Tips for Peaceful Holidays

I want to pass on some tips about maintaining peace and tranquility in your families during this holiday season. Call this a quick guide to everyday peacemaking. These tips are really way to replace your habits of conflict with habits of peacemaking. The reason we tolerate so much conflict around us is because we have allowed conflict to be habitual. Consequently, its just easier to let the conflict escalate than to engage people as a peacemaker. If you want to try the new habits of peace, check out these tips.

The most glorious gift you can give your family is your ability to listen without judgment to what is said around you. This gift costs nothing, but confers wonderful feelings on all those who receive it. When a family member is speaking to you, stop what you are doing and listen. What is this person feeling right now? What is this person hoping for? You can even ask, “Oh, so you were feeling frustrated and hoping that the store clerk would spend some time with you?” Even if you don’t guess at feelings and hopes, you can simply summarize, in a short-hand sort of way, what you heard. “Sounds like you ran into a store clerk who wasn’t paying attention to you.” The gift of listening others into existence is a powerful and wonderful way of creating connections to those you care for.

Take responsibility for your own behavior. If you make a mistake, apologize and make amends. If someone around you makes a mistake, be quick to forgive and forget. We let a lot of little things unnecessarily annoy us. Although we react preconsciously to most of what goes on around us, we can choose not to be reactive to what we are feeling. Be aware of how you are feeling moment to moment. Know when you are tired or anxious or under pressure to get something done right away because these are times you are likely to snap back at someone. Be vigilant about your own feelings so that you can respect the feelings of others. Conflict often arises because we are not paying attention to how we are reacting and why. We lash out without thought, which only escalates the dispute. Be self-aware.

If you feel angry or upset, leave the situation for a few moments. Remember that anger is generally triggered by a cascade of events, not just one event. You must break the chain of events to stop your emotional reactions. That’s why stepping out on the balcony and counting to 20 is so often recommended.

In the presence of angry or upset people, acknowledge their anger. “Gee, Aunt Martha. I can see that you are really upset. Boy, I’d be upset too if that happened to me. What can we do to make things right?” People usually become angry and upset because they feel disrespected or unacknowledged. Simply acknowledging the angry feelings of a family member will work miracles in restoring peace.

If Uncle Charlie and Cousin Sam are fighting or arguing, intervene quickly. Take one of them away and “caucus” with them. “Hey, Uncle Charlie, come outside for a minute. I’d like a word with you.” Once outside, listen to Charlie, acknowledge his feelings, and find out what’s upsetting him. Offer to talk to Cousin Sam on behalf of Charlie. Then have a quick talk with Sam. You will see the problem. Bring them together for a quick peacemaking session. Have them exchange stories one at a time without interruption. Have them explain what injustices they feel. Then ask them both for ideas on how to make things right. In five minutes, you can completely reverse the situation.

Now maybe this argument has disrupted a really fun get together and you are pretty angry yourself. You can express yourself, but do so by telling Charlie how you experienced the situation. “Charlie, I am really upset that this happened. Listening to you and Sam shout at each other frustrated me because I was hoping for a really fun family dinner. And I guess I felt mad because all of my plans for a wonderful time seemed to go down the drain.” The important point here is not to accuse Charlie of mucking things up. You are much better off explaining how you feel than blaming Charlie for his behavior.

All of this sounds so common-sensical. Yet we fail to act this way year after year. The reason, I think, is that we have become habituated to reactive behavior patterns. We have habits of conflict that we carry with us. What we really need are some habits of peace. These quick tips are some of the habits of an everyday peacemaker. Like any other skill, they will be awkward at first. With a little practice, you will gain confidence that these tips work. Even more importantly, as you experience the amazing results of watching peace unfold from conflict, you will rewarded with an inner serenity that cannot be described. Then you will have your habits of peace.

Radio Shows on Peacemaking

If you haven't been listening to Fix Your Conflicts! in November and December, I have had some great guests, including Bill Saa, a peacebuilder in war-torn Liberia, Gladis Benavides on cross-cultural conflict, the Resolutionary himself Stewart Levine, Barbara Raye, executive director of the Victim Offender Mediation Association, Michael Maloney on common sense and communication, Max Factor III, Esq. on social justice and mediation, and Mark Tombach on teaching values to teenagers. These have been great conversations--even the network engineer didn't want the shows to end!

This Monday its Nan Burnett's turn to talk about staying centered as a mediator and about her new book. Nan is a high conflict mediator in Denver and hosts the annual Rocky Mountain Retreat around mediation, inner work, and spirituality.

You can access and download the archived shows at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001eUYSOg60wv0ltMKfVT7fYeDQTc7RUcFagoyyEADxRFkWeUR9PsC9QoUHaY1TAedjt5HDZm4WWOYR2UMNrozmkHDDsmqBpp493mA8MEiy8GOHbQvAeuFMTYn0e3mopQswa6SPHnYsrq4= and listen live on Mondays 11 am Pacific at worldtalkradio.com. Check it out!

Another Radio Show!

I was approached by another network to do another radio show and, after listening to the pitch, decided what the heck! On Thursday December 6, 2007, I debuted on wsradio.com on The Doug Noll Show. Unlike Fix Your Conflicts!, The Doug Noll Show will be pure call-in. I am inviting guests for the next month or so as we ramp up, but by mid-January, its all advice, all the time. The Doug Noll Show airs Thursday evenings 8 pm Pacific at wsradio.com. The shows will also be archived at http://www.lawyertopeacemaker.com/radio-archives.html so you can pick them up there as MP3 files for your iPOD.

My goal is to spread the word about how mediation and peacemaking can transform our everyday lives. Thanks for making this goal come true by listening in and supporting the shows.

Clergy Sexual Abuse--Why Settlements Fail the Church, the Parishes, and the Victim-Survivors

In the September 6, 2007 issue of the Santa Barbara Independent, reporter Nick Welsh interviewed a victim-survivor of clergy sexual abuse who was to receive a portion of the $660 million settlement made by the Los Angeles Archdiocese. The settlement ends a four year lawsuit brought by victim-survivors who suffered from sexual abuse by diocesan priests in the 1950s and 1960s. The statements of victim-survivors to Mr. Welsh reflect the failure of the settlement to address the problem:

"...when it finally came down to the showdown, ...[the archdiocese] said, 'Here's some money. Take it. Just go away.'"

"What I really wanted was for people to look at me and say,'Robin, it's okay,'...'You were only a kid.'"

"For a mother to have a son who was molested by a priest, what do you say!...'We screwed up. We're sorry.' That would have been nice."

Welsh comments, "[U]nder the terms of the settlement, the archdiocese has never actually admitted that Father Kelly did anything wrong. What kind of an apology, [the victim-survivors] ask, is that?"

"The settlement means money, it means security. But does it make your pain go away?...No, I donn't think so. But talking about it has helped a lot."

This sad story has repeated itself in every dicocese facing abuse lawsuits. Instead of dealing with the claims consistent with its teachings, the Catholic Church has maintained an aggressive legal defense. The defense typically attempts to shred the credibility of victim-survivors, despite knowledge that there might be some truth to the claims. Victim-survivors may end up with some money, but after taxes and attorney's fees it's usually precious little to show for the effort. From the victim-survivors' perspective, the only bright part of the litigation is that it brought the issue into the light of day.

There is a better way to deal with these emotional, difficult, and challenging claims. The process is called restorative mediation. It arises from the philosophy of restorative justice, which entertains the remarkable idea that victims and offenders be able to sit down with a mediator to talk out the problem and make things right. Restorative justice has been extraordinarily successful at reducing crime, straightening out offenders, and allowing crime victims the opportunity to begin their healing journey. Applied to the clergy abuse cases, restorative mediation could do the same.

So, with this wonderful technology available to help, why isn't the Church jumping on board? The answer is not clear. Each archdiocese is a kingdom unto its own, and the archbishops call their own shots with respect the claims. Often, it's emotionally, politically, and financially easier to let the lawyers handle the problem. In addition, there appear to be unwritten doctrines that compel the Church leaders to protect the Church at all costs. If the prime directive is to protect the Church from scandal, engaging in a process that requires voluntary accountability and responsbility will be unacceptable. The teachings of Christ seem to have been subverted to the secular needs of the Church.

I have mediated several abuse cases using restorative mediation. The cases were not easy and the underlying facts pretty awful. However, the Church leadership involved in these cases walked their talk. While the process was challenging and emotional, the outcomes were significant for everyone involved. I have always felt that if the leaders involved in those cases were running things for the U.S. Catholic Church, the abuse scandal would have turned out much differently than it has.

Victim-survivors have found the process to be a helpful step on the path of their healing. These cases are not about the money. They are about respect, diginity, and dealing with a deep breach of trust. As in all difficult conflicts, collaborative cooperative engagement, not adversarial process, will usually be more productive for everyone. There is still opportunity as the remaining cases work their way through state courts and, in some cases, the bankruptcy courts. I remain hopeful that the tide will change.

The Power of Listening

One of the reasons peace is so hard to find in our lives is because of our "trial lawyer" mentality towards conversation. We rarely listen to each other. Instead, we document, defend, and declare our positions and viewpoints. Our attitude towards others has devolved to a courtroom mentality. We seem to be more intent on "proving" our case than on transforming our conflicts. Even children learn that the goal in any argument is to win.
This "trial lawyer" behavior is sadly predictable. We are bombarded with television shows, books, and films about trials. Cross-examination is considered high drama so we should not be surprised that we emulate aggressive interrogation styles in everyday conversations. Yet cross-examination is not a normal conversational style. Furthermore, the courtroom rules limiting the conduct of cross-examination do not operate in our conversations.
We spend so much time preparing our arguments and rebuttals that we do not have time to listen to others. We are so focused on what we will say next that we cannot hear what is being said to us right now. When challenged, we defend by attacking. All of this makes it easier to let others know what we think than to listen to what others are saying.
Why might this be?
First, I don’t think we are listened to enough. Because we do not have the sense that others are paying attention to us, we struggle to assert ourselves in conversations. We force others to "hear" us. Our own need to be recognized causes us to impose ourselves on listeners, which leads to us not listening to others. Our failure to listen leads to others speaking out, which increases our need to be listened to, etc.
Being listened to is wonderful gift because it is an affirmation of our existence. The story is told of a young mother and her boy in a restaurant. The server approached to take orders.
The boy said, "I’ll have a hamburger."
Mother, ignoring the boy, said, "He’ll have a chicken sandwich."
The server looked at the boy and asked, "Will that be with fries?" The boy beamed with joy. That server had just "listened" the young boy into existence. How often do we act like the mother and how infrequently do we "listen" others into existence?
Second, we take on the trial lawyer mantle to protect our identities from attack. Assuming that the best defense is a strong offense, we are quick to justify, explain, and defend. We are very slow to listen, evaluate, and consider what others have to say. Vulnerability is not such a bad thing, however. In tai chi, for example, the softer one is, the stronger one is; the more vulnerable one is, the more power one controls. These paradoxes are difficult to grasp, but are basic truths applicable to relationships.
Finally, we document, defend, and declare to avoid the anxiety arising from life’s ambiguities and uncertainties. If we can "prove" our case, it must be true! Therefore, we eliminate the gray area, resting smugly on the idea that we are the sole custodians of the Truth. Since truth is relative and subjective, our arrogance can embarrass us or worse, lead us into conflict.
As a mediator, I concentrate very hard on remembering to listen. I am learning, but still have relapses into my old trial lawyer mode. Learning to listen, to pay attention, while not formulating what I will say next, is difficult work. The effort pays off, however. I was working with two business partners who could not talk to each other and whose acrimonious conflict threatened a 30 year old successful firm. I "listened" them both into existence. Almost miraculously, the hostility and rancor dissipated. They were able, with my guidance, to redefine their relationship in a profitable and satisfying way. Had I used the more traditional legal mediation tactics of focusing on risk, cost, and substantive rights, the outcome would have been much different.

LIve Free or Die Hard--The Myth of Redemptive Violence is alive and well

A friend of mine told me that she had just seen the new Bruce Willis movie, Live Free or Die Hard also known as Die Hard 4. She said she really enjoyed it as a fast-paced, action movie. I told her that the Die Hard movies were perfect example of the Myth of Redemptive Violence, a social theory developed by theologian Walter Wink.
The synopsis, from the movie website reads as follows:
Live Free or Die Hard is the ultimate summer action ride. In a season overflowing with CGI fantasy, Live Free or Die Hard gets real -- with real action, real humor and a relatable Everyman hero: John McClane. On the July 4 holiday, an attack on the vulnerable United States infrastructure begins to shut down the entire nation. The mysterious figure behind the scheme has figured out every modern angle -- but he never figured out an old-school "analog" fly in the "digital"ointment. Bruce Willis is John McClane. No mask. No cape. No problem.
The Myth of Redemptive Violence arises from the Babylonian myth of creation. In that myth, a young god Marduk slays the mother goddess Tiamat by ripping out her entrails and spreading them across the sky. The myth portrays the universe as a constant battle of good versus evil in which redemption is found through violence. As Wink points out, this creation story is radically different from the creation myth of the Bible. In Genesis, a good God creates a good universe, and evil is seen as a rip to be repaired. Violence is not necessary for redemption. However, we live in a Babylonian society not a Judeo-Christian society. The Myth of Redemptive Violence is alive and well.
Take the old cartoon Popeye the Sailor as an example. In every episode, Popeye is escorting his girlfriend Olive Oyl when they are accosted by Bluto. Popeye is beaten to a pulp and Olive Oyl is kidnapped by Bluto. In extremis, Popeye manages to pop open a magical can of spinach from a shirtsleeve and eat it. Infused with new powers, Popeye violently brutalizes Bluto, rescues Olive Oyl, and walks off into the sunset. We are all satisfied wirh the result.
Bluto cannot be redeemed except through violence. There is no room for negotiation. There is no room for Bluto to be transformed to a peaceful person. Olive Oyl portrays a disempowered female with no ability to protect herself from rape, kidnapping, or violence. Popeye never has the good sense to eat the spinach before meeting Bluto nor to engage Bluto in a nonviolent way.
The Die Hard movies follow the same formula. Bruce Willis becomes aware of an evil force, is beaten to a pulp, finds some way to violently defeat the evil force, and rides off into the sunset. Along the way, hundreds of people are injured, hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage occurs, and chaos reigns. We are satisfied. However, we really don't think about the consequences of violence as a redemptive force. Who will be the politicians and leaders that will clean up after John McClane? What insurance companies will have to pay out damages for the chaos and injury? How much will this violence cost us as taxpayers? Why is extreme violence necessary to counter the evil-doer?
The secret to action movies and even children's cartoons is that we have a deep sense of satisfaction when the armed redeemer rides into town, shoots it out with the bad guys, and rides off into the sunset leaving the resulting mess to be cleaned up by the townsfolk and the politicians. There is no room for negotiation, no room for transformation, no room for mediation or peacemaking. Only violence can meet violence. The myth repeats itself week after week and in fact is necessary as the basic plot of any good cartoon or action movie.
If you become aware of the Myth of Redemptive Violence as an organizing norm of our society, you will see it everywhere. You will begin to understand why peacemaking and peaceful ways of dealing with difficult problems are often shunned. Peace is simply not as satisfying as violence for dealing with evil. And, of course, this assumes the Babylonian view of the universe: that evil must be combated with violence or it will overtake civilization.
When I explained this all to my friend, she was schocked. She had never understood why she was satisfied by a violent action movie even when she was a professed person of deep peace.
I did not mean to spoil her summer fun, but I do think that being consciously aware of the Myth of Redemptive Violence and its influence on all of us will help us to be better peacemakers.

Being Present with Feelings

What makes conflict so difficult? Its the feelings, stupid. Every conflict produces feelings, usually strong, and they are not happy ones. Anxiety, fear, anger, frustration, and unhappiness are most common. These feelings are too powerful to remain bottled up and will be heard one way or another. If not handled correctly, they will make healthy conversations difficult.
Many people are unaware of their feelings moment to moment. They have feelings, but really do not pay much attention to them except to experience and react to them. In conflict, this can be a liability because the reaction can be explosive. Furthermore, in an unaware state, we tend to project or blame our feelings on someone else. "You did that to me!" and now I am angry at you. Feelings very easily masquerade themselves as judgments, accusations, and attributions.
We work with feelings as peacemakers in two ways. The first way is to engage ourselves in a two or three part analysis of what we are feeling in the moment.
The two part way has us acknowledge our feeling and the unmet hope that goes with it. For example, "I am feeling sad and hoping that we can be friends again." This little trick requires us to label what we are feeling and to identify the hope that if fulfilled would make the feeling go away.
The second way slightly different. We acknowledge our feeling, then state the need that is not being met, and then make a request of the other person. For example, "I am feeling sad right now because my need for respect from you is not being met. Would you be willing to listen to me without interrupting me all the time?" Again, we acknowledge what we are feeling and put a lable on it. We identify the need that is not being met that seems to be generating the feeling. Finally, we ask for a specific action that will help meet the need. Of course, there is no guarantee that the other person will agree to our request. The fact that we have identified our feeling and need, however, goes a long ways towards honest and open communication in conflictual situations.
The great underlying secret to all of this is sincerity and authenticity. The moment you speak your "feelings" from a smarmy, insincere stance, you are doomed. If you cannot be vulnerable and honest about how you feel, the conflict will persist and probably escalate. Being vulnerable by opening up your feelings, hopes and needs, if done authentically, however, is an extremely powerful tool of de-escalation. You will also find that being vulnerable in this open, honest way gives you great power in the conflict. Try it and let me know what happens.

Presence and Peacemaking

As Eckhardt Tolle tells us, presence is the ability to be conscious of the moment and be in that moment all the time. In conflict, presence is a very hard state to find. I have been wondering about this difficulty and had an insight during today's meditation.
Our brains are designed to pay attention to what is going on around us. At a primal level, we are interested in finding sex, food and water, and shelter. We are also interested in detecting and avoiding threats. We have inherited this neurobiology from our ancient predecessors, and I suspect that our ability to focus on our environment was a strong evolutionary adaptation.
The sacrifice we make for this outward focus is a natural and easy ability to focus inward and be aware of our emotional states as they shift moment to moment. I think that the lack of inward focus may be a substantial cause of conflict.
In conflict, I am focused on what the other person has done and its effect on me. If I am aware of my emotional state, my awareness is from a state of reactivity. I am not present with my emotions, but am intent on what the other person is doing and thinking. I may be anxious, angry, hurt, or frustrated. I will experience those feelings without much thought and they will drive me to behaviors that will likely escalate the conflict.
The reason I am not able to be present with my feelings is probably because of limited cognitive resources. The brain's ability to think, analyze, and interpret information takes up a lot resources. Consequently, splitting awareness between the external conflict situation while monitoring and being present with my internal state is almost overwhelming.
I say almost, because I think that we can train ourselves to focus on the outside while remaining present on the inside. This strikes me as an essential skill for anyone wanting to be a peacemaker and may be a skill that can be taught to those in conflict. If people were present with their feelings rather than being reactive to their feelings, they may be able to make better choices about responding to the dispute. I intend to try this out myself in the next few weeks and see what happens. Perhaps I will have another tool for my peacemaker's toolbox.