“Can we reach empathy in time to avoid the collapse of civilization and save the earth?” (Rifkin, 2009, p. 1)
Much misunderstanding, pain, blame, and even violence is caused by miscommunication throughout our communities and our world. Individuals from various faiths, cultures, families, genders, and political groups often time remain in their own groups and communities and never get beyond observing differences to focus on what they have in common, and understand each other’s point of view. When they do, they often “talk past each other” (Metge & Kinloch, 1984, p. 9) causing additional tension. They become stuck in their own point of view instead of focusing on solutions that can meet everyone’s needs.
Communication That Is Effective
Communication is usually the problem, and practicing effective communication skills, dialogue, and problem-solving practices is usually the solution. Rifkin (in 2009) discussed the importance of empathy, stating that because of climate and economic challenges on our planet, “resolving empathy…is the crucial test of our species’ ability to survive and flourish on earth in the future.” He challenges us to think about “the most important question” facing us: “Can we reach global empathy in time to avoid the collapse of civilization and save the earth?” (p.1).
Focusing on Commonalities and Solutions
How do we get beyond being stuck in our own positions, talking past each other, and move towards focusing on what we have in common and thinking of solutions instead of continuing to argue about the same problem(s) over and over? How do we get beyond blaming the other for being different from us to begin respecting differences and building understanding through empathy? How can we practice empathy to understand other’s behaviors, take their perspective, and see the world as others see it? How can we listen so others feel understood? How can we talk so others will want to listen? How can we talk to create the least amount of defensiveness? How do we start to care when relationships have deteriorated? To learn any new skill, we have to practice and learn from our mistakes.
How Do We Begin to Care? Active Listen
We can develop empathy by actively listening to others, summarizing both verbally and non-verbally what the other person is saying: what they think about what they are saying (not what you think they are saying). “You’re feeling_____________ because….” (Gordon, 1979). The goal in active listening is to communicate to “the other” that you care enough about what they have to say to take the time to actively listen, to encourage more communication, and to clarify “did I get it right?” Active Listening lets the other know you are truly listening, reduces tension, and can create more understanding, and more listening from “the other.”
True empathy or the “Tao of Communication” is caring more about the what the other person has to say, than what you have to say (Solomon, 1986). Once we understand one another, we can begin to learn to love one another.
Effectiveness Training and Problem-Solving Skills Between Individuals and in Groups
In addition to using active listening, effective communication skills such as “I-Messages”, rather than blaming “You-messages”, and avoiding roadblocks to communication, make it easier for the other person to hear what you have to say, and can reduce defensiveness. The I-Message Formula is: “I feel…when…and I’d appreciate it if…..” or “I appreciate it when……”. According to Thomas Gordon (1979) who wrote Leadership, Parent and Teacher Effectiveness Training, one “I-message” can erase about one thousand past blaming “You-messages” [and begin to repair relationships]. Part two of the I-Message, is active listening to the response of the other person to your I-message.
The Method III consensus-building, problem-solving method taught in Gordon’s Leadership Effectiveness Training (1979) is effective and efficient in family and large groups (no matter how large the group) when led by a facilitator who follows the guidelines modeling active listening and I-messages and focusing on one problem at a time. The problem with Method I (Authoritarianism) parenting in families, is that it tends to cause resentment in children and the problem with Method II (Permissiveness) is that it tends to cause resentment in parents as they are not getting their needs met. The goal of Method III problem-solving is to reach a “Win-Win” mutually agreed-upon solution and/or implementation of the solution. Experience in numerous settings demonstrates that when participants are involved in thinking of solutions, they are much more willing to follow through with the solutions.
Method III problem-solving involves a creative brainstorming step, which can be called “popcorn thinking.” No evaluating of the solutions are allowed during that step. Since only one problem is focused on at a time, as participants bring up issues that are not related to the problem being solved, they should be written down to be solved at a later time. It is important that everyone’s ideas are written down so they feel listened to. In the next step, ideas that one or more person does not like are crossed out, leaving only the ideas that all agree upon. The dialogue rules of Method III problem solving are no interrupting, no name-calling, one person talk at time, and agree to solve the problem. An “advanced” skill that I like to add to Gordon’s Method III problem-solving, is that if you plan to cross out another’s idea, be ready to add a solution that could meet everyone’s need in the group.
Experiencing Interfaith Dialogue and Building Empathy Among Religionists: What Works?
Each person is unique. Therefore, interfaith is defined as each person with a personal relationship with God, regardless of their religion, in communication with all others. Building interfaith empathy is focusing on commonalities, rather than differences, talking less and listening more, and demonstrating sincere understanding. From experience, what also works is developing empathy by sharing your intention in a prayer, self-disclosure, focusing on commonalities, practicing and ongoing evaluation of effective communication skills, and comparing concepts and quotes from religious texts. The first step of developing rules of dialogue by consensus, is an example of starting with a less controversial topic, in order to develop a shared history of achieving consensus before tackling a more difficult topic. David Smock of the United States Institute of Peace (2013) recommended sharing personal experiences from interfaith groups, personal trauma, building commonality by listening skills, sharing what they have come to believe about theirs and other faith groups, and having dialogue training in your own faith group before dialoguing with another faith group (D.R. Smock, personal communication, February 1st, 2013).
Examples of Solving Deep-Rooted Conflict Through Dialogue in Faith, Political and Community Groups
Stories passed on from effectiveness training, dialogue, and focusing on commonalities in faith, political, and community groups include those from Ireland, El Salvador and New Guinea. Carl Rogers, facilitated an intensive person-centered workshop on the resolution of intercultural conflicts in Northern Ireland with Catholics and Protestants. A few days after his workshop, violence erupted during a conflict on the border, and two people emerged from the crowd and were able to deescalate the situation. One was a Catholic and the Other was a Protestant – they had both attended Carl Rogers workshop (Devonshire and Kremer, 1980 in Shaefer, 2013, p.23-25). Facilitators of warring parties in El Salvador helped the leaders from each side to focus what they had in common: they each had grandchildren and by accomplishing a peace process they could create a legacy for themselves that they could pass on to their grandchildren. Warring tribes in New Guinea practice exchanging children to maintain peace. A child from each tribe would go to live among the other tribe.
Caring About “The Other” in Political Groups – Where Do We Start?
The problem with voting is one party wins, the other loses, and the losing party tends to sabotage the work of the winning party. Just like in families, political groups become stuck in focusing on problems and their favorite ideas over and over and do not seem to get beyond us versus them to focus on new creative solutions that meet everyone’s needs. If we can start by focusing on commonalities – problems both parties agree upon and then utilize consensus building processes to arrive at mutually-agreed upon solutions, starting with less controversial topics in order to build a shared-history of success, then maybe we can tackle more controversial topics. Even though it can be difficult and sometimes unpleasant work, can we at least try to get beyond us versus them, so that we “can reach empathy in time”?
Where Do We Go From Here: Us and Them – A Cosmic Attitude
In his newly released 9 minute video on YouTube, entitled Us and Them, Rev. Gary Deinstadt, using personal examples from his family, shares about the importance of viewing others as equal to ourselves, “not viewing them as less…. viewing others as not what they are, but what they are becoming… ” He asks the question – “How do we get from divided to united we stand?” He suggests going “Beyond the Golden rule…begin treating others as if they were a part of your immediate family…, and [devoting] your lives to proving that love is the greatest thing in the world….” The video closes with the following quote: “When one chooses to love all …there is the possibility that all learn to love each one” Deinstadt (2020). Enjoy the link to his video entitled Us and Them: (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzOmRYycDBjzJO5MEuq3Cwg?&ab_channel=GaryDeinstadt)
************************************************************************.
For more information and to schedule a training on Beyond Us vs. Them in cultural, faith, multiple family, gender and/or political groups, please contact Dr. Stephanie Shaefer, of the Center for Pastoral Counseling of Virginia at stephanieshaefer@pastoralcounseling.com. The Center for Pastoral Counseling is a non-profit organization based in Northern Virginia, that offers a sliding scale for clients based on income and financial need. Telemental Health is offered for clients from all areas of Virginia, as well as States and The District of Columbia that allow out-of-state licensed providers to provide services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
References:
Deinstadt, G. (2020, October 17). Us and Them. YouTube. Retrieved from URL: (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzOmRYycDBjzJO5MEuq3Cwg?&ab_channel=GaryDeinstadt)
Gordon, T. (1979). Leadership effectiveness training. New York: NY:
Metge, J.,&. Kinloch, P. (1984). Talking past each other: Problems of cross-cultural communication. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization:The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Tarder/Penguin Group. Abstract. Retrieved from http://11webebshost.com.ezproxy.humanisticpsychology.org.
Shaefer, S.L. (2013). Evaluation of a Communication Skill and Dialogue Program Focusing on Interfaith and Interreligious Empathy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: ProQuest (doctoral dissertation). Saybrook University.
Solomon, P., & DuPont, N. (1985). The Tao of Communication. Masters Press: Timberline, Virginia.
Was It Helpful To You?
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
