The impact of conversations denied, distorted or delayed and the misalignment of values
Image credit: Generated with Adobe Firefly
In the aftermath of the US election on November 5th and in the lead up to the Thanksgiving celebration that kicks off the family-centered holiday season, there is a growing swath of sentiment around canceling those Thanksgiving plans.
A determination is being made by many to not participate in the family event or even to continue to engage with those family members who voted in opposition of their vote.
By and large, it is those who voted for the opportunity to be led by the first black female president deciding to no longer be in relationship with those who voted to reinstate to the highest office in the land the convicted rapist and felon who was found by the January 6th Commission to have incited a violent insurrection.
No longer based solely in deflective speculation and unsubstantiated correlations, there is now, in fact, an actual and detectable trend of estrangement that is very keenly being felt and spoken of within the cultural conversation.
Not surprising to those of us who have already initiated family estrangement well outside of this watershed moment in history, is the outcry by those being abandoned that it is unfair and relationally irresponsible to do so.
It is the “can’t we all just get along regardless of personal politics” argument. While those who are walking away are saying that it isn’t about politics, but about character and morality and that there can no longer be tolerance for misalignment in core values.The disconnect between the two on the reasons, and legitimacy, of the estrangement is also unsurprising.
There is also the cry of “can’t we just talk about it?” with a response of, “we did, you weren’t listening and didn’t care.”
There was an expectation by those now feeling blindsided that there would be no personal impact to casting a vote that signed on their permission to inflict harm to their family members or those that they care about. A sweeping under the rug. A tolerance of differences for “the sake of the family/relationship.” A moving on from the portentous result of the most important election in US history and one with both domestic and global repercussions. And an experience of deep and profound shock when that is proving not to be the case.
It is a very familiar dissonance well known to the already estranged.
Ironically, the days leading up to Thanksgiving is also an annual observance of Better Conversations Week. Its stated goal is around “changing how we approach conversations” with a foundational perspective where “great conversations stem from listening (no, really listening) and building from there. Listen with the intent to understand.”
It is yet another area of common incongruence in family relationships with which we the estranged have amassed deep experience. We are all too familiar with the cry by the “suddenly” impacted party for belated discussion and conveyance of grievances and the complete inability to receive them or to recognize that there had in fact been many, many attempts made that fell upon their willfully deaf ears.
Whether the conversations were attempted and skirted by the other party, left unresolved in disagreement or resulted in distortions of what was being shared that then exacerbated the conflict, or some combination thereof, the result is the same. Perpetuation of disconnection and relational pain.
There is a common and deep aversion with emotionally immature parents/families to face the relational conflicts or to have the tough, uncomfortable and truthful conversations. This aversion is the precursor to the death of the relationship.
As outlined in the book, Crucial Conversations,
“What happens in the absence of candid dialogue? Contention. Resentment.
You can measure the health of relationships by measuring the lag time between when problems are identified and when they are resolved. The only reliable path to resolving problems is to find the shortest path to effective conversation.”
The crucial part of a crucial conversation, however, is the willingness of both parties to listen.
For the emotionally immature parent, family member or friend, including those who voted only in their own self interest and cast theirs in direct opposition to the interests and well being of their loved ones and fellow citizens, the act of really listening poses a clear and present danger to maintaining their false sense of self. It threatens them with the holding up of a mirror they desperately need to avoid looking into.
"Really, truly, profoundly listening is to be unaware of yourself at a deep level”-Gabriel Byrne
When the other party in important, relationally-critical conversations is motivated by the preservation of their self-image, and holds that self-image in a tight white knuckle grip during those interactions, there will never and can never be true listening.
As the authors of Crucial Conversations go on to explain:
“When we face crucial conversations, we have three broad options:
We can avoid them.
We can face them and handle them poorly.
We can face them and handle them well.
The only way to really strengthen relationships is through the truth, not around it.”
There simply can be no productivity to a conversation when those with whom we are trying to have it refuse to see our truths and the truths about themselves and the relationship - and that can be especially true when there are diametrically opposed core values.
It becomes the proverbial talking to a brick wall.
At some point, it becomes not only useless but harmful to one’s psyche to continue trying.
The results of this election and the reactions of so many having reached their respective last straws are bringing the concept of the paradox of tolerance that we the estranged have experienced in our families to the cultural consciousness.
Essentially, the paradox of tolerance says that if you are tolerant of everyone, the intolerant will leverage that to take control, hold onto that control, and do as they please. We have experienced that within our families and left because we no longer tolerate the expectation that we be perennially tolerant of their harmful behaviors.
Culturally, there appears to be a mass shift towards similar intolerance of misaligned values within family and other close relationships that is playing out in real time within the larger societal arena. A misalignment of values is in fact among the top reasons for estrangement as found in academic research.
Just as we have been ironically pointed to as being the at-fault intolerant ones in our decisions to estrange from our families, so too are those that are setting similar boundaries following the election.
To resolve this before it gets to the point of no return, there indeed needs to be better conversations. Just as we understand that those conversations need to be held within families before the decision is made to estrange, so too do those conversations need to be had before engaging in action that impacts others.
It is unlikely, after all, that the polarity of values and relational conflicts only surface around “politics.”
In all cases, the productivity of those conversations comes down to truly listening. Only through listening - true listening - can there be understanding. Without understanding, there can be no progress.
It is only through becoming comfortable with the discomfort of the hard conversations and the receiving of hard truths can we each come to the table able to make that progress. It involves being willing to put aside reactivity and the compulsion to ask for immediate reciprocity and JUST LISTEN, absorb, reflect and then be willing to engage in the conversations again and again.
It is about the ability to put oneself, the one who has been or is on the verge of being walked away from, aside in favor of focusing on the other who has long been trying to convey the truth of their experiences in an effort to stay in the relationship.
This is not the stuff of singular conversations, but rather deep ongoing, uncomfortable and messy dialogues. Reciprocity cannot truly come until the person who has been continuously harmed within the dynamic feels understood and emotionally safe in the relationship.
Until that can happen, safety for many means distance as those in the broader cultural arena are now personally discovering. Awareness comes, but often late and, sadly, often continues to be ignored and pushed aside.
Society and family can only be better when we do better - and when our frame of focus is not only on ourselves but on each other and the collective community being impacted - from the individual family level and beyond.
And all that starts with better conversations - ongoing ones that are centered on deep, authentic listening.
All that being said, the concept of the paradox of tolerance still applies.
If after all of that, if core values continue to be misaligned, and there is a maintenance of position by one party that results in active and ongoing harm inflicted upon others, when there will continue to be suffering because of those beliefs and corresponding actions taken, there comes a point where there simply can no longer be any tolerance. In that case, there are then in fact, bridges too far that no amount of conversation and listening will reach until those harms are removed.
[Please note: This article is a reflection on the annual observance of Better Conversations Week and its intersection with family estrangement, the cultural reactions to the recent US election and Family Estrangement Awareness Monthhttps://www.togetherestranged.org/feam. The educational columnist is not a licensed mental health professional. The articles under this series are written from a peer to peer perspective.]
Sources:
Granny, Joseph et al. Crucial Conversations. Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High. Third Edition. 2023. VitalSmarts. ISBN 978-1-260-47418-3 (paperback)
NPR Fresh Air, “Gabriel Byrne and the art of listening.” 4/30/2009.
Comments