Unresolved Concerns

Rules and laws are inversely proportional to trust: more rules indicate less trust, while a greater level of trust is indicated by a relative absence of rules.

Rules and laws usually come about in reaction to a hurtful interaction within a group, or to prevent its happening (again). Our United States Constitution was intended to prevent replication of the monarchial tyranny the Colonists fled and against which they rebelled. The Constitution essentially limits government by establishing boundaries beyond which it may not go; but within which it is free to act.

Two ideologies clashed at the Constitution Convention. Situational revisions aside, those two groups continue today. They were born in animosity and that animosity has increased. It’s amazing that the Constitution got finished![1]

One group bore an unqualified distrust of government, but trusted individuals to be responsible and ethical in their dealings. They stumped for minimal central government, preferring to give more power to state and local governing bodies. That perspective is extended into today’s conservative political system.

The other group distrusted the integrity of individuals, especially in regard to unregulated commerce and banking. They advocated a stronger central governmental regulation against the threat of economic oligarchy . Today’s liberal principles emerged from that foundation.

Both ideologies remain virtually absolute, with neither crediting anything good to the other. Few, if any, voices call for acknowledging any good in both, and there is an ominous absence of any effort to find common ground on which to build consensus on anything. No political balance or trust is to be found.

Rules and laws are meant to restrict the influence of whatever entity is mistrusted. The power pendulum swings from left to right, and back. Endless partisan adjustments to and rescinding of laws, and the institution of more laws are meant to shackle the mistrusted “other party.” The result today is a convoluted system of laws, many of them self-contradictory, which transcends most human comprehension.

But, lack of comprehension does not discourage the hostile debates that indicate a gross decrease in trust and a consequent need for power and control.

In a pioneering study in group dynamics, Jack Gibb and others named four primary concerns for evaluating the level of trust within a group’s culture. The concerns determine the level of trust formation,[2] regardless of the group’s size. The following graph offers a visual guide to understanding the aforementioned concerns:

Primary Concern	Derivative Concern	Symptoms of Unresolved Concern	Symptoms of Resolved Concern
Acceptance	Membership	Fear/Distrust/exclusion	Acceptance/Trust
Information Flow	Decision-making	Politeness/caution/ Strategy (often secretive or behind-the-back)	Spontaneity/feedback
Goal Formation	Productivity	Apathy/Competition (silencing innovation)	Enthusiasm/Creative work
Control	Organization	Dependency vs. a Counter-dependency that challenges for leadership	Interdependence/role distribution

In my opinion the dynamics in the column labeled “Symptoms of Unresolved Concern” is a portentous description of our beloved United States of America.

So, what is the source of the mistrust, and how do we overcome it? When in any kind of conflict resolution setting, the first question I always ask is, “Do you truly want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight?” I find little evidence on social media that anybody really wants to resolve anything.

I suggest the mistrust is a product of hurtful experiences in our past. As a child I was pulled off my bicycle and chewed on by a big dog and, to this day I grow anxious when a big dog approaches me. I’ve learned compensatory behaviors to defuse any threat; but the mistrust is still present—until a relationship is built.

If building a relationship is key to overcoming mistrust, some concerns must be considered. Trust, by definition involves risk. So does love, which I believe should be the ultimate goal and intention of all human interaction.

Trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability. There is risk of betrayal and rejection. The alternative is to insulate oneself from betrayal and grief, but the payoff is fear and distrust. So I repeat: trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability.

A second concern in building trust is re-learning the lost art of listening. I’m not sure I could be a good listener had I not had extensive training in counseling and in conflict resolution. Even with the training and years of experience, it doesn’t always come naturally. Often, I have to be intentional about flipping on the “LISTEN” switch.

Nevertheless, listening is a key requirement for building trust. Evidence is extensive on social media that people don’t really listen—not even when the message is written in clear script. Instead of listening, they are preparing their rebuttal (even though they may not—probably don’t—really know what’s been said). How many times, while reading a Facebook conversation, have you discovered, within relatively few exchanges, the focus has been diverted totally from the original topic?

Someone posts about compassion for the poor, and within two or three responses the conversation is diverted to how liberals are shoving a welfare state down our throats. The diversion kills a conversation that may have led to a charitable proposal acceptable to all concerned. And mistrust, if anything, has increased, along with animosity.

Or a Facebook conversation about compassion for immigrants is diverted to a condemnation vs. defense of President Trump’s wall. The conversation might—might—have been more productive if the responders had listened and stayed on the subject, which probably was a concern for national security and public safety. If the responders wanted to pontificate against the wall, they would be better advised to start their own conversation. But, then, in all likelihood that conversation would be diverted, too.

How on earth can we build trusting relationships if I don’t really know what you’re saying, and you don’t know what I’m saying? Without that knowledge, we’re left to assumption and opinion, neither of which is trustworthy. A portion of those on social media see something I’ve written and blow it off with, “Oh, he’s liberal; so, I already know what he’s saying.” And another opportunity for productive dialogue is missed. While I work hard to read and “hear” what is being said by most people on social media, I’m sure I slip into my “lazy” mode sometimes and make similar assumptions about my conservative friends.

At the infamous bottom line, while there is risk in trusting, there also is risk in listening. If I really hear you, I risk learning something new; indeed, I may hear something that requires me to reconsider previous convictions.

But, then, that would mean I’d have to admit I am, at least partially, wrong—that my opinions are not absolute. And that may be the greatest risk of all.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] In many ways, it’s not finished, even yet. As a living document it is adjusted according to ongoing needs.

[2] Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne, editors, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964)  

One More Plea for Civility

My undergraduate degree is in sociology, and there was always an open debate between sociology and psychology regarding the relative impact of social vs. psychological influences. The debate continues among the laity, fueled to a significant degree by responses for and against the writings of Ayn Rand.

In today’s climate of extreme partisanism, it’s rare to see an argument for any consideration of relativity. Everything is cast in absolute terms; therefore, it’s really difficult to hold an intelligent—or civil—debate about anything (there’s that absolutist thing again!)

Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village. Reaction against it predictably was based not nearly as much on the merits of her thesis as on her political and personal reputation.

An old friend (since high school days) is intelligent, educated (actually an educator) and articulate, so I take seriously his comments. His brother also is educated and articulate—a colleague in ministry—whose comments I also consider thoughtfully. They both are Libertarians; and since I am a very liberal Democrat, you can imagine some of the conversations that emerge when we make contact.

I also have a cousin—a sweet, compassionate young woman who has survived some of life’s hardest knocks. She is conservative; although, she may be the only true “independent” among all my acquaintances.[1]

I mention these three because each of them is able to carry on a conversation in which there is disagreement without becoming sarcastic, disrespectful, or insulting. They focus on issues instead of personalities, and in virtually every conversation with either of them I find my own awareness expanded and my understanding more empathetic.

By contrast, most of my remaining acquaintances, liberal or conservative, if they participate at all in politically or socially controversial conversations, resort to insulting put-downs directed at any who disagree with them. With increasing frequency, I find myself dropping out of those conversations or ignoring them altogether. They accomplish absolutely nothing; indeed, they are counterproductive to any hope of reconciliation and unity.

The vitriolic conversations I observe appear to emerge out of a mindset that says, “I’m right; and I have to convert these infidels!” I have friends who actually have said we are obligated to confront “their” stupidity! (And the overuse of the word, stupidity is another obsession of mine.)

Here’s the thing: if you refuse to accept me for who I am and for what I believe—if you have a need to change and correct me—if you require that I be like you—before you can treat me with respect and common courtesy, there’s not much hope of deepening our relationship. If I perceive that you are trying to change me—to coerce or intimidate or humiliate me into becoming something I am not—then my sense of distrust and defensiveness is activated.

On the other hand, if you treat me with respect and common courtesy first—if I perceive that you truly are listening to me and trying to understand me[2]; then I am much more likely to trust you and listen to you and to seek to understand you. I may not agree with you, nor do I have a need for you to agree with me; but, if we understand each other first, there’s at least some hope that we’ll move closer to agreement.

And see, here’s the other thing: since the earliest days of this wonderful American experiment, this inability (or unwillingness) to tolerate differences has existed. Remember reading about the infamous duels to the death (Aaron Burr actually killed sitting Vice President, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel that emerged out of the long and bitter partisan rivalry between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.)

And what was gained? One human death; the virtual end in dishonor of Aaron Burr's political career, and what some have argued was the final nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian Federalist party.

And what has been gained by the bitterness and animosity that has continued until this moment because we humans cannot tolerate differences? Hmmm? I’ll wait.

On Tuesday evening President Trump echoed the same whine that has come from every president and politician since (at least) President Nixon: “Why can’t we set aside our partisan differences?” The reason is that the whiner, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, independent or Libertarian, means: “Why can’t you who disagree with me stop disagreeing with me?”

So, how’s that working out for you? for our nation?

I don’t want Republicans and Libertarians to agree totally with me! Democracy flourishes on lively debate in which all parties listen to each other and try to find the best in each other’s position.

I truly believe that we all have something of value to offer, and that many of our harshest disagreements are matters of degree, if we only will listen to each other. I refuse to believe that any one party—or any one person—has all of the truth about anything. But actualizing that truism would require each of us to acknowledge and accept the possibility that “I” may not be absolutely, irrefutably, and eternally right about everything.

Oh, well. I can dream.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Within my limited circle of acquaintances there are several who claim to be political “independents,” but whose conversation mirrors and supports virtually anything that opposes the Democratic party.

[2] And it always is my intention to be the same kind of listener; in fact, I have specific training in listening. I hope I am a good listener.

Rules vs. Trust

Rules and laws are inversely proportional to trust: more rules indicate less trust, while a greater level of trust is indicated by a relative absence of rules. 

Rules and laws usually come about in reaction to a hurtful interaction within a group, or to prevent its happening (again). Our United States Constitution was intended to prevent replication of the monarchial tyranny the colonists fled and against which they rebelled. The Constitution essentially limits government by establishing boundaries beyond which it may not go; but within which it is free to act.

Two ideologies clashed at the Constitution Convention. Situational revisions aside, those two groups continue today. They were born in animosity and that animosity has increased. It’s amazing that the Constitution got finished![1]

One group bore an unqualified distrust of government, but trusted individuals to be responsible and ethical in their dealings. They stumped for minimal central government, preferring to give more power to state and local governing bodies. That perspective is extended into today’s conservative political system.

The other group distrusted the integrity of individuals, especially in regard to unregulated commerce and banking. They advocated a stronger central governmental regulation against the threat of economic oligarchy . Today’s liberal principles emerged from that foundation.

Both ideologies remain virtually absolute, with neither crediting anything good to the other. Few, if any, voices call for acknowledging any good in both, and there is an ominous absence of any effort to find common ground on which to build consensus on anything. No political balance or trust is to be found.

Rules and laws are meant to restrict the influence of whatever entity is mistrusted. The power pendulum swings from left to right, and back. Endless partisan adjustments to and rescinding of laws, and the institution of more laws are meant to shackle the mistrusted “other party.” The result today is a convoluted system of laws, many of them self-contradictory, which transcends most human comprehension.

But, lack of comprehension does not discourage the hostile debates that indicate a gross decrease in trust and a consequent need for power and control.

In a pioneering study in group dynamics, Jack Gibb and others named four primary concerns for evaluating the level of trust within a group’s culture. The concerns determine the level of trust formation,[2] regardless of the group’s size. The following graph offers a visual guide to understanding the aforementioned concerns:

Primary Concern	Derivative Concern	Symptoms of Unresolved Concern	Symptoms of Resolved Concern
Acceptance	Membership	Fear/Distrust/exclusion	Acceptance/Trust
Information Flow	Decision-making	Politeness/caution/ Strategy (often secretive or behind-the-back)	Spontaneity/feedback
Goal Formation	Productivity	Apathy/Competition (silencing innovation)	Enthusiasm/Creative work
Control	Organization	Dependency/ Counterdependency that challenges for leadership	Interdependence/role distribution

In my opinion the dynamics in the column labeled “Symptoms of Unresolved Concern” is a portentous description of our beloved United States of America.

So, what is the source of the mistrust, and how do we overcome it?

I suggest the mistrust is a product of hurtful experiences in our past. As a child I was pulled off my bicycle and chewed on by a big dog and, to this day I grow anxious when a big dog approaches me. I’ve learned compensatory behaviors to defuse any threat; but the mistrust is still present—until a relationship is built.

If building a relationship is key to overcoming mistrust, some concerns must be considered. Trust, by definition involves risk. So does love, which I believe should be the ultimate goal and intention of all human interaction.

Trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability. There is risk of betrayal and rejection. The alternative is to insulate oneself from betrayal and grief, but the payoff is fear and distrust. So I repeat: trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability.

A second concern in building trust is re-learning the lost art of listening. I’m not sure I could be a good listener had I not had extensive training in counseling and in conflict resolution. Even with the training and years of experience, it doesn’t always come naturally. Often, I have to be intentional about flipping on the “LISTEN” switch. 

Nevertheless, listening is a key requirement for building trust. Evidence is rampant on social media that people don’t really listen—not even when the message is written in clear script. Instead of listening, they are preparing their rebuttal (even though they may not—probably don’t—really know what’s been said). How many times, while reading a Facebook conversation, have you discovered, within relatively few exchanges, the focus has been diverted totally from the original topic.

Someone posts about compassion for the poor, and within two or three responses the conversation is diverted to how liberals are shoving a welfare state down our throats. The diversion kills a conversation that may have led to a charitable proposal acceptable to all concerned. And mistrust, if anything, has increased, along with animosity.

Or a Facebook conversation about illegal immigration is diverted to a condemnation vs. defense of President Trump’s wall. The conversation might—might—have been more productive if the responders had listened and stayed on the subject, which probably was a concern for national security and public safety. If the responders wanted to pontificate against the wall, they would be better advised to start their own conversation. But, then, in all likelihood that conversation would be diverted, too.

How on earth can we build trusting relationships if I don’t really know what you’re saying, and you don’t know what I’m saying? Without that knowledge, we’re left to assumption and opinion, neither of which is trustworthy.

At the infamous bottom line, while there is risk in trusting, there also is risk in listening. If I really hear you, I risk learning something new; indeed, I may hear something that requires me to reconsider previous convictions. 

But, then, that would mean I’d have to admit I am, at least partially, wrong—that my opinions are not absolute. And that may be the greatest risk of all.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] In many ways, it’s not finished, even yet. As a living document it is adjusted according to ongoing needs.

[2] Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne, editors, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964)