I have been very quiet. Because it's summer and hot weather makes my brain dribble out my ears. Due to heat-induced stupidity, I have been saving all my smarts for work. [Including the ones that stop me making glaring typos by blogging in the wee hours. Fixed now. Just the unglaring ones left.]
But a startling number of people have been emailing me for advice. Which is very funny, because I have over the years written several fake advice columns where I had to make up the questions. No less than eight people have asked me for conflict advice in the last month, and I didn't have to make up a single one of them.
Why? You may well ask. Because Miss D and Nelson Mandela aren't names that are immediately paired in most minds, even after all those years of ANC dues and that tricky diplomatic incident.
On the one hand, I am getting increasingly old and have not yet killed any of my contemporaries despite an appalling temper and violent streak. And on the other hand, I have had to learn how to deal with my appalling temper and violent streak well enough to pass for someone remotely gracious.
So, given that the basic material was so dodgy, I have in fact thought about how to resolve conflicts without tears an awful lot. In fact, I have a strategy, which I have been cheerfully sharing with people on an ad hoc basis. Tonight, I actually wrote it down. Here, in seven simple steps, is my strategy for dealing with practically every conflict.
1. How much of this situation is my fault?It goes without saying that we find it really easy to see what other people have done to screw things up. What it took me years to learn was that I have always contributed in some way, too. Sometimes it was active, such as calling someone a twat. Sometimes it was passive, such as not talking to someone when I sensed they had a problem with me. Sometimes it was in good faith, such as treating an utter idiot like a normal person, sometimes it was in bad faith, such as not helping someone because it was all too hard.
No matter how small or large, you will always find that there is some part of the blame that rests with you. It is important to start here, because this will give you insights into why the other person or people involved act the way they do.
2. People are NOT psychicYou do not have a lot of the information about what's going on in the head of your opposition. Neither do they know about yours. Unless you have sat down and spoken calmly, honestly and at length on the issue, it's highly likely that both sides are ascribing to the other values and beliefs they simply do not hold. You may well have the right idea about what's motivating the other side, but you may also have the wrong idea. Talking is the only way to find out.
3. People are NOT bad American moviesAs a writer, I find most American film pretty hard to watch as I can usually tell what will happen after about 10 minutes. Some people say there are only seven plots, and Hollywood seems to believe this. It is very easy to start ascribing motivations to people and then reacting to them based on what you believe their motivation to be. Once again, while you may well be right a lot of the time, sometimes you will be horribly wrong and it will make the situation infinitely worse.
There are two options here, you can either ask people what is motivating them, which you should do for people you care about, or you can address the specific issue and intentionally ignore whatever is behind it, which is faster for dealing with people you don't care about, but with whom you have an operational relationship.
4. Write out the argumentTake some paper and sit down and write out all of your points on the debate, then write out all of your opponent's points. NOT THE ONES YOU THINK THEY HAVE MADE, just the ones they have actually made and that you know came from them, not from hangers-on. Now sit down and see if you can make a valid case out of your opponent's argument. What parts of their beliefs are true and what parts are not? Are there areas where you agree on deeper issues?
For example, I believe the death penalty is indefensible. But I would agree with a pro-death penalty activist that serious crimes deserve serious punishments and that victims are going to feel a desire for revenge. This doesn't change my core beliefs, but it does change how I argue the case.
5. What can I give up to make this better?In almost every conflict, there is some actual thing being debated. Power, money, time, possessions, oil ... the list is a long one. If you can clearly see the thing that is at the centre of the debate, then ask yourself if you can give up some of it to make the situation better.
So, can you share power? Split an inheritance? Play with a different group for a while? Concede one argument to win a bigger point? If there are concessions that you can make that will bring the conflict to a satisfactory resolution without you feeling that you have given up too much for your integrity, then make them.
6. Don't try to 'win'When both sides in a debate are going for a win, it means that each is trying to make the other lose and that each will hold on like crazy to their positions, even when they start to suspect they're just a teeny bit bonkers.
I like to come to a debate in a bid to convince others that my position is strongest, but also willing to take input and modify that position when convinced by the other debators.
On the one hand, this actually does work and I often end up with something that is very close to my original position because other people feel happy that they have had wins on small issues that I was prepared to sacrifice. (Er, yes. That is Machiavellian. But like most Renaissance thinkers, he was onto something.)
Even if I can't come to a satisfactory conclusion, calmly sitting through the debate and saying "Whoa, you're personalising this issue here, can we just relax a little and come back to my central problem. You clearly have a different view of what should be happening, stop shouting and just tell me what that is." will make you look sane and rational and either convince the opposition that you are there in good faith, or else really, really piss them off. At which point you should stand up and say "I'm not prepared to stay here so that you can shout a lot. Give me a call when you calm down."
7. You can't work with crazy peopleThis one takes years to work out. But when you have rationally, calmly put your views, made concessions, tried to see things their way and tried to rid yourself of all the baggage you brought to the issue while communicating freely and openly ... and it's STILL all bonkers, sometimes you have to realise that the person opposing you is just mad.
This is an end-point position. Don't start with this assumption, no matter how tempting, but when it's the only logical answer, then it's probably true. Mad or on drugs. You cannot deal with this person, step away, close it down, stop contact.
In addition to the seven general points, there are two specific memos. Firstly, you are not responsible for the stupidity of others, and trying to be is a recipe for pain. Secondly, if you think someone is stupid or lacks integrity, don't vote for them.
And I freely admit that I learned number six from
The West Wing. And number four from Miss William's debate classes.
In other news, birthday approaching, garden labourer coming tomorrow for clean-up and planting (yay!). Catering under control (bigger yay!) Forgot to invite about a dozen people that I really like and it's just embarrassing to do it now (boo!), so I'll have them over for dinner at some point instead (yay!).
And James, if you're still wondering about last-minute presents, try:
- Neil Gaiman's Mirrormask (movie, or any of the books)
- About 100 lace bobbins in the Bruges or Danish style
- A floor stand magnifying glass for embroidery
- The Complete New Yorker
- A year in the life of Shakespeare (it's a book)
- The Lord of the Rings complete soundtrack
- Fridge magnet poetry
- Pilates classes
Really, I should have just abandoned the party and spent all the cash buying myself things I now realise I'd quite like to have ...