Conversations with Nana

To defend oneself when under attack is considered the right of a free society. In American law even counter-attack is permitted under the guise of self-defense. Specifically, martial arts teachers tell us the first line of defense is to run away, to avoid fighting whenever possible. If avoidance is not possible, the next successive steps are first to disarm, then forcefully stop your opponent when disarming is not enough, and finally, when all else fails, to kill. Given this time-honored method, perhaps ingrained from ancient times, it stands to reason that such methods would apply in non-physical attacks as well, the kind we sometimes call personality clashes or character attacks. In fact, many times a verbal defense is upheld as the constructive and intelligent thing to do. Sometimes you must defend yourself to set the record straight and to correct inaccurate interpretations. An example might be public debates, which are designed to be calm and educational. Or, you may simply want to inform another about who you really are in any given moment, such as a person who might say, “I would never sanction cruelty to animals,” when defending eating meat. This kind of defense is straightforward and designed to educate without hostility.

But sometimes situations occur where simply offering a differing point of view is not effective, or leaves you feeling vulnerable, because you sense a personal attack coming from the other person. Perhaps you feel you are being unfairly judged, or the person is drawing negative conclusions that will eventually hurt you. To become defensive in such cases stems from the same motive as in physical attack, to protect, resist, or avoid. If the defensiveness works, then you have successfully avoided potential harm. However, defensiveness in the personal context usually only works temporarily at best because the cause of the attack is never addressed.

Imagine some typical defensive strategies: When someone criticizes, for example, you can create a diversion with unrelated excuses or problems, like the old ploy ‘the dog ate my homework.’ Or, better yet, you can turn the situation around so that someone else, maybe even the person speaking, gets the blame, as in, “It’s not my fault, you should have…” The resulting confusion should give you enough time to figure out other maneuvers in case the topic eventually comes back to you. You also can become intellectual and analytical, drawing on logic and rationalizations about extenuating circumstances to explain away the behavior in question. The other person may not only be awed by your intellectual superiority, they may actually forget — for a while — that you have failed to say anything related to your actual attitude or feelings. This is also a good time to throw in what’s called a false apology or false agreement, where you quickly acquiesce in order to stop the conversation, but don’t really mean what you say. It temporarily robs your opponent of his or her argument, but unfortunately doesn’t improve or change anything and eventually the issues arise again.

Another favorite for defense is denial, which can be as simple as refusing to admit to being a part of the problem, or as blatant as claiming there is no problem in the first place. Walking away from the conversation fits in here, including such variables as forgetting, falling asleep, getting drunk, changing the subject, daydreaming, reading, watching TV, reading text messages, etc. Guilt is a good defense, too. Some people have guilt down to an art form so that the other person ends up not only dropping the confrontation, but feels terrible for bringing it up at all. On a lighter side, joking your way out of a corner helps, at least until the other person stops laughing and realizes nothing has changed. When all else fails, and you still are determined not to have an honest and open encounter with the other person, you can make a direct counter attack, bringing up any and all smoldering grudges from the past and insulting the person where you know it will hurt the most.

To be fair, staying in control and feeling okay about oneself is what defensiveness is all about. Creating a defense when under attack is actually a survival skill that usually is successful at least partially in achieving what it intends, to protect the individual from feelings of hurt, anger, anxiety, and inadequacy. Often these skills are formed in early childhood. Consider, for example, the child who declares, “Not me!” when asked to admit to a current bad deed, or the toddler who bursts into tears and whimpers when caught in a forbidden act, or collapses into a temper tantrum when he or she does not get his way and perceives the parent as an enemy. Defensiveness, then, the way it is defined within the context of a relationship, is an old ploy, a learned technique that has worked so well in the past it has become an automatic protective habit. The problem is that in protecting the individual, the relationship is left exposed and at risk. If defensiveness is left unchecked, the heart of the partnership will eventually be sacrificed because defensive reactions keep the cycle of hurt going, allowing words to get out of control, and causing fights to last much longer. Defensive attacks and counter-attacks are a win/lose game, where the current winner feels clever and almost heroic while the loser feels resentful and unheard, making sure to keep at a distance in the future.

Once the automatic reaction becomes a habit, the prospect of facing a confrontation head on creates anxiety and feelings of powerlessness, thus reinforcing the need for avoidant behavior. Whether the attack is real or imagined, each use of a protective response confirms the need to remain on guard. In the most obvious reality, you may feel attacked when you truly are being ridiculed, insulted, accused, demeaned, or in any way treated in a mean-spirited manner. In other words, when someone is being mean to you, you may very likely get the point without too much internal debate. The other person is lashing out, you justifiably recognize the attack, and your recognition brings about the feeling of being emotionally assaulted.

However, we may also feel attacked when we believe we are being attacked, but the other person’s actions and intentions are really innocent. The other person does not realize he or she is in dangerous territory, but is merely making you the recipient of his or her judgments, interpretations, or firm opinions. In cases where your tender spots are so obvious to you, you cannot help but assume the other person is taking direct aim. Finally, we may feel attacked without anyone else doing anything in particular, just because we expect to be treated badly. All of these possibilities can produce the kind of instant defensive reactions that attempt to either run away or attack in return. Defensiveness becomes a kind of emotional Aikido, with the flexibility of side steps and diversions.

Of course, most of us would never deliberately choose behavior designed to eat away at our relationships. One step in breaking the defensiveness cycle is to recognize that a defensive reaction causes loss of balance and erodes trust. In order to really understand the difference, a person needs to practice with a trusted friend who will cooperate by not attacking or punishing. A beginning practice response might be to simply state how the situation feels on the inside, such as, “I’m in a turmoil right now,” or “I’m so upset, I don’t know what to say.” When the friend responds with empathy and kindness rather than digging in further, you can begin to see how a strong and loving partnership works. Both partners are working to uphold the other, not cause pain or distress. Once you can see the difference, it will be easier to take the risk of standing your ground without malice. Standing your ground non-defensively means allowing the other person to empty him or herself of whatever anger or resentment has built up without taking anything personally. In essence, you are saying, “You are angry with me. Tell me more about it. Tell me everything.” Thus you are building a bridge to mend the relationship rather than building a wall to keep the other person out. A non-defensive response is reminiscent of the New Testament admonition to turn the other cheek as if for a second assault, when what actually happens is that the angry person softens and becomes more reasonable. Typically, when the antagonist feels truly heard, he or she replaces further onslaught with a more sincere explanation of the problem.

A person who automatically becomes defensive will have to apply extra concentration in order to stop the reaction. A helpful and painless way to begin to change the defensive habit with behavior modification is to carry a small notebook and pencil. Place a mark in the notebook every time you react defensively. Don’t judge it or condemn yourself, simply note it. At the end of each day tally the number of marks. After several days you most likely will see a decline in your defensiveness due to your heightened awareness and concentration — not to mention a natural desire to want to win the notebook contest. Another method is to say out loud each time you become aware, “I’m getting defensive.” Usually, the announcement itself is enough to interrupt the pattern. The first few times may feel embarrassing, but embarrassment quickly passes when you experience the warm reception — even relief — this kind of announcement usually produces in the other person. Most people are grateful to move out of a reactive and into an interactive conversation once more.

One word of caution, however: These methods may only work well when the other person is also wanting to strengthen the relationship. If you find yourself continually attacked regardless of your good intentions and conversational skills, you may find you are dealing with someone who only wishes to tear down, to win at all costs. Some people become even more angry or withholding when their defensiveness is pointed out, because they perceive the observation as negative criticism rather than a helpful guideline. In such cases, if professional mediation is not possible, the best course may be to slip away with as much kindness as you can muster, and ultimately refuse the contact.

Finally, while it is personally expansive to monitor oneself for positive change, pointing out the other person’s defensive behavior and poor social skills may be intrusive and abrasive, instead of unifying and helpful. Abrupt and unilateral demands for change are often not received well. The unique combination of people in each relationship is always the ultimate guide to timing and exposure.

Voice tone can change the meaning of a word or sentence. What seems innocent in structure may actually harbor a hidden message in tone. The other person hears and responds to a tone that you may not even be aware is there. A harsh tone hiding behind neutral words allows the speaker to deny that any damage was intended, but the sting of sarcasm, ridicule, or anger is there anyway. Much of the time people are sincere when they say they mean not to hurt. They truly cannot hear the anger or hostility. Bringing a tape recorder to the next conversation may sound a bit drastic, but that may be all it takes for someone’s tone and intention to start to converge. Ultimately, your responsibility as speaker is to admit, at least to yourself, any negative feelings. Sarcasm, ridicule and anger show up even when we try to hide them. Denial compounds the problem because the other person not only detects the tone, he or she no longer can trust the speaker’s integrity.

While saying no to a request, for example, a warm and friendly tone of voice is helpful in conveying your good intentions. Offering a reason for your decision may soften the blow and make it easier for others to understand, however, you are never obliged to give an excuse. As a matter of fact, others sometimes may hear your explanation as an opportunity to reason with you and change your mind. Stating the reason for saying no may leave you feeling generous in providing an explanation, or the opposite, resentful, as if you are asking permission. When and to whom we give reasons for saying no is determined each time by the circumstances, for example the level of intimacy and one’s personal style.

How we use our eyes is an integral part of language. Looking at the other person is a necessary part of effective communication. Some people find that they look directly at another when they are speaking but not when listening, and for some others it is the reverse. While staring is not a good idea, at least an occasional meeting of the eyes implies interest, which makes the conversation much more satisfactory. Other elements of facial expression include an occasional nod, or smile — or even a raised eyebrow. And a well placed “hmmm” always helps to show the person that you are still listening. No one wants to converse with a blank, unreadable front. Use your eyes and face to convey interest, or even disagreement, if appropriate.

Physical distance and posture also play a role in communication. Distractions such as text messages or the infamous “multi-tasking” of listening while doing something else are not credible reflections of caring or intimacy. Attention, interest, and sincerity are more convincing through face-to-face encounters. If the conversation gets heated or feels emotionally uncomfortable, an automatic and natural defense might be to turn and even take a few steps away. The dilemma here is that while you have created a zone of comfort for yourself, the message you may be conveying to the speaker is one of impatience and disinterest. If the conversation is so threatening to you that you cannot face it head on, it might be best to call a time out. The other person may need to calm down and find more non-threatening ways to engage with you, and/or you may need to take a few breaths while coming to terms with your fears. People “read” you much more than they hear you, so facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and physical positioning all need to match the words we say.

Speaking directly, instead of indirectly, means saying what you mean. An indirect style attempts to avoid conflict by avoiding the point, or using words so euphemistically that interpretation is not clear. Sometimes we are embarrassed, or scared, or we feel uncomfortable asking outright for what we want, so we drop hints instead and hope the other person comprehends. One woman reported her hurt feelings that her husband did not recognize her inner turmoil and merely accepted her response of “nothing,” when he asked if something had upset her. She believed that he should automatically realize how she felt. As well as speaking in a ‘round-about’ way, the least effective and most frustrating thing is to say nothing at all and then wait for someone to read your mind. The other person should have known, we tell ourselves. But he or she didn’t and our silence didn’t help.

Direct language, saying what you mean without subterfuge, is most effective when you already know what you want or would like to happen before you even start the conversation. Knowing ahead helps keep focus and avoid misinterpretation. Most likely, though, many conversations are not so carefully crafted in advance. Directness sometimes may require a previous awareness of the direction you want the conversation to go. Speaking directly also requires courage because there is the greater chance you will be clearly understood and the other person won’t like what is heard. Furthermore, some cultures value harmony and peaceful encounters far more than clarity that may turn out to be abrasive. In instances where cultures clash, Americans often appear rude or domineering to people with other styles of communication. Ultimately, authentic communication is culturally based: a blend of awareness of self, the other, and personal integrity.

Hidden requests are another instance of indirect communication. One example is using a statement to ask a question. A person is curious about something and says, for example, “I see you have a …” in the hope the other person will explain the presence of the object. Perhaps the speaker feels a direct question is prying or too invasive. However, the point is that he or she commented anyway, so that the curiosity is still apparent, although not so obvious. If the other person is familiar with this style, most likely an explanation will be forthcoming. But if the hidden question is not recognized both sides may leave the conversation unsatisfied, considering the other person may wonder what the speaker’s intention was in pointing out the obvious.

On the other hand, some ask a question that sounds caring, but is really a false concern covering a hidden request or demand. An example might be, “Do you feel like…?” Even though we use the word “feel,” we really aren’t asking about someone’s feelings. Another version is in the pseudo question, such as, “Why don’t you…?” This is not really even a question, but a direction that implies that there is no good reason not to do as asked. The other person complies — often begrudgingly — to the kind sounding, but empty, words. These kinds of indirect messages are called unilateral, meaning only one person gets to make all the decisions. If you are not aware of the impact of indirect language, you will probably be surprised when the other person starts to feel manipulated and becomes angry. Examples of direct language: “Here’s a way you could help me. Would you please do….?” “I’d appreciate it if you would….” “This needs to be done. Will you do it?”

In cases of choosing direct versus indirect language, there are different right ways to communicate. Language is a culture’s best attempt to come together in understanding. Social values, such as practicing kindness, demonstrating intelligence, maintaining control, respecting privacy, or honoring social position, vary from culture to culture and even family to family. Feeling honest within one’s style and yet recognizing the need for different styles in certain situations is the heart of diplomacy. If you cultivate first the notion that mutual understanding is the goal and that mistakes and misinterpretations can be corrected, the words and style you use have the best chance of shining through.

Language is a powerful tool when used effectively, but, on many occasions, nothing can be more problematic than words. Once, while visiting a foreign country, I developed enough of an upset stomach to make  a visit to the town’s local doctor. As the taxi driver was returning me home, I realized I didn’t clearly understand the meaning of the doctor’s words. “What did he mean,” I asked the driver, “when he said to avoid meat for the next few days – chicken, too?” “Meat is meat,” he nodded emphatically, as if he had successfully  cleared up my confusion.

Most of the time we make ourselves fairly clear and most of the time we understand others fairly well. But then there are those times when we just can’t seem to get it right. For example, no matter what we say, the other person is offended, or hurt, or angry, and we are left muttering things like, “I was only trying to say…,” or, “I didn’t mean it that way.” Sometimes the reverse is true, as well. Even though the other person denies it, we know what we heard and what we heard is insulting, wounding, or maddening.

When accused that his almost constant cigar might be a phallic crutch, the famous psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, contradicted his own theory and responded, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Just as with symbols, specific words have different meanings to different people. What one person hears may not be what the other person intends. After awhile, of course, couples and close friends develop a kind of code language, and many ambiguous words or phrases are correctly understood in the context of the relationship. The word “love,” for example, has many interpretations and is often used in code. For example, when one partner spontaneously calls to the other, “I love you,” the disguised intention may be a question, such as, “Is everything all right between us?” The tone of voice and quality of the corresponding, “I love you, too,” can be a sufficient answer in itself. But even if you are familiar with the codes, sometimes it is smart to double-check just in case this is one of those times the code doesn’t apply. In general, if you note any ambiguity or are left with any doubt, ask, perhaps even probing for substitute words that will add clarity.

Some conversations are demonstrations of the old saying: “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” Words such as “if,” and “try” may be a good choice when you are unsure and want to leave an opening, as in, “If I get done on time….” or “try to arrive on time.” However, in some circumstances, they may leave you sounding weak and unreliable even to yourself. Phrases that convey personal strength include, “I will… / I plan to…/ my intention is…/ I want to…/ I’m going to…” and “when it happens…” (instead of “if it happens.”)

Some people value assertive statements, such as, “I will be there on time,” as evidence of commitment and integrity, while others may be suspicious of too confident a stance that may prove to be a false promise if unexpected circumstances interfere. From these latter types of people you might hear something closer to the old country expression, “I’ll be there if the creeks don’t rise.” Choosing the best way to express oneself is often a trial and error blend of personal style, the needs of the listener, and a mutual understanding that develops over time.

Sometimes, especially in an argument, words can loom too large, such as,  “always,” or “never.” When others hear them, they usually pretty quickly can think of an exception. Then your real point gets missed in the debate about the timing and frequency of the infraction. Finding a reasonable middle between saying nothing and exaggerating can reduce a lot of unnecessary friction. A less argumentative approach might include such tempered words as, often, sometimes, frequently, infrequently, seldom, or not often. And the best approach would be to give specific examples without any vague or sweeping language at all.

We need to recognize the power or lack of power that certain words provide. When faced with the unpleasant task of having to say no to someone who is counting on a “yes,” we may try to soften the blow by diminishing our role in the ‘no,’ as in, “I wish I could, but I can’t,”. This tactic may succeed in letting you off the hook, but if used too often, you may begin to feel and look like a victim buffeted about by out of control circumstances, or that you can only avoid situations by manipulating or lying. In addition, the person with the request may begin to think of you as someone incapable of strength of will. A simple practice experiment might be to substitute any sentence where you might usually say, “I can’t,” with the stronger “I have decided not to…” or even, “I’m not going to….” just to see if you experience an internal shift in self-concept.

Another example of troublesome language is “should.” Of course, there are many valid obligations in our lives, such as childcare, or even safeguarding personal health, obligations that take on a kind of moral duty. But the word itself is the problem, not the actual obligation. When confronted with so many things a person should do, rather than wants to do, he or she may feel trapped in a bullying approach to life. If the situation in question truly warrants a call to duty and responsibility, try to break down the task into small manageable pieces and try to find something pleasant about each step. For example, you should pay rent in a timely manner. Perhaps in meeting this obligation, you can choose your favorite pen to write the check, and choose your favorite mug to sip your favorite beverage. It sounds ridiculously small, but in each step you are saying that you are in charge, and that’s empowering. When we enjoy what we do, we usually feel good about ourselves and are more likely to have successful interactions. In general, continually saying, “I should….” or “You should…” results in feeling pressured, trapped, victimized, bullied, or resentful. Making the chore or duty a choice by creating manageable small steps, or saying, “I choose to do this at this time,” results in feeling in control, empowered, at peace with the chore, confident about your ability.

Perhaps the most problematic little word is “but.” We tend to use it as a connector between a complimentary phrase and a critical one, thus canceling out the compliment, as in, “I care about you, but…” A simple solution is this:  either break the connection between the two sentences altogether — first compliment, then pause, then bring up what’s bothering you — or, use the word “and” instead. “I care about you, and this is what’s bothering me,” is much more inviting and implies that what you say next is because you care, not in spite of it.

Effective language involves saying what you really mean in a way that can be heard. Let’s say you are angry, or hurt, for example, and want to share this part of yourself with your partner. Typically, we say, “You make me mad.” In other words, “you are in control of my mood.” One story tells of two associates who stop at a local newsstand every day on their way to work. The vendor is surly and irritable, but each time, the one man smiles and wishes him a pleasant day, while the other man takes on the bad attitude of the vendor. After several days the offended man questions his friend, “That guy always manages to ruin my day, why do you always treat him so nicely?” The other responds, “Why should I let him be in charge of how I feel?” When we lead with “You make me…” we have put the other person in charge. What the other person most likely hears is the blame, which feels like an attack. There is nowhere to go when blamed except to retreat, defend, and/or possibly counter attack. Taking responsibility for your own reactions would lead you to say, “I’m mad,” thus, hopefully, opening up a dialog for understanding. When you keep it personal and say, “I am (insert the feeling you want to express),” you still get to be mad or hurt, and the other person has a better chance of hearing what you have to say. Since many people view anger as a toxic substance, any amount of room to breathe is appreciated.

What could be a better gift than advice? A worried and confused person tells you about a problem or a complaint. You listen until you see a solution, and then you respond with the best course of action. Your advice in response to the other person’s spoken need is timely and helpful. Or so it would seem. But often when people point to an area and say they want some changes, there is a chance that they are in the early process of thinking out loud, trying out ideas, maybe just wanting to complain a while before they actually take any action. Not that one doesn’t need or want advice — often it’s a welcome relief to a difficult predicament — but timing is the issue here.

Other than wanting your advice, there are several reasons people might tell you about their problems. They may be simply trying to make a human connection without really wanting an answer at all. Regardless of how helpless or confused people seem at these times, they may only want to hear themselves talk — not listen to anybody else’s opinion.  Or, they may simply be asking for confirmation that they really do have a problem, rather than trying to solve it. Advice given too soon feels interruptive and shocking. Sometimes people even become insulted, as if you have implied that they are incapable of solving the problem on their own. Of course, there are those times when we really do think the other person is incompetent. We feel important and needed and giving advice lifts our self esteem. We like to be in control. Or, we simply want to send a message that complaining is not okay and we will put an end to it right away. Sometimes we even give advice when no one has asked for it.

So there you are, seeing the other person’s negative reaction to your advice and feeling pretty foolish for misreading the whole situation. The other person is angry, or worse yet, hurt. You were only trying to be helpful, you say to yourself. What could possibly have gone wrong? For one thing, sometimes when people complain, they secretly feel (or hope) that they are exaggerating. Your agreement that there is truly a problem and your ready solution appears to them as if you are saying you think there is indeed something wrong with them, and, furthermore, you don’t accept them the way they are. They are often shocked out of their temporary self-sorrow and downright insulted by your suggestions for change. Or the fact that you skipped a few moments of empathizing and sympathizing and jumped right into problem-solving, causes them to believe that you think of yourself as the better, smarter person. In the end, you both end up feeling attacked.

However, even though the other person may not follow your advice, the act of getting advice can be extremely helpful. Sometimes your ideas can generate other solutions that someone can customize to suit his or her style and needs. The best help, therefore, is first to ask if some ideas on your part would be welcome. For example, you might begin with, “Is this one of those times you would rather I just listen, or are you asking for my input?”

Once it is clearly established that your ideas are wanted, the next step is to offer suggestions rather than advice. Brainstorming together is a good idea when you want to avoid the “you think you are better than me” accusation. Ask questions, such as, “What do you think about this?” or “How do you think it would be for you if….?” and really listen to the answers. You will be building intimacy while solving problems at the same time.

If you sense that someone is truly not asking for an immediate piece of advice, the best thing is to ask what he or she hopes will come of the conversation. Usually people know what they want to happen before they even begin. Responses other than giving advice that may or may not be appreciated include listening without interrupting, offering sympathy (Oh, that must be so hard”), simply agreeing that there really is a problem (“No kidding, you really do have a mess on your hands”), dismissing the problem altogether (“This will look a lot better after you sleep on it”), or minimizing the problem (“It could be a lot worse…”), and empathizing (reflective listening, for example). Listening carefully first and empathizing by checking in with the person to make sure that you really understand what is being said are excellent bridges to an eventual timely offering of suggestions and advice. Once people feel heard and understood, they usually feel safe and ready to hear what you have to say.

Finally, and perhaps the most important part: One of the problems with advice is that it often produces an unspoken result. The person receiving the advice fears you will be hurt if your advice is not taken, or that if you go to the time and trouble to outline a response, you are expecting it to be followed. He or she may become angry due to the sense of obligation about following your prescription. It’s helpful in those moments if the person could say something like, “I may not end up doing this exactly, but I really appreciate what you are telling me. I will add it to all the other possibilities.” Even if the other person doesn’t actually make such a statement, you are wise to “hear” him or her saying it in your head, and for you to say the equivalent out loud as a reminder to you both.

No matter how perceptive and insightful your suggestions are, you can be most helpful when you are prepared that ultimately they may be completely disregarded, or only halfheartedly tried, or only partially taken. In the moment, the person may feel relief and gratitude to be presented with such a practical solution, only to later “forget,” or discover he or she simply is not ready to follow through. The other person’s achievement or lack of success is no reflection on you or your good advice. You are merely a signpost on the road, or maybe the current mode of transportation – the responsibility and motivation for problem solving lies within the person.