Humans have been killing those who disagree with them pretty much since we arrived on the planet (whenever you believe that was). Sadly, we continue to do that to this very day, despite the invention of more peaceful alternatives.
The handshake was designed to be a gesture of peace, to show the lack of weapons in one’s hand, although there were obvious shortcomings in that method (“hey, where’s his other hand?”). Diplomacy was then invented so that we could try using our words instead of our weapons. That, too, has its limitations, but it remains a widely preferred method of resolving differences since it does not favor the more aggressive, physically stronger participant who has better weapons.
The best diplomats, in my opinion, are the ones who realize that they are not going to get everything that they want, as well as understanding that they need the support of the opposing side for whatever they do achieve. Our Congress, unfortunately, has not seemed to get this memo, so not a ton of progress has been made there. But realizing there is a middle ground and why you want to get there is a crucial piece of the puzzle.
Did you know that a majority of people, according to various polls, are apprehensive, even to the point of dread, about family gatherings, especially during the holidays? One of the primary reasons given was “opposing views.” Hmm, if only we could shake each other’s hand and have it mean that we’re not going to use our words as weapons! But many of us are not trying to learn from the best role models. Whether holiday arguments are traditional in your family, or whether they are tied to the presence of a specific individual, or whether you’re caught up in the current bombastic model of politics, avoiding catastrophic but predictable outcomes requires some conscious preparation on your part.
Here’s a quick way you can start your preparation: fold your hands together, fingers interlaced as if to pray, and notice your thumbs, which will be overlapping. Raise them up, just your thumbs, and switch the one on top for the one underneath. Can you feel it? It feels like something is wrong, maybe just slightly, but something ain’t right. Now switch them back to where they were to start with and notice how you feel some relief. This is a small example of your “comfort zone,” which can have a big effect on your ability to remain grounded.
For example, if you and Uncle Louie start off your conversation by debating whether Donald Trump is the Messiah or the Devil, I give that conversation just a few seconds before tempers are flaring and blood pressures are increasing. You do not have to compromise your entire belief system if you decide to lead with an attitude that is a little more tolerant of differences. “Tolerant” doesn’t mean agreeing with! It means trying to keep the outcome in mind as you engage in the process. If your goal for the outcome is to not have a major meltdown, you can either run from the room every time you see Uncle Louie, or you can consciously choose from several options (including stepping outside to take an imaginary phone call if necessary!). You can be aware of “hooks” and choose not to bite, you can redirect the conversation with a non-committal smile and a question about something more pleasant (the topic of grandkids usually works well if there are any; ask for photos!). You can even be totally direct as long as you’re feeling calm, and say, “Hey, Uncle Louie, let’s leave the politics to the politicians” or something like that. Of course, Louie may be itching for a fight, so you may have to come up with advanced diplomatic skills to avoid one.
But let’s say it’s someone less obnoxious than Uncle Louie. Can you challenge yourself to take a step towards the middle, if only as an experiment? As another example, let’s take the topic of gun safety. I remember reading an oped column by a gun rights advocate that I almost skipped because I was sure I wouldn’t agree with his ideas. I was shocked when I finished his piece and agreed with him, but what he was saying represented a step toward the middle rather than a blatant rejection of the idea that any change was needed. Rather than raising the legal age for gun purchase to 21 from 18, he suggested that gun buyers in this age range agree to more requirements, like for continuing education or for some type of supervision in some way. He didn’t have all the specifics worked out, but he was saying that yes, he could agree to the idea that 18- to 21-year-olds might be in a different category from other gun owners, as far as possible risks or at least questions. Did it solve the problem of gun violence? Of course not (especially since I never heard another word about it; oh well…). Did it allow the possibility of actual dialogue between people who usually can find little to agree on? Absolutely, if that is a goal that both people share.
In short, you can’t make someone else want to have a reasonable, if slightly uncomfortable, conversation with you about topics that usually lead to mutual overreactions. But you can decide that those are the only kinds of conversations you’re going to engage in. If you start to lose your cool, clasp your hands and move your thumbs! Happy holidays.
Susan Hull is a retired clinical psychologist, an independent voter and a conversationalist who has learned a lot about this topic since moving to Bandera four years ago.
