The world’s problems are crying for solutions, they always
have. Never has there been a time in
history where peace was universal, neither between countries, nor among
individuals. All sides in conflict seem
to want peace, but they are much less willing to do what is necessary to
achieve peace. More often than not, we
demand peace at the other party's sacrifice.
If only they would see the justice and morality of our position and give
in, then there would be peace. And, once
bought into this blame game, we feel justified in settling for less than
peaceful solutions because it is, of course, the other party’s fault that we
can’t come to a peaceful agreement.
So, is going soft and giving in
the answer to finding peace? Should we
just let the other party have their way and sacrifice our position? Is that what it takes to gain peace? Somehow making ourselves a martyr for the
cause of peace seems a less than ideal solution. In terms of the resentment and loss we may
feel it may not be much better than violently demanding our own way. But, are being tough to the point of violence
in our own interests or soft to the point of total self sacrifice the only
options we have? I’d like to suggest
another.
In summary, I think the answer
lies in empathy as demonstrated through two simple-to-understand, but
hard-to-enact concepts. The concepts are
distinguishing interests from positions, and making the other party’s interests
as important as our own in reaching a consensus solution. I will give references on where you can look
further into these concepts at the end of this essay.
What is the difference between
an interest and a position? Imagine two
individuals studying in a room. One
demands that a window in the room be opened to let in the fresh air. The other demands that it be closed. These are the positions of the the two
parties involved. Since a window can’t
be both open and closed at the same time, it would appear to be an insolvable
conflict. To illustrate an interest vs.
a position, imagine a third party enters the room. After hearing each person’s position, they
ask each person why they want the window open or closed. One person states they want it closed because
the wind is coming in and disrupting their papers. The other states they want it open because it
is stuffy and they need some fresh air.
Avoiding the wind and getting fresh air are the interests of the two
parties. The third party thinks a minute
and then opens a window in the same room, but where the wind will not interfere
with the person studying and suddenly, both parties are satisfied. By concentrating on what each is interested
in rather than their established positions, the consensus solution to the
problem can be found.
Granted, that was a simplified
example. But the interesting question
that applies to far more complex situations is why the two parties didn’t do
this to begin with? Why did they jump to
and then become set in their positions rather than explore how looking at
interests might lead to a solution agreeable to both? This leads us to our second concept, putting
the other person’s interest on an equal footing with our own--caring about them
and a consensus solution as much as we do ourselves. Most of us take a position and then build for
ourselves an emotional and intellectual box from which we judge others and
justify our choices, attitudes, and behaviors.
This self justification leads to condemnation and even hostility towards
others when they don’t meet the expectations of our positions. When that condemnation and hostility are felt
by others, they will in turn retreat to their own boxes and we feed off each
other’s self centeredness, often times creating and exacerbating the very
situation we may be complaining about.
Deciding to care about others
and communicate from interests rather than positions is a choice we make, but
it isn’t always an easy choice--especially when we are used to viewing others
as formal or informal competitors in a zero-sum world. We approach things from an attitude that says
for somebody else to get what they want, we have to give up something that we
want. We are also sure that others are
out to take advantage of us or the situation and we need to be tough to hold
our own. Well, people aren’t perfect and
most will be approaching things from the same type of box we ourselves have
used in the past. An important concept
to remember is that when we start putting others on an equal basis with
ourselves, it will invite them to do the same.
Just as operating from self centeredness invites others to build their
own boxes, operating outside the box or showing interest in others and their
interests, will invite them to do the same for us. Another important point is to realize that
just because you are caring for and listening to others, doesn’t require you to
sacrifice your interests to benefit theirs.
You can still say no to something you aren’t willing to accept and
search for better solutions. But, you
can do so without anger, judgement, and contention.
Some quick ideas before I bring
this to an end. Recognize that when you
are having negative feelings towards another person, or even towards yourself
in relation to the other party, you are likely operating from within that self
centered box. It is only when you put
yourself in a state where you no longer have those feelings that you can begin
to see clearly and focus equally on the other party. Despite how justified you may think you are,
negative feelings are almost a guarantee you are in an emotional and
intellectual self centered box. Also, we
must be willing to put aside our assumptions and judgements and be willing to
really listen to another person or group’s interest. It is only when we try and see the situation
completely from the other party's perspective that we can see clearly enough to
come to a mutual consensus. In other
words, we have to care more about the relationship and coming to a solution
more than we care about being right or achieving some self-centered definition
of winning.
These concepts aren’t rocket science,
but neither are they easy. They take a
concerted effort accompanied with a lot of introspection to bring to
reality. But, in the end, they will
result in better relationships and better results for all involved. For further information, I suggest the book Getting
to Yes for more information on reaching consensus through focusing on
interests. I also suggest The Anatomy
of Peace put out by the Arbinger Institute on recognizing and avoiding the
self centered box. Finally, the books on
the 7 habits of success by Steven Covey are good sources for more information
on seeking to understand before looking to be understood. Good luck in gaining the empathy that will
change the world.
