This past weekend I was at the triennial conference of the International Communal Studies Association, hosted by the Camphill Village communities of Triform and Copake near Hudson NY.
Among other things I listened to someone postulate that one of the foundational concepts that most intentional communities have in common is that their members desire respect. I had a complex reaction to that and want to walk you through it.
My first response was dismissive. Sure, everyone wants to be respected (who would say they prefer to be disrespected?) but in terms of group dynamics it's a trap. A ready surface agreement that respect is a common value implies solidity that's ephemeral—because respect is slippery fish that's hard to net.
For some people it's not raising one's voice and pausing between statements. For another it's speaking honestly and from the heart—which can be loud and immediate. You can see the problem. Even if people were 100% consistent about engaging others in the way that they would prefer to be engaged, that may have no bearing on how the other person perceives respect. With the wide variety of communication preferences extant in the world it's almost random whether you'll like the way you're approached—even when speakers are trying to be respectful, which won't always be the case.
[I am composing this essay aboard a train—the westbound Lake Shore Limited—and I had a relative minor experience of this very phenomenon within the past hour, buying a cup of coffee in the café car. When it was my turn for service, the attendant asked me what I wanted and I told her, "One cup of coffee, please." Then she paused, looked me in the eye, said "Good morning," and waited. The implication was that she was going to wait there until I responded, and she had all day.
I dutifully mumbled a "good morning" in return, which reanimated her to start pouring coffee, but I was irritated. I didn't need an etiquette lesson, and hadn't been rude in the first place. While I am sympathetic with the desire to set a pleasant (even jocular) tone in the workplace, the attendant was playing a game I didn't sign up for, and didn't appreciate. Perhaps she wanted to be respected—seen as a person more than as a servant—but she came across as someone with a chip on her shoulder (she was fiercely nice, if that makes sense). I had the feeling that if I didn't say "good morning" I might not get my coffee. How was she respecting me (it was 6 am for chrissakes and I hadn't had any coffee yet)?
Essentially she was demanding to be met on her terms, which she'd altered from the normal expectations for a café car transaction, without letting customers know ahead of time that a shift had been made, or asking their permission. It was a power play sailing under the flag of civility, and I didn't like being her guinea pig.]
My second response was more thoughtful. Respect doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's a characteristic of exchanges between people. While I haven't found it particularly helpful to ask (or demand) to be respected, it occurred to me that it might be powerful to commit to communicating in ways that the recipient would consider respectful—to adopt a standard where group members would make an effort to understand what style of communication would come across as respectful to their audience and then try to engage them in that way.
Even when you get it wrong, it's likely to land better if the other person knows you're trying, because the effort itself is evidence of caring.
While it may seem obvious that it's smart to take into account how your intended audience prefers to receive information (after all the point of communication is to share information and you can profitably work it from either end—refining the clarity of your messages, and packaging them in ways that are easier for the audience to absorb), many of us get no further than the first part before putting one's mouth in gear or hitting send. Instead of taking the time to investigate what our audience prefers, there's a tendency to simply offer others what we prefer ourselves and take our chances. (I style this approach communication roulette.) Sometimes that works—in the same sense that even a blind pig will occasionally find an acorn.
I realize this is fairly radical, focusing on the other person's receptors at least as much as on what you want to say, but if the prize is to be understood it's an excellent strategy, and I recommend it to you.
In any event, that's the pathway by which I've come to have a new-found respect for respect.
Showing posts with label how people define respect differently. Show all posts
Showing posts with label how people define respect differently. Show all posts
Monday, July 22, 2019
Facets of Respect
Monday, September 3, 2012
Consensus Challenges: Defining Respect
This is the
continuation of a blog series started June 7 in which I'm addressing a
number of issues in consensus. Today's topic is Defining Respect.
I. When do you know enough to act? [posted June 7]
II. Closing the deal [posted June 10]
III. Wordsmithing in plenary [posted June 16]
IV. Redirecting competition [posted June 23]
V. Bridging disparate views [posted July 5]
VI. Harvesting partial product [posted July 20]
VII. When to be formal [posted July 29]
VIII. Harnessing brainstorms [posted Aug 10]
IX. Coping with blocking energy [posted Aug 19]
X. Defining respect
XI. Balancing voices
XII. Knowing when to accelerate and when to brake
XIII. Knowing when to labor and when to let go
XIV. Accountability
• • •
It's a relatively simple step to get groups to agree that extending respect to one another is a common value. But what does it mean?This may be trickier than first appears, because respect can mean widely different things to different people and it's dangerous to assume that everyone is looking for the same "respectful" things as you. The default for most of us is that we will offer others what we want for ourselves, and that may have no relationship to what the other person finds respectful!
Here's a sampling of some of the behaviors that translate to respect for people—note that some of these are mutually exclusive:
—Honesty
—Not embarrassing you in public
—Giving you critical feedback in the way you prefer to receive it
—Giving you uninterrupted air time when you speak
—Saying something appreciative before something critical
—Not making jokes about your behavior
—Not using profanity
—Dressing nicely when company comes
—Never raising your voice
—Keeping agreements
—Assuming that you've done what you've agreed to do
—Inquiring how you're doing when you've been struggling
—Noticing when you do something for others that's above and beyond what you've agreed to do
—Not having to repeat requests (because others cared enough about you to hear it accurately the first time)
—Cutting you some slack when you occasionally fall short on completing an assignment on time
In general the hardest dynamic to navigate safely is when two people want diametrically opposite things—then the real fun begins. It's one thing to be accused of being disrespectful when you've been unmindful; it's all together different when you were consciously trying to be respectful and are accused of being purposefully disrespectful. That's when you can hear fragments of the national anthem in the background ("… and the rockets red glare, and bombs bursting in air…")
With this potential in mind, I suggest listening instead to the lyrics of Aretha Franklin: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means it to me."
As if that's not complicated enough, it can get worse. People's answers (about what indicates respect to them) can vary depending on circumstances—who's in the room, how recently they've eaten, whether there are unresolved trust issues with the speaker, whether it's morning or evening, how recently they've had sex, etc. While it may be borderline heroic to attempt to memorize everyone's preferences regarding respect—especially if your group is large—you can remember to ask when you're unsure of your footing. And almost everyone finds being asked what they want to be respectful—even if they're unsure of their answer.
Switching perspectives, there is another important angle on the question of respect: what constitutes respect for the group? For the most part this is viewed as following the group norms or agreements about appropriate behavior. This, of course, comes in many flavors:
o Doing the work you agreed to do in a timely way and to a reasonable standard of quality.
o Being appropriately self-disciplined in meetings (Hint: what's wanted in plenary is not the same as in informal conversation, on the phone, or at the dinner table).
o Following group guidelines about how to give critical feedback to one another.
o Doing your homework about topics before the meeting at which it will be discussed.
o Making a good faith effort to resolve tensions directly with people you're struggling with.
o Listening fully to what others have to say and seriously considering it—especially when their views are different than yours.
o Doing your best to have your children and pets operate within group-established boundaries of acceptable behavior.
o Coming across as genuinely contrite when you fuck up.
I point this out because it's not uncommon for problems with what is viewed as inappropriate behavior to carry two components: a) the incident itself; and b) the sense that you've let the group down, and acted selfishly or immaturely. It's a double wound, and if there are two cuts, then both need to be cleansed before the healing can begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
