RECONNECT AFTER CONFLICT
Do you wish you could reconnect with someone, but find that you cannot even bring yourself to try because you’re mad at them and judge them as wrong? Perhaps you think that an attempt at reconciliation would be risky, or maybe the very thought of trying is filled with dread? Though these thoughts might seem daunting, there is a tiny shift we can make that makes resolution much easier — I’m calling it the 1% shift.
A number of years ago, I was in an adversarial situation, and I was pretty sure there was no way through the impasse. Any potential pass through the barrier between us was stacked with boulders of animosity and judgment.
I asked a wise and trusted friend if she had any advice. “Yes,” she said, “you could, perhaps, volunteer to eat a small piece of humble pie.”
“Humble pie?” I questioned in a surprised tone of voice.
What I actually thought was: “Humble pie! No. A thousand times, no! I mean, I was 100% right and he was totally in the wrong. Why should I be the one eating humble pie?”
Then she asked me that really annoying question: “Richard, is it more important for you to be right or to heal this rift?”
It was impossible to answer this question truthfully without sounding like a total jerk.
Well, I decided to eat some humble pie — just as an experiment, mind you. I thought the pie would probably taste pretty bad, but, on the other hand, I quite like trying out new things.
In preparation before the meeting with my adversary, I realized I had a small problem: in order to eat humble pie, I would need to apologize; but what could I possibly apologize for if everything was his fault?
The only logical way out of this dilemma was to assume, just as a hypothesis of course, that it might just be possible that I could have contributed to the situation — just a tiny bit. I could apologize for that tiny bit. My friend, after all, had said “a small piece of humble pie”. “Okay,” I said to myself, “just suppose that I contributed 1% to that situation. If I did, what could that 1% be?”
Just asking that question shifted my “I am 100% right, you are 100% wrong” belief. I realized a little of my own contribution and accepted at least some responsibility.
When we met, I deliberately focused only on my contribution to our rift and apologized for it. It wasn’t so bad. Even if he hadn’t responded positively — and he didn’t at first — dropping a little of my pride was actually a relief. After a while, he opened up and spoke a little about his responsibility. As soon as we dropped our pointing fingers by opening our hands, so to speak, it was no longer important if the responsibility was 25/75 or 50/50 — or even 1/99. It wasn’t a matter of measurement; it was a simple corollary — opening our hands opened our hearts. The apologies were healing and humble pie actually tasted pretty good. It tasted good because the bitterness of the battle had been replaced with the sweetness of reconciliation and the genuine pleasure of mutual respect.
WHEN IT’S USEFUL
Here are some examples of some typical kinds of situation:
You’ve had an argument with someone either recently or long ago and there has been no resolution. You want some kind of resolution.
There is thick tension and distance between you and a friend, or between you and a member of your family, and you would like some resolution.
There is tension between you and someone at work, and it would make things a lot easier if there was some reconciliation between you.
You think you are completely in the right and you judge the other as completely in the wrong. Or, if you admit you played some part, you consider your part to be innocent, while their part was bad/ wrong/ immoral/ egoistic/ egregious/ certainly deliberate/ and possibly even evil. (The clue to the extent of your judgmental attitude is the heaviness of the blanket with which you label your adversary.) But still, you want to reconnect.
You want to connect to this person/ these people — for political, business or personal reasons — but there is too much animosity/old baggage to even know how to begin.
For any of the above reasons, you feel at an impasse.
WHEN IT’S NOT USEFUL
I don’t recommend this method if the following situations:
If the reconciliation you want is with an adult who violated you when you were a child and is about that violation. You did not have 1% responsibility in this situation. The adult was responsible.
The violation came out of the blue with no provocation from you at all. This may be tricky to determine because sometimes we are loathe to see our own provocations.
You are in a highly political or divisive situation in which the other could use your 1% admission against you. However, the 1% admission of responsibility can still be used in some divisive situations if care is taken to make the admission in a more vague manner that does not make you liable (see later). The purpose is always to open hearts on both sides, not to score points.
PRE-EXERCISE MIND-SET
Take into account the following points:
If you want this change (the connection with the other) then you have to be willing to make the first move.
Harboring enmity toward another is a bit like drinking poison and hoping the other dies. Therefore you can do this for your own sake, to protect yourself from carrying the acid of animosity. Even though you know the 1% opening move is likely to benefit the other person, it’s OK if you are not feeling that generous yet. It is fine if your initial motivation is purely in order to feel better yourself.
By owning some of the responsibility for what happened, you are not condoning the actions of the other. You are simply shifting your focus from their part to your part.
The power of this exercise comes from an important fact: if you think that the other is 100% responsible for a situation, you also believe that you were powerless in that situation. Once we turn ourselves into powerless victims, it is almost impossible to believe that we can do anything to change a situation. Perpetual helplessness goes together with perpetual anger. The magic of taking some responsibility for what happened is that we are simultaneously empowered. If we created something (or helped create something), we also have the power (usually) to uncreate something or change it.
Do the exercise (see last article on my blog) on Seeing From the Other’s Point of View. Because this is heart-opening, it makes reconciliation much easier.
PREPARE ON YOUR OWN
Make sure you have alone time in a space you feel comfortable in.
If not required for emergency response, turn off all phones and other possible sources of interruption. The exercise takes less than 10 minutes.
Sit in a comfortable chair.
Have a pen and journal, notebook, or paper to write on.
Ask yourself if it is possible that you might have contributed to the adversity by 1%. You do not need to know how. You only need to answer the question: is it possible? The answer is very likely to be yes.
In considering this question of your contribution, keep in mind the purpose is to achieve resolution and peace.
The purpose is never to berate yourself, judge yourself, or diminish yourself in any way.
Equally, by considering your contribution, you are not condoning the actions of the other.
If the answer is “no, it is not possible that I contributed 1% to what happened” do not do this exercise. If the answer is “yes,” then consider some ways in which you contributed. You don’t need to think of every possible way. One or two or a few are fine. Following are a few common examples of contributions to a battle that might have gone unnoticed at the time. Choose one or two of these or else come up with your own:
You saw the other as someone to be persuaded, or pushed toward your point of view, rather than as another human being of equal heart.
Through your words or approach you appeared to convey to the other that you considered yourself more right, and therefore of greater moral value, than the other.
You said something that could have easily been taken in a way you did not mean. Is there something you said that could have been taken as an insult, for example?
You said something that could have easily been taken in a way you did mean — something that was denigrating or demanding, for example.
You were judgmental of the other, either overtly, or covertly in tone of voice or facial expression.
You were sarcastic.
The tightness of your lips and the curtness of your voice broadcasted disapproval or defensiveness.
You did something in the past which was denigrating and hurtful to the other. This may have been overt or covert, long ago or recently.
You represent a class/race/nationality that has put down, or battled with, the class/race/nationality of the other.
You didn’t take into account, or weren’t sensitive to, the other’s background and culture.
You made assumptions based on your own background, nationality, etc.
Write down 1-4 items either from the list above or others that you may have thought of.
Decide what you are going to admit to your erstwhile adversary. You don’t need to admit to a whole bunch of items; perhaps choose just one, at least to begin with. Make it one that you think the other can relate to and that won’t add fuel to the fire. The one you choose is your invitation to openness.
Take the one you chose, and put it in a way that is less direct, not too pointed. This is especially so in a political or business situation when what you say might be used against you. Let’s say, for example, that you realize that you were denigrating to the other. It’s not helpful to say, baldly, “I denigrated you”, because of course that invites the other to feel more wounded and — what’s more — maybe he/she didn’t notice you were denigrating but was upset about something else altogether, in which case you’ve just invited them to be more upset! That is why you need to prepare something a little softer and less direct. For example, “I realize that I spoke to you in a way that was not as respectful as I would have liked...” or “I think I got carried away with my own point of view”. The purpose of offering some vulnerability is not to cast yourself as guilty but to create a little opening of heart.
THE MEETING
Schedule the meeting. Make it a meeting in person if at all possible. It is much more likely to work face to face.
In the meeting, do not focus on what the other did or didn’t do. No accusations. Accusations close the heart. Focus instead on what you might have done to contribute to what happened, as you prepared. In doing this, remember:
You are not putting yourself down in any way.
You are not making yourself lower that the other person. On the contrary, you are taking charge in the sense of taking the initiative to be more open.
During the course of the meeting, you might say something like (these 4 points separated by response and dialogue):
“Look I’ve been thinking about what happened and I recognize that I may have been at fault in …..
I’m sorry if this caused you concern/ worry/ pain/ aggravation/ inconvenience …
I want you to know that it was not my intention to cause you any [whatever you mentioned in your apology]….
Is there any way that I can help to make things (work) better?”
Do not equate success with the other person admitting responsibility in the situation. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Maybe they will in one month’s time, or a year’s time. It doesn’t matter so much. What matters is that you have taken the step to reconnect. That part you have control over. You do not have control over what the other does. Even if the other does not respond positively, you are very likely to feel better from having tried your best. You also may appreciate not having to carry around so much anger or upset.
WHY IT WORKS
When you think that something is entirely someone else’s fault, there is no movement, you are stuck in an absolute position. The pride of being right, or at least thinking you are right, constricts any room for the heart of humanity. Human connection is not really possible.
In effect, you have otherized your adversary. To otherize is to deny the common humanity in me and you, or in us and them. Once the person becomes the other, in the sense of an adversary, compassion is automatically switched off. Otherizing is the mental aspect of the emotional and physiological fight and flight response. As soon as we turn someone into the enemy, we feel the aversive, adrenalin-surged desire to fight (or flee). And, conversely, as soon as the adrenalin surges, the designation of enemy is stamped with emotional power. This play between emotion and judgmental designation can be a vicious cycle of increasing aversion.
There is another vicious cycle: the animal reaction of the one designated enemy, is, automatically, to fear or fight back. Anger and judgment create anger and judgment back, one accentuating the other.
Breaking these two vicious cycles of mental/emotional aggression takes a deliberate act. By admitting a little of your part, you stop the aggression against the other and take a more vulnerable position. As soon as you are more vulnerable, the other, in most cases, will quite automatically lose the desire to fight. There is no longer an enemy to defend against. And in this new space, there is room for a little sliver of compassion to melt the former impasse. This little opening is often all that’s required.