In a recent conversation with a friend, we discovered something in his conflict-management approach that left us wondering as to how many other folks find themselves in a similar pattern with their own communication partners. It seems that he often interacts with an acquaintance whom he perceives as consistently passive-aggressive, and so has entered into an ongoing pattern with this Other in which he disarms him with humor in order to sidestep actual conflict. This keeps both of them at something of a stable peace, but also locked in a conflict pattern that neither escalates nor deescalates, and so which never really approaches the type of mutuality and authenticity that will move both toward deeper meaning and trust in and with one another.
It occurred to us that many people choose a similar path, adjusting their method and level of interaction to meet their Other’s because they perceive their Other as engaging in more or less direct (if tacit) aggression. They parry to the perceived thrust. What many folks often don’t realize is that, in choosing to respond to what one sees as a “fight,” one is accepting an invitation to engage in conflict, and so to forego peace. The Institute invites our clients to consider adjusting their perceptions and perspectives in order to see all such interactions with Others not as moments to become guarded and defensive, but as inaccurate attempts by their Other to engage in harmony, in the communion of conversation. This simple (if easier said than done) shift in perception has the potential to transform every interaction in a positive and fruitful manner.
It’s a basic tenet of Conflict Resolution that we learn to understand and respond to the needs and interests of our Other before managing and communicating our own. This generally has the effect of shifting any interaction from one presenting as two opposing forces with identical but non-mutual interests (their own) into one presenting as two uniting forces with identical and mutual interests (each other’s), flowing into and out of each other like the Taoist yin-yang symbol. It is a fairly simple set of skills and communication strategies, easily taught, but takes time to master and employ. The first step in such a process is remembering to engage our Others with an intention to create harmony and mutuality, to genuinely listen, and to attempt to ascertain our Other’s needs and interests in such a way as to share an experience rather than engage in a transaction. Keeping these things in mind, we find ourselves at the threshold of true and inspired Community.
- The Institute
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Ardently Understanding the Human Cost: A Response to Arizona Senate Bill 1070
Since Shakespeare's birthday this year, when Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the controversial Arizona Immigration Senate Bill 1070, The Institute has been attempting to decipher the various interests at play, and to explore the controversy as a "teachable moment" regarding the subject of Conflict Resolution. Without a doubt, there are myriad perspectives on the issue of undocumented migration across America's borders, but in the maelstrom of emotive rhetoric and vitriolic "debate" on the issue, these have ultimately been distilled into the business-as-usual "us vs. them" frame of reference, with one side being described as bleeding hearts and the other as racists.
While The Institute recognizes and understands that racism and inauthentic compassion do indeed play a role in the issue, it is a tenet of our philosophy to insist that no issue can be so brutally polarized if it is to be understood and, more importantly, resolved. Without a doubt, there are interests mutual to all concerned. To truly make sense of what is occurring in Arizona, and to a lesser degree across our nation, we recognize that we must strive to understand the numerous perspectives that have played a role in creating the cultural landscape that brought this issue to the fore of American consciousness.
For instance, in the avalanche of "news" coverage since April 23rd, little mention has been made of Robert N. Krentz, Jr., shot and killed a month earlier on his ranch - a ranch that had been in his family for over a century - after radioing that he was aiding a suspected undocumented immigrant he had found on his property. The murderer is assumed to be one of the increasing number of drug mules who have been crossing the border in recent years with packs full of illegal drugs. We are curious as to how this murder affected every other ranch family that resides along the border, and their extended family and friends. How was news of this murder received by other Arizona residents, perhaps families with young children living in nearby communities? What was their assessment of system failures that allowed such an event to occur? What is the social-psychological cost of knowing that you're not entirely safe in your own home, on your own property?
This last question is one that we are fairly certain many undocumented immigrants would be able to answer. Indeed, what is it that inspires a person to risk life and limb, to leave mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children behind, perhaps forever, if not the desperation associated with extreme poverty, hunger, and lack of opportunity, the fact that neither oneself nor one's family is safe? Where in the debate are the stories of undocumented immigrants who have come to this country and made it better, stronger, more in keeping with the American values housed in our Constitution and history? How many lives have been preserved because an undocumented citizen made the harrowing decision to leave everything behind in order to save it?
At the end of our explorations, questions such as these are what we have left, because we recognize that they are the starting point for uncovering solutions. The issue of illegal immigration - like any issue - is a human one, and unless we start asking the types of questions that reveal the sorrows and joys associated with this conflict, we will never be any closer to making sense of possible solutions. We are all people. It's easy to forget that when we label each other as "racists," "illegals," or "do-gooders." But we are people, and all people have their reasons for making the decisions that they make. Understanding where they are coming from is the first step in discovering where we're headed.
Once these questions are asked and answered, and ardently understood, we will be able to begin asking some of the more concrete questions, with the attending luxury that these types of questions offer more concrete answers as well. For instance, we think it would be important to know how many apprehended gang members are here illegally. How many illegal drugs are seized at our unprotected borders, and how many can we estimate are entering? How is the War on Drugs contributing to the importation of drugs across our borders? What would it cost to more effectively patrol the Southern border, and from where will that money come? What is the true burden on government coffers when undocumented citizens receive social services? What is their contribution to the economy, as spenders and as taxpayers? How many jobs are held by undocumented workers eager to do them for less pay than an American citizen? How much do corporations profit from this system of employment? What is the attending impact on the presence and work of labor unions? How have NAFTA and CAFTA contributed to the issue of undocumented immigration? Are there more workers staying in their own countries because they have access to more jobs? What happened to American workers when our corporations moved South for economic reasons? What might the role of these trade agreements be in resolving the issue?
Like all social issues, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is extremely complex, and interwoven with many other pressing American and global concerns. Indeed, it is another of our tenets here at The Institute that such interconnections are the rule, not the exception. Making sense of them will be a process longer than most folks generally want to wait in order to come to a decision. However, we are certain that, in unraveling the various threads for a closer look, we will make real progress, and move our country one step closer to the American Dream that all partners to this conflict, on both sides of the border, are hoping to protect and ensure. In the meantime, the drawing of more concrete lines will likely only result in more transgressions, and boundaries of all sorts will continue to be crossed, for this is human nature: interaction is conflict. The Institute insists that learning how to better navigate these interactions must be everyone's primary intent, and we are certain that this both begins and ends in seeing our Self in the Other.
- The Institute for the Advancement of Community
While The Institute recognizes and understands that racism and inauthentic compassion do indeed play a role in the issue, it is a tenet of our philosophy to insist that no issue can be so brutally polarized if it is to be understood and, more importantly, resolved. Without a doubt, there are interests mutual to all concerned. To truly make sense of what is occurring in Arizona, and to a lesser degree across our nation, we recognize that we must strive to understand the numerous perspectives that have played a role in creating the cultural landscape that brought this issue to the fore of American consciousness.
For instance, in the avalanche of "news" coverage since April 23rd, little mention has been made of Robert N. Krentz, Jr., shot and killed a month earlier on his ranch - a ranch that had been in his family for over a century - after radioing that he was aiding a suspected undocumented immigrant he had found on his property. The murderer is assumed to be one of the increasing number of drug mules who have been crossing the border in recent years with packs full of illegal drugs. We are curious as to how this murder affected every other ranch family that resides along the border, and their extended family and friends. How was news of this murder received by other Arizona residents, perhaps families with young children living in nearby communities? What was their assessment of system failures that allowed such an event to occur? What is the social-psychological cost of knowing that you're not entirely safe in your own home, on your own property?
This last question is one that we are fairly certain many undocumented immigrants would be able to answer. Indeed, what is it that inspires a person to risk life and limb, to leave mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children behind, perhaps forever, if not the desperation associated with extreme poverty, hunger, and lack of opportunity, the fact that neither oneself nor one's family is safe? Where in the debate are the stories of undocumented immigrants who have come to this country and made it better, stronger, more in keeping with the American values housed in our Constitution and history? How many lives have been preserved because an undocumented citizen made the harrowing decision to leave everything behind in order to save it?
At the end of our explorations, questions such as these are what we have left, because we recognize that they are the starting point for uncovering solutions. The issue of illegal immigration - like any issue - is a human one, and unless we start asking the types of questions that reveal the sorrows and joys associated with this conflict, we will never be any closer to making sense of possible solutions. We are all people. It's easy to forget that when we label each other as "racists," "illegals," or "do-gooders." But we are people, and all people have their reasons for making the decisions that they make. Understanding where they are coming from is the first step in discovering where we're headed.
Once these questions are asked and answered, and ardently understood, we will be able to begin asking some of the more concrete questions, with the attending luxury that these types of questions offer more concrete answers as well. For instance, we think it would be important to know how many apprehended gang members are here illegally. How many illegal drugs are seized at our unprotected borders, and how many can we estimate are entering? How is the War on Drugs contributing to the importation of drugs across our borders? What would it cost to more effectively patrol the Southern border, and from where will that money come? What is the true burden on government coffers when undocumented citizens receive social services? What is their contribution to the economy, as spenders and as taxpayers? How many jobs are held by undocumented workers eager to do them for less pay than an American citizen? How much do corporations profit from this system of employment? What is the attending impact on the presence and work of labor unions? How have NAFTA and CAFTA contributed to the issue of undocumented immigration? Are there more workers staying in their own countries because they have access to more jobs? What happened to American workers when our corporations moved South for economic reasons? What might the role of these trade agreements be in resolving the issue?
Like all social issues, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is extremely complex, and interwoven with many other pressing American and global concerns. Indeed, it is another of our tenets here at The Institute that such interconnections are the rule, not the exception. Making sense of them will be a process longer than most folks generally want to wait in order to come to a decision. However, we are certain that, in unraveling the various threads for a closer look, we will make real progress, and move our country one step closer to the American Dream that all partners to this conflict, on both sides of the border, are hoping to protect and ensure. In the meantime, the drawing of more concrete lines will likely only result in more transgressions, and boundaries of all sorts will continue to be crossed, for this is human nature: interaction is conflict. The Institute insists that learning how to better navigate these interactions must be everyone's primary intent, and we are certain that this both begins and ends in seeing our Self in the Other.
- The Institute for the Advancement of Community
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Few Words From Institute Founder Michael Bush
Right now, the Institute exists as a "royal we, an editorial we," a loose group of professionals and academics that I've been blessed to gather around me, experts on the meaning of being "in community." I began my work exploring the idea of community while a student in the undergraduate program in Religious Studies at California State University, Long Beach, completing that degree and an M.A. in the discipline, and ultimately developing my own definition of community:
"Community is a mutually beneficial, interactive gathering, under the guidance of a common idea, that contributes to an overriding sense of harmony between the Self and the Other."
This definition became both the starting point and the ending point, the alpha and the omega, for any number of deeper and more detailed explorations of what it means to be together with people, at peace with the Self, and at home in relation. Drawing from ideas in Theology, Philosophy, and the Social, Behavioral, and Physical Sciences, I discovered a common thread running through most work exploring the human condition, namely that anyone's sense of meaning is derived from their experience of the world outside them - from others.
Self is Other.
This understanding is crucial to the work being undertaken by the Institute. It is our contention that any of life's difficulties, both great and small, begin and end with the manner in which we relate to the world, and in which we perceive that world as relating to us.
All meaning for the Self, then, is a product of how we interact with the Other.
"Other" must be understood here in terms of anything outside the Self, and the Self must be understood here as that which perceives. In this way, one's body isn't even one's Self, because the act of thinking or talking about it describes it as an Other: my mind, my arm, my heart. The reasoning continues, then, that if we are to be at peace with those things that we perceive, then we must approach them and interact with them in a way which preserves their "being-ness" while preserving our own; otherwise, one of us is losing out on the deal. Variations on this Golden Rule exist in virtually every major religious system known to humankind.
What we're talking about, here, is balance.
Imbalance is what creates conflict. Anywhere you see something "wrong," what you're really seeing is imbalance. My conviction is that, using this idea as a point of departure, we can help people explore and identify what balance might look like for them both as individuals and as members of various groups. The goal is to learn to manage and make sense of every interaction - of every point of meaning creation - in order that we more effectively navigate our place in the world. My sincerest hope is that you'll join us on this path.
- Michael Bush
"Community is a mutually beneficial, interactive gathering, under the guidance of a common idea, that contributes to an overriding sense of harmony between the Self and the Other."
This definition became both the starting point and the ending point, the alpha and the omega, for any number of deeper and more detailed explorations of what it means to be together with people, at peace with the Self, and at home in relation. Drawing from ideas in Theology, Philosophy, and the Social, Behavioral, and Physical Sciences, I discovered a common thread running through most work exploring the human condition, namely that anyone's sense of meaning is derived from their experience of the world outside them - from others.
Self is Other.
This understanding is crucial to the work being undertaken by the Institute. It is our contention that any of life's difficulties, both great and small, begin and end with the manner in which we relate to the world, and in which we perceive that world as relating to us.
All meaning for the Self, then, is a product of how we interact with the Other.
"Other" must be understood here in terms of anything outside the Self, and the Self must be understood here as that which perceives. In this way, one's body isn't even one's Self, because the act of thinking or talking about it describes it as an Other: my mind, my arm, my heart. The reasoning continues, then, that if we are to be at peace with those things that we perceive, then we must approach them and interact with them in a way which preserves their "being-ness" while preserving our own; otherwise, one of us is losing out on the deal. Variations on this Golden Rule exist in virtually every major religious system known to humankind.
What we're talking about, here, is balance.
Imbalance is what creates conflict. Anywhere you see something "wrong," what you're really seeing is imbalance. My conviction is that, using this idea as a point of departure, we can help people explore and identify what balance might look like for them both as individuals and as members of various groups. The goal is to learn to manage and make sense of every interaction - of every point of meaning creation - in order that we more effectively navigate our place in the world. My sincerest hope is that you'll join us on this path.
- Michael Bush
Monday, January 18, 2010
Welcome to the Institute's blog!
Welcome to the official blog of the Institute for the Advancement of Community. We are currently reviewing proposals to determine the content of our next post. Until then, please consider following or sharing our blog, and perusing the content of our primary site, at:
www.selfequalsother.org
Thank you!
- The Institute for the Advancement of Community
www.selfequalsother.org
Thank you!
- The Institute for the Advancement of Community
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
