I'm trying to make sense of the madness. Of listening to all people and their hurts and concerns and then not seem to really hear all of them. Plus, I wonder how useful lots of talk is when the actions are not being taken. I wonder who is really afraid of big emotions. That is a theme I hear on this blog. Others are focused on forming a community where all can be respected. As an outsider, that must be tricky to figure out when some are more persuasive than others and without a therapy background, some mental health issues may not be noticed.
There's a lot here.
1. Appearing to Take Sides
When I'm working with someone in distress, my number one priority is connecting with the person at the experiential level—showing that person that I can feel what it's like to be them. Thus, it's important to get the affect right, not just the words. In doing so, I may come across as siding with that person, when all I'm really doing is seeing them as fully as possible.
For this approach to work well, I have to offer the same quality engagement with others in the conflicted dynamic. My experience is that others will generally give me room to be present for others, so long as I am present for them in turn.
To be clear, I am not "gushing about one person"; I am connecting with them.
2. Connecting Words with Actions
When I'm working with someone in distress, I'm simultaneously tracking what they're saying with their words, and what their saying with their energy. Sometimes, these two don't align, which always gets my attention, usually indicating that we haven't yet gotten to the bottom of what's going on for that person (say, when the speaker reports anger yet expresses themself in well-modulated tones; or the other way, when there is a lot of force and intensity in their speech, yet all of the words are about ideas rather than feelings).
Sometimes people make promises about future behavior that they don't keep ("I won't do that again," and then they do). Of course, you can't know whether the follow through will be there when a person makes a commitment to shift future behavior, but I think it's important to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not asking groups to be naive, but if the group doesn't allow for the possibility of change, it is far less likely to occur.
3. Fear of Strong Emotions
—I wonder who is really afraid of big emotions.
In my experience this is widespread. While it's common to find some support for working emotionally in groups, it is extremely rare to not find pockets of resistance to that. The wider culture does an abysmal job of preparing people to articulate their feelings and to listen closely when others express their feelings. For a number of people, their personal experience with the expression of strong feelings is that people are going to be targeted, dumped on, or abused. If that's all you know, is it any wonder you mistrust going there?
I focus a good deal on working emotionally because I think it's a critical skill, and it's typically hard for groups to buy into it. It's a heavy lift.
Just this week I had an example that illuminates my point. There was a contentious issue in the group and I made room for everyone to state how the topic touched them—not what they wanted to happen (that would come later), but the ways in which they were impacted by the topic, or the group dynamic in relationship to it. Not surprisingly, some people were worked up and they expressed their upset in the session—which was exactly what I had in mind. Afterwards I got roundly criticized by a few members who are uncomfortable with strong feelings being expressed in meetings, having found the criticisms to be raw, uncivil, and unproductive.
Interestingly, three of my detractors have been reported to be among the most provocative members of the group outside of meetings, where they apparently feel it's OK to unload on others they're upset with, or otherwise engage in provocative acts. In other words, they believe there should be special norms for meetings that don't apply otherwise—or at least not to them.
I'm scratching my head trying to understand how that works.
4. Respect
This is not just a song by Aretha Franklin. While almost everyone agrees that respect is a good thing, that concept is seldom unpacked to understand its nuances. Upon examination, it turns out that—surprise!—not everyone defines respect in the same way. Let me give an example of how this can go awry.
For some, respect means a willingness to hear their truth, in their own voice, which may be accompanied by strong passion. For another, respect may mean never raising your voice when communicating. It isn't difficult to see how these two perspectives don't play nice with each other, and each can feel they were promised respect that the other is not willing to give. Uh oh.
5. Knot Therapy
I do not have training in psychology and am not qualified to diagnose mental health issues. While they are a real thing and may be a factor in what's going on, I advocate engaging on the behavior level (rather than dabbling in amateur psychoanalyzing)—what actions are acceptable and which ones aren't. Never mind what the roots of those behaviors are, let's deal with what's in the room, let's unpack the reactions, and let's decide how to move forward. So the first point for me to make is that I am making no therapeutic claims about engaging with reactivity.
Better, I think, is to see what I am advocating as a way to untie the knots that are constricting circulation among members. In doing this work I try studiously to avoid the trap of allowing strong feelings to determine the menu of what gets considered. While I think it's beneficial to welcome strong statements germane to the topic, I do not allow those to dictate what we can or cannot discuss. I prefer to see the feelings as data, rather than as manifest destiny.
At the end of the day, it will be the group's work to discern how best to balance all the factors that are play, and you don't get extra credit for having spoken with high passion—though neither should you be penalized for it.
I believe others are often mirrors and the most disturbing behavior and feelings we see in others are actually our own. A type of projection that may well have been happening with those in this group who were disturbed by what they saw as provocative expression because it is behavior they did like in themselves at some level.
ReplyDelete... correction... behavior they do NOT like in themselves
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering my questions. I had no idea you read the comments. I'm still confused. Yes, you are not a therapist and that should be made clear. But some people in communities have serious issues that make waves throughout the community and I think it is important for a mediator to know when issues are bigger than what they can handle. Maybe take on the community aspects but get in some other help for other details that are going on. That's all. And, with the let everyone speak method, groups can start group think and be swayed to opinions and actions they normally wouldn't do. Or lie. Or not tell the truth which they had previously said to you and others.
ReplyDeleteBut my question went with your blog post on November 16, 2020 where you put in emails from someone you had worked with. I"m not sure if you had their permission or not but I was surprised since they talked some personal things about themselves. They obviously were upset with someone else and you said you defanged the other person and was so impressed with the email writer that you said they are an example of a community member you would like to live with. So, I said, don't believe what people said. Obviously they were working with you and trying to figure out how to live in community but the reality could be different. Words are cheap. The truth is a community does have to do a lot of work to be a safe place to be themselves and conflict.
I couldn't believe that you put things on the blog that made you look so one sided. That this person was being attacked by a snake (dehumanizing the other person). And not looking at the big picture which I wrote to you in a personal email. That this one person was the key to quite a few people being unhappy and even leaving the community then and since then. I hope they are changing and the community is trying to understand everyone but I also think all humans can be persuaded by a charming person. Or an emotional person.
I also found the timing terrible. Again you are not a therapist but therapists and most mediators take confidentiality seriously and would not put things in a blog. At least not after some time has gone by. It is good that you waited until now to answer my question since the conflict is long gone. But in November, the meeting and emails had just happened.
We are all human. Mediators can only do so much and the real key is the people in the community to make it a place where people want to live. and not have anyone believe lies and rumors that someone else puts out into the world about them. And care for all - the minority opinions, and the majority. I think that's why so many cohousing love sociocracy now.
Here is my blog where I promoted this blog. Looking for the dark side of cohousing - originally started just to write the good and bad and will still try to balance that but looks like it's very negative right now and turning off readers. But it'll have more of the story. In case anyone wants to know. It's just babbling so take it for what it is. https://cohousingtruthblog.com/
ReplyDeleteP.P.S. The question was for the first blog about a model community member. That person you emailed with is choosing to leave their intentional community. So, the total I can see so far is at least 3 households leaving from direct or indirect action from that person and now they are leaving too. Blogs are not journalism and just opinions, but holding anyone to the light and as a model might not be ideal.
ReplyDelete