknowledge and observe our thoughts and feelings as they arise without being compelled to act on them.”
A VP of sales once told me that the key to winning a sale was what he called “mandatory exclusives.” By this, he meant that the focus should be on the things that only we had to offer – and that we needed to make sure that the customer saw those things as being vital to the solution of their particular problem. Suspension is really just the opposite: nothing is mandatory, and rarely are things exclusively the domain of one person or group.
Voicing –
The fourth practice that Isaacs outlines is voicing, or “revealing what is true for you regardless of other influences that might be brought to bear.” In his discussion of voicing, Isaacs raises several points that moderate and deepen the meaning of this practice. Outside the context of the other practices, especially listening, voicing can become strident blustering.
In my own experience, “empowerment” measures have always stopped short of a true expectation of anyone actually having a voice or expression of their own. Instead, expressions are expected to be openly supportive of the management team or the status quo. “Impromptu” support is highly encouraged, critiques and analysis are not.
But Isaacs’s voicing is not just about other-directed speech. It is an integral part of the dialogue process which, “practiced well, has a far more radical edge that encourages us to learn to tell the truth about our own and other’s inconsistencies in a way that begins to enable us to transform them. It encourages us to reflect on our own responsibility and to build a culture where this is seen as a strength rather than as a weakness (Isaacs, 1999)
It is this element of self-responsibility that gives Isaacs concept of voicing such power. If we are speaking to ourselves in honesty, then we don’t have to wait for others to be listening to us before we can have influence. Although Isaacs New Age “words create reality” leanings take him beyond the realm of my agreement, his fundamental idea of speaking truth is echoed in other, perhaps more reliable places.
My mother’s fourth principle was based on Ephesians, one of the letters of Saint Paul found in the Bible, and a letter of Saint Peter.
This sensitivity is the call that Isaacs makes for people to listen, respect, suspend, and voice. Unfortunately, the spiritualists and Isaacs provide little insight into the motivation that will enable persons to be transformed from their current state to this more enlightened one. My mother believed that the transformation required to listen, respect, suspend and voice was a transformation that came with the realization that Someone Else had listened to our inner cries, respected our humanity, suspended judgment, and then revealed himself and our true condition in the ultimate “voicing”. Once this transformation takes place, we can turn toward others in a similar way. We can love, because we were first loved.
The fundamental paradigm shift required for conflicts to be fully resolved is more than simply finding shared values (Kriger & Hanson, 1999): it is finding a purpose for sharing. When Ptotapchuk (1999) describes members of community collaboratives arguing about program options, or “competing collaboratives fighting over seemingly limited resources”, he is describing the prime evidence of a root problem. Conflict seems to stem from the notion that there is not enough (of anything) for both “them” and “us”, and because of our ultimate self-interest, we will go to any measure to ensure that we have captured enough for ourselves. The purpose for sharing seemingly limited resources can only come from a spirituality that sees life as bigger than resources, others as more than competitors, and ourselves as less than superior.
It can only come from the redemptive transformation of sacrificial love. It is then that we “we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.” (Romans 14.19 NASB)
Works Cited
Isaacs, William. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Random Houses Inc. New York, New York.
Kriger, Mark P. & Hanson, Bruce J. (1999) A Value-Based Paradigm for Creating Truly Healthy Organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 12 No. 4 , MCB University Press.
New American Standard Bible (NASB). (1995) The Lockman Foundation.
Potapchup, William R. (1999) Moving From Collaborative Processes to Collaborative Communities. Retrieved from mediate.com October 17, 2004.
Said, A.A. & Funk, N.C. (1996). Conflict resolution and spirituality: Reflections on
teaching, theory, and practice. The Fourth R, 74, 1,4-6.
Said and Funk (1996) call such fundamental conflict resolution perspectives “spiritual”: perspectives which “suggest that human beings have inherent value and affirm that empathy, intelligence, and persistence are better resources for dealing with conflict than egotism, strategic acumen, and deadly weapons.” My mother would have agreed.
Isaacs’s framework includes four foundational areas that have value not only in resolving conflict, but also in creating a lifestyle that redeems conflict and brings transformation. They match neatly the four principles my mother drilled into me.
Listening –
“Our language is holographic” (Isaacs, 1999). This metaphor speaks volumes about the ways in which we ignore or fail to perceive all that is meant by what we and others say. Listening must be an attempt to go beyond one dimensional processing of sounds, to a multidimensional exploration of the breadth and depth of context, emotion and thought that precedes each word, each sentence and each paragraph.
Isaacs also points out that listening is empathetic. This is an area in which corporate culture fails consistently. Empathy is the antithesis of the kind of internal and inter-corporate competition that is encouraged. Rather than focus on how others are similar to us, standard US corporate culture focuses on differences, distinctions and contrasts. As a child, I sometimes heard the phrase “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” I didn’t fully realize what that meant until, as an adult, I encountered people whose lives were vastly different than mine – but I perceived that the only differences between them and me were a handful of choices we each had made. When I began to realize that I was capable of the same kinds of decisions, and therefore capable of being in the same state, I realized that the cliché could actually be a statement of empathy, not of self-righteousness.
When I saw the movie Nuremburg, the most poignant moment was when U.S. Army Psychiatrist Captain Gustav Gilbert concluded the trial with his observation about the defendants:
"I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy."Empathy is the beginning and end of listening.
Respecting –
Empathy should naturally flow into respect. Isaacs says respect is “to look for the springs that feed the pool of their experiences.” By honoring the boundaries of others, by making ourselves available to them, and to be taught by them, we acknowledge the legitimacy of others. We grant them significance.
In my home, the issue of respect comes up often in discussions among my teen aged children. They often don’t feel they receive it either from their parents or each other. In Isaac’s definition, they may be right: they do not feel legitimized. The need to belong is a fundamental need of humans in social groups. Legitimacy brings significance and the realization of belonging.
My mother often cited two other verses that she applied to the idea of honoring others and granting them legitimacy. She believed that when we acknowledged that others are what she called “significant,” then we will recognize their needs. Again, empathy is at work.
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Ephesians 4.31-32 NASB)
Respect not only gives legitimacy to the person, but also acknowledges their values. An enormous amount of conflict can be circumvented if our conversation and actions would acknowledge the values of others. For example, when the US military took positions throughout Baghdad, they put troops on the rooftops, and immediately incensed the local men. Why? Because the rooftops put the private courtyards of adjoining homes right in the line of sight of these young American men. The courtyards were the one place where the women could uncover themselves at all – and now that sanctuary had been violated.
This was perhaps my mothers most often cited verse: “Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12.17-19 NASB) She usually added “and ‘all men’ includes your sisters!”
Suspending –
We’re often expected to engage entertainment such as films with a certain frame of mind which will enable us to accept the otherwise absurd assumptions and bases of the plots. This is called a “willing suspension of disbelief,” in which we voluntarily set aside the truths to which we hold tenaciously, so that we can experience the movie in a more holistic way. For Isaacs, suspension is a means of holding our opinions and dangling them openly in a way that lets us and others examine them. “We simply acknowledge and observe our thoughts and feelings as they arise without being compelled to act on them.”
A VP of sales once told me that the key to winning a sale was what he called “mandatory exclusives.” By this, he meant that the focus should be on the things that only we had to offer – and that we needed to make sure that the customer saw those things as being vital to the solution of their particular problem. Suspension is really just the opposite: nothing is mandatory, and rarely are things exclusively the domain of one person or group.
Voicing –
The fourth practice that Isaacs outlines is voicing, or “revealing what is true for you regardless of other influences that might be brought to bear.” In his discussion of voicing, Isaacs raises several points that moderate and deepen the meaning of this practice. Outside the context of the other practices, especially listening, voicing can become strident blustering.
In my own experience, “empowerment” measures have always stopped short of a true expectation of anyone actually having a voice or expression of their own. Instead, expressions are expected to be openly supportive of the management team or the status quo. “Impromptu” support is highly encouraged, critiques and analysis are not.
But Isaacs’s voicing is not just about other-directed speech. It is an integral part of the dialogue process which, “practiced well, has a far more radical edge that encourages us to learn to tell the truth about our own and other’s inconsistencies in a way that begins to enable us to transform them. It encourages us to reflect on our own responsibility and to build a culture where this is seen as a strength rather than as a weakness (Isaacs, 1999)
It is this element of self-responsibility that gives Isaacs concept of voicing such power. If we are speaking to ourselves in honesty, then we don’t have to wait for others to be listening to us before we can have influence. Although Isaacs New Age “words create reality” leanings take him beyond the realm of my agreement, his fundamental idea of speaking truth is echoed in other, perhaps more reliable places.
My mother’s fourth principle was based on Ephesians, one of the letters of Saint Paul found in the Bible, and a letter of Saint Peter.
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4.14 -16 NASB)My mother emphasized to us often that unless the truth was spoken in love, and unless we first spoke it to ourselves, we could not hope to uncover the weaknesses, deception and injustice around us. To speak the truth without the balance of love, she said, would only cause greater injustices. When faced with injustice and conflict she said, the truth delivered in a gentle way would set aside even the most strident arguments.
Always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior will be put to shame. (1 Peter 3.15-16 NASB)Isaacs’ four principles of dialog move unashamedly into the realm of the spiritual. Although the definition of “spirituality” from the Scottish Council of Churches seems to be taken out of the context in which it was originally written, it remains a sufficient container for encompassing the global variations of spiritual expression. In that definition the SCC said that Becoming human is “an attempt to grow in sensitivity to self, to others, tot he non-human creation, and to God who is within and beyond this totality.”
This sensitivity is the call that Isaacs makes for people to listen, respect, suspend, and voice. Unfortunately, the spiritualists and Isaacs provide little insight into the motivation that will enable persons to be transformed from their current state to this more enlightened one. My mother believed that the transformation required to listen, respect, suspend and voice was a transformation that came with the realization that Someone Else had listened to our inner cries, respected our humanity, suspended judgment, and then revealed himself and our true condition in the ultimate “voicing”. Once this transformation takes place, we can turn toward others in a similar way. We can love, because we were first loved.
The fundamental paradigm shift required for conflicts to be fully resolved is more than simply finding shared values (Kriger & Hanson, 1999): it is finding a purpose for sharing. When Ptotapchuk (1999) describes members of community collaboratives arguing about program options, or “competing collaboratives fighting over seemingly limited resources”, he is describing the prime evidence of a root problem. Conflict seems to stem from the notion that there is not enough (of anything) for both “them” and “us”, and because of our ultimate self-interest, we will go to any measure to ensure that we have captured enough for ourselves. The purpose for sharing seemingly limited resources can only come from a spirituality that sees life as bigger than resources, others as more than competitors, and ourselves as less than superior.
It can only come from the redemptive transformation of sacrificial love. It is then that we “we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.” (Romans 14.19 NASB)
Works Cited
Isaacs, William. (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Random Houses Inc. New York, New York.
Kriger, Mark P. & Hanson, Bruce J. (1999) A Value-Based Paradigm for Creating Truly Healthy Organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 12 No. 4 , MCB University Press.
New American Standard Bible (NASB). (1995) The Lockman Foundation.
Potapchup, William R. (1999) Moving From Collaborative Processes to Collaborative Communities. Retrieved from mediate.com October 17, 2004.
Said, A.A. & Funk, N.C. (1996). Conflict resolution and spirituality: Reflections on
teaching, theory, and practice. The Fourth R, 74, 1,4-6.
Comments