An Explanation of the Orders of Self

This narrative is intended to supplement a chart of the Orders of Self .

1. What is this tool for?

All growth happens from within. This is true whether we are talking about the transformation to butterfly that happens in the chrysalis or the ability to quit drinking on the part of the alcoholic. We don’t change because of what is around us but because of what happens within us. Yes, the larva needs the chrysalis and the alcoholic needs the AA group, the sponsor and the higher power. But all of those can be in place and still transformation does not occur.

If we are to grow, we must be able to go within our own experience and be Self conscious. This awareness of our own interior involves at least three sets of choices. One is that we get to decide what we will pay attention to, that is, the focus of our attention. Another is that we get to decide the place from which we will look at things. This is the locus of our identity. This is the eye from which I view what is going on with me. The third is the perspective or the lens through which are looking.  It is the paradigm or the cognitive map with which we make meaning about what we are seeing. 

The first five Disciplines, the Mindfulness Disciplines, are all about helping us focus our attention.  The second five disciplines, the Practical Disciplines, are all about what to do once we know what the problem is.  Most of the terms in the Glossary, the Distinctions, and the Other Maps have to do with perspectives or lens by which we can understand the meaning of what we are seeing.  This map, the Orders of Self, is all about where we are looking from.  It is about the locus of our identity.

Remember for a moment what your second grade classroom was like.

You probably haven’t thought about that room for a long time but you may be able to call it to mind and remember some things about it. You are able to focus your attention on something that had been filed away in your memory.

Now look at the perspective from which you are viewing the room. Do you look at it from the point of view of a second grader? Or do you look from the point of view of who you are now? There isn’t a right or wrong way, just different ways. We get to choose. This is the locus of your identity. Things look different depending on the point of view from which we view them.

There are many points of view from which we can look at what is going on both within and around us. There are many “selves” from which we can approach the circumstances of our lives. Everything that grows does so by progressing through stages of development. One of those things is the “Self.”

1. How does our understanding of the development through stages inform our understanding and use of Orders of Self?

Everything that grows does so by progressing through stages of development. When we look at the processes of growth we discover that growth happens simultaneously along many lines. That is, there are many developmental lines and they may each experience growth at different rates. As we observe these many lines we discover that there are some qualities and conditions that are true for all developmental lines. Here we want to look at just a few of them to get a general view before we move to look specifically at the Orders of Self.

1. Stages must be done in order and one can’t skip a stage, though stress may cause regression to an earlier stage.

Each stage of development has a particular task that it performs. That task must be completed to a minimum level of competency before the organism can move on to the next level. Each level prepares for the one to follow. An insect grows from egg to larva to pupa to adult. It can’t go from larva to adult. It can’t skip a step. Some development can be fragile enough to be undone by stress. Someone who is severely stressed by life circumstances may regress to an earlier level of ethical development. Many Americans, stressed by 9/11, became vengeful and reactive to all people of Arabic descent saying they were defending liberty. This was a regression to an earlier stage of development ethically.

1. Each stage transcends but includes the stages below it.

Each stage or level builds upon the stage below it. Thus each stage incorporates and draws from the tools and resources of the previous stages. To the degree that a stage abandons or repudiates an earlier stage, it weakens the capacities at that stage. This is a form of pathology.

Let’s look at this with a simple example from the work of Jean Piaget in the field of cognitive development. Suppose that there is a family in which there are two sons; Jack, who is five years old, and Jamie, who is three. The parents know about Jack that he will use his position to take advantage of Jamie so they have a rule that whenever there is something to be divided between the boys, one son makes the division and the other gets first choice.

Jack understands the rule and is willing to obey it but is not above trying to exploit the situation for his own gain. When it is a cookie to be divided, he has Jamie break it because he understands that cookies never break evenly and he will then be able to select the bigger piece. But when it comes to dividing the last of the juice, he is the one who pours.

He selects two different styles of glass to pour into. One is tall and thin and the other is short and squat. He carefully fills them to the same line and then puts the last few drops into the tall thin one so that it rises to a slightly higher line than the short squat one. Jamie then chooses the tall thin one and Jack is pleased with himself.

At five Jack understands something that Jamie doesn’t. He understands volume while Jamie has only just mastered length or distance. Jack can think in three dimensions while Jamie is still working with two. If Jack had not mastered two dimensional thinking he would not be able to understand volume and wouldn’t know that he was actually getting more juice even though it didn’t go as high in the glass.

1. Hierarchy of adequacy, not of value

Some people resist thinking in developmental terms because it appears to value some people over others. There is an important distinction to be made between the adequacy of the understanding and the value of the person who holds it.

Jack has a way of understanding that helps him know that amount is more dependent upon volume than on height. Jamie is going to figure this out in a few months and Jack will find himself holding the tall thin glass. Jack’s way of understanding is more adequate [for the moment] than is Jamie’s. This doesn’t mean that Jack is better than or has more value than Jamie.

1. What are the sources for Orders of Self?

I want to say a bit about how I came to discover the Orders of Self. The sources are important both because I want to acknowledge my debt to my teachers but also to give others a context in which to understand what I find so valuable here.

1. Ken Wilber

My greatest debt is to Ken Wilber both for the breadth of his map and for the specificity of it in its application to my own work. Anyone who is familiar with his AQAL framework will recognize many of its elements here. Anyone who is not familiar with his work can easily find excellent resources on-line. For those who would prefer to start with one of his many books, I would suggest either A Brief History of Everything, or A Theory of Everything, both from Shambhala.

1. Robert Kegan

A couple of years back I took Kegan’s In Over Our Heads: the Mental Demands of Modern Life with me on vacation. While not an easy read, I found it to be restorative in its own way as it gave me a refreshing new perspective on the work that I do with men who batter their adult partners. It was instructive both from its emphasis on the importance of understanding the dynamics of development through stages, but also from the specific stages of consciousness that it describes.

With regard to the dynamics of development: the most significant piece is the observation that it is by taking what is the subjective experience and making it the object of our observation that we are able to move to ever higher stages of development.

With regard to the stages themselves: the first four Orders are taken directly from Kegan’s work. It is only at the fifth order and above that I begin to depart from his schema.

1. Richard C. Schwartz

Dick Schwartz is the developer/discoverer of Internal Family Systems^sm therapy.

IFS is a framework for understanding the complexity of the human personality that has much in common with the techniques of Voice Dialogue, Focusing, Big Mind, and psychosynthesis. Of particular value theoretically is his distinction between the parts of the personality and the ways they are sometimes in conflict with each other and the Self which is to the parts as the conductor is to the orchestra. It is his influence more than others which has informed my understanding of the fifth and sixth orders.

1. An introductory look at the Orders

1. First Order [1°]1:

Our first apprehension of experience is the physical awareness of our sensory realm. We have the incessant input of our five senses giving us information about the world in which we find ourselves. This can be very pleasant and satisfying and this can be very hurtful and terrifying. We are our experience.

At 1° we are the construction of the physical experiences of our bodies. “I am cold. I am tired. I am rested. I am scared.” Whatever the experience I am having, that is what I am. As infants our only construction of Self is at 1°. We go from crabby to laughing to shy in moments. We are at the mercy of our experience.

1. Second Order [2°]:

We wish to have some control over our experience and we notice, for example, that when we bite on the blanket it feels different from biting on the thumb. We discover bit by bit that we can make choices and that the choices that we make affect the circumstances of our experience. We begin to gain mastery over the experience and we begin to identify ourselves differently.

At 2° I am not the experience itself, I am the one having the experience. I am the subject that can look at my experience as the object. I can make choices and those choices have an impact on my experience. I may be feeling tired but I know that when I have rested I will no longer feel tired. Feelings and experiences come and go, but who I am endures.

1. Third Order [3°]:

This mastery over my physical experience may also have some success in the realm of my relationships with others in that I can choose as friends those who are like me and so we can enjoy the same activities, but I find more and more that others make demands of me that I cannot escape. This may be a problem for me when I want dessert and my parents withhold it until I have eaten my peas, but it becomes more of a problem for me as I want greater and greater autonomy and my freedom to do as I wish is curtailed by the expectations of others.

At 3° I am the construction of the expectations of others. I have certain relationships in which I find myself and certain roles that I am expected to perform. If I want to play in the big game, the coach tells me I have to come to practice. If I want to be Pat’s boyfriend, I have to call him or her every night. If I want to get a paycheck from my job at Burger Doodle, I have to show up for work when it is my shift. I am my roles and my relationships. My identity comes from the community which tells me who I am.

1. Fourth Order [4°]:

Still, this community which is defining me is not of a piece. I am on the schedule at Burger Doodle for 3:00 and practice is at 4:30 and Pat is expecting a call and I have a paper due tomorrow. The demands of my life become complicated and conflicting. I try to be a person of integrity and consistency and to be all things to all people but I cannot meet everyone’s demands of me.

At 4° I decide that I will be who I decide I will be. I will enter into the relationships that I choose and be who and how I decide I will be. I am not ignoring the expectations of others or denying the impact that my choices have on them, but I am a construction of my own will. I am the author of my destiny.

1. Fifth Order [5°]:

Yet, I find that I do not always do what I decided I would do. I intended to get a good night’s sleep for the presentation tomorrow and here it is 2:00 AM and I am watching a bad movie that I have seen before. I mean to quit smoking and get exercise and have more patience with the kids. I find that I am not of one mind about who or how I want to be.

At 5° I discover that I am of many minds. I have many aspects and attitudes and abilities and recognize that they each may see the world and my place in it from a different perspective. Each aspect and perspective has its own validity and each brings something of value to my overall being.

1. Sixth Order [6°]:

But these aspects or parts are not always in agreement about what is in my best interest. Indeed, sometimes they are so polarized that they viciously attack each other, each insisting that it be the one that should be followed if my best interests are to be met. I realize that sometimes I am of one mind, and at other times am of another.

At 6° I am able to step back from these parts and relate to each of them with consideration and compassion and to appreciate what they each bring to my awareness and my competence. I then balance the needs and abilities of all of my parts as I choose how I will act. I draw from all of the experiences and lessons of my life, and, from the rich palette of my competencies, I paint the picture that is my life.

1. Seventh Order [7°]:

Yet I know that there are limitations to my palette. I have peculiar abilities and disabilities. I am my sex and my race and my nationality. I had no part in choosing these and I have no right to claim their privileges or any obligation to endure their injustices. I am a product of the rich diversity of the whole created order and am no different in substance from all other aspects of this marvelous and horrible cosmos.

At 7° I am one of the manifestations of the Ten Thousand Things. I am one with all of Creation in its marvelous complexity and beauty. I have deep compassion for the suffering of other beings just as I have delight in their beauty and joy in their fulfillment.

1. Eighth Order [8°]:

Still, for all of the complexity and diversity of creation, there is something about each manifestation that has a quality of sameness with every other manifestation. Each wave is the same wave. Each joy is the same joy and each joy is the compliment of the same sorrow. All awareness is the same quality of consciousness.

At 8° I am one who knows the unity of all things and I know that I am that unity, that One.

1. Some observations about the symmetry of the Orders
   1. Odd orders and even orders

The odd numbered orders are each constructed by the in-breaking of some circumstance that is externally constructed to the proximal self. In 1° it is the immediacy of physical reality, in 3° it is the demands of those around us constructing our roles and relationships, in 5° it is the emerging realization that I am not of one mind and I can’t seem to control my own interior conflicts and I can’t get me to do what I intend 2, and at 7° it is the realization that “who I am” is largely the construct of the circumstances of my being. I was dealt this hand. Now I have to figure out how to play it.

The even numbered orders are our attempt to gain mastery over the ways in which we appear to be helpless to construct ourselves and our own experience. At 2° I discover how my choices construct my experience; at 4° I discover how my choices construct my relationships and my roles; at 6° I discover how my choices mediate between my sometimes wounded parts and effect a healing that allows me to be fully integrated; and at 8° I discover how my choices in fact create the world in which “I” find myself.

1. Four domains

Each of these orders is paired into the four domains of the personal, the interpersonal, the intrapersonal, and the transpersonal.

1. The challenges that move us from one stage to the next
   1. From odd to even is the challenge of mastery of myself
   2. From even to odd is an intrusion of the awareness of demands or influences beyond my control

i. Personal: the demands of sensory awareness

ii. Interpersonal: the demands of the expectations of others

iii. Intrapersonal: the demands of my own multiplicity

iv. Transpersonal: the demands of the unique circumstances of my own life

1. Clarification of the difference between states and stages

We are all able to have an awareness of Self at all of the orders all of the time. Even a young child can know what her parents expect of her [3°], or have a sense of being very divided about what she wants [5°], and some children even have a sense of their lives having a purpose or a sense of destiny [7°]. That is, they are able to have an awareness of Self as a state of being at a given order. We all have moments of being able to access each of the orders as a state of being. What we are not able to do is to rest in all of the orders as a durable stage of development.[3]

For one to be able to reach a given order as a stage of development, one must first have resolved the issues of the previous order to a minimum level of adequacy. For example,

1. At 1°, one will have to be able to tolerate the influx of sensory experience enough to be able to step back from those experiences to see them as something happening to the Self, not an aspect of the Self itself.

2. At 2°, one must be able to have a sufficient sense of mastery over one’s own physical circumstances such that one can be aware of the expectations of others.

3. At 3°, one must be clear enough about what other’s expectations are that one can begin to choose which demands will be met and how one wants one’s role to be structured.

4. At 4°, one must have a sufficiently clear notion of how one wants to be in relationship to others to begin to notice that one is not being that way, that is, that there are parts of oneself that wish to be one way and parts that wish to be another way.

5. At 5°, one must have a sufficiently clear understanding of the various parts, aspects, attitudes and perspectives of which one is made to be able to begin to develop a mastery of those aspects and get them to a place of harmony and integration.

6. At 6°, one must…well…I’m not really sure. I am personally able to get to 6° for several minutes at a time on my best days. I suspect that I will have to be able to rest there more easily and that will mean having a clear sense of my own polarized parts, my roles and responsibilities, the expectations of others, my strategies for self care and self soothing, and be able to be fully present to my immediate experience.

1. Transformative technologies

Looking at the world through the lens of developmental lines can help to reveal what is happening under surface of the change that we hope to manifest in our lives and in the lives of others. It becomes very valuable to distinguish between simple change and actual transformation. Transformation requires a movement to a higher stage of development. This movement can be very difficult to attain and often involves pain and struggle.

In order to make the shift to a higher stage of development—in our case to a higher Order of Self—it is necessary to have a process or a technology that supports the transformation. There are many examples of technologies for transformation.

1. AA and Twelve-step: from 2° to 3°

Perhaps the best known and most widely used technology for personal transformation is that authored by Bill Wilson in the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12 Steps of AA has proven to be a very robust way for many people to make the transition from 2° to 3° in a durable manner.

The movement from 2° to 3° requires a willingness to let go of one’s own will and submit to the will of the others who make demands on our lives. We have to be willing to get up and go to work even when we don’t feel like it. Because of the spiral-like qualities of developmental lines, one level may often feel similar to another level. At both 2° and at 4° I get to decide how I am going to act. The difference is that at 4° I am taking into account the demands of 3°; i.e., how others expectations inform the relationship.

For some people, these demands prove to be too much. If I can’t please my boss or my wife, I might as well go get drunk. I do know how to make the choices that will change my experience in the moment. And if I like how getting drunk changes my experience, I may choose to escape.

The problem with this strategy is that it works…in the short run. But it makes things worse in the long run. I can have all sorts of insight into what is going on with me that I choose to drink and have a clear wish to quit drinking but if I get stressed out enough, I will turn to my old friend who helps me out. And then I feel better. And then I feel worse.

AA takes very seriously the developmental task of moving from 2° to 3°. First of all, I have to admit that I can’t do this on my own. I am powerless, there is a source that can save me, and I will turn my will over to that source. Then I must have a very clear sense of what is expected of me. I have to go to meetings, work the steps, and call my sponsor. There are clear demands on me and I am told who I am to be if I would experience the promises of sobriety.

1. Al-Anon and Landmark Education: from 3° to 4°

Similar to AA in many respects is the companion program Al-Anon. It is for those who are close to people in the grip of addiction and it is to help them end behaviors that are enabling for the addict and to do a better job of genuinely caring for themselves. The principal difference between AA and Al-Anon is that addicts are not able to be fully present at 3° and the co-addicts or co-dependants are overly attached to a 3° concept of who they are supposed to be for the other. They tend to be too willing to be who the addict tells them they are supposed to be and not sufficiently free to claim who they need to be for themselves [which would ultimately be of benefit to the addict].

There are also many for-profit training and education programs that promote technologies for transformation. One with which I am familiar is Landmark Education. It uses a fairly intense group process to confront attendees with ways that they are looking at their own lives and allowing their expectations to limit their own choices. By this process the participants are encouraged to envision themselves and their relationships in ways that are free of prior limitations.

1. Creative Conflict Resolution: from 2° to 3° to 4° to 5° to 6°

Psychotherapy generally can be understood to be a kind of technology for transformation. There are many roles that are constructed to support transformation including teachers, coaches, and pastors. Each has its own methodology for supporting transformation to a higher order.

Creative Conflict Resolution is a structured program using psychotherapeutic processes and principles for the purposes of affecting growth through stages of development. In particular it recognizes that the movement to a higher level on any developmental line is essentially a creative process of conflict resolution. There is something about the current perspective that isn’t working. The attention is focused on what isn’t working and on the outcome that one is trying to create and then one discovers a new way of being that is not centered on changing the other but on changing oneself.

1. Various meditation techniques: from 6° to 7° to 8°

There are a number of meditation techniques that one can use to affect a greater level of awareness at the seventh and eighth orders. These can build the capacity to witness one’s experience [valuable at any level], build compassion, and allow one’s awareness to rest in higher states of consciousness. I have experienced many of these techniques but I cannot claim any particular expertise in this area.

I only want to point out that the transformation that they support can be at a level above where many practitioners are starting out. I know of no evidence, for example, that Vipassana Meditation has been shown to be an effective intervention for chemical dependency. This is not to say that such techniques have no value in addressing 2° issues or that children cannot benefit from learning to meditate. Only that a more focused intervention that addresses the specific developmental needs is likely to be more helpful.

1. Some applications of the theory

I have found the Orders of Self to be a map that has many uses. I offer here just two applications that have come up recently and that show different aspects of its utility.

1. Over-protective parenting

I just came across a reprint of an article from Psychology Today about how parenting styles today are raising a nation of wimps. The assertion is that parents are too present in the lives of their kids in a manner that tries to protect their kids from any unpleasantness such that kids are soft and unprepared for life as adults. Setting aside for a moment the observation that many parents are clearly under-involved in their children’s lives, what can we say about the developmental effects of parents who shield their children from frustration?

At 1° we are subject to sometimes overwhelming sensory input. We must learn how to moderate and negotiate that input to be able to rise to a stable 2° sense of Self. At 3° we experience the demands of others on how we are to perform. We learn how to negotiate the stress and get the paper done on time and make it to practice and find someone else to take our shift at Burger Doodle. If someone else steps in and handles the stress for us, we learn two things. One, we learn that this is more than I should have to manage, and two, that it is more than I am able to manage. What we don’t learn is how to manage it. Thus, over-protective parenting causes developmental delays and can be crippling.

When seen from a developmental perspective it becomes clear that the parental task is not to shield children from stress but to expose them to frustration in doses that push them to do just more than they think they can do. We must do for our children what they cannot do for themselves, but we must also not do for them what they can become able to do for themselves.

1. A case example of therapy of a couple

A couple that I have had in therapy recently ended therapy feeling very satisfied with the current state of their marriage and the intimacy that they enjoy in it.

I first met with Frank fifteen months ago when he was referred by another client. He was almost ready to quit the marriage. Bouts of drinking, compulsive spending, and numerous affairs on the part of his wife, Judy, had Frank almost ready to give up. He felt she should be accountable for her behavior so he demanded that she write a letter to friends and family confessing her misdeeds. He had given her three months to get her act together or else he would boot her out. He wanted to be sure that he had done everything he could to restore the marriage.

Frank was using a 2° solution to a 3° problem. He didn’t like the agreement that they had about the nature of their relationship [Judy’s excesses] and so he was committed to making her be different. He had given her an ultimatum. Judy for her part was also using 2° strategies for changing her experience. Neither seemed able to move to a 4° perspective on the problem.

Over the course of last year each has taken the Building Healthy Relationships program to learn the techniques of Creative Conflict Resolution. After completing the first phase of the program they each participated in separate groups for several weeks and then we began to work with them together.

What we quickly[4] discovered was that each was being a really good screen on which they could project their own fears. On Frank’s part, he has as a core issue a fear of being hurt. He is hurt when Judy acts out. On Judy’s part, she has a core issue of being found to be unacceptable. She feels rejected when Frank is angry at her financial or lifestyle choices. So the pattern in their relationship has been that he gets scared and tells her that she is unacceptable. She in turn feels the rejection and acts out in ways that scare him. Each thus is creating a relationship that is very different from what they both want.

On the other hand Judy can fully appreciate how much her behavior is devastating to Frank and she really wants to change it. Frank is able to see how his criticism of Judy is wounding to her and he wants to be more supportive.

In sessions together each addressed recent conflicts in their relationship in which they were triggered by the other’s behavior. Frank was able to witness Judy’s internal conflicts [5°] over her decision to spend money on a trip with her daughter and thus he was able to learn how this was not personal [2°] and to let go of seeing it as a violation of their agreement about money [3°] and instead to be able to be supportive of her [4°].

Judy was able to witness Frank’s internal conflicts [5°] over her decision as a repetition of his relationship with his mother that he had to care for and to see how this was not personal [2°] and to let go of seeing it as a rejection of his relationship with her [3°] and instead to be able to be supportive of him [4°].

Thus by being able to both access 5° and to witness each other at that Order of Self they were able to move to a stable 4° that allowed them to transcend the mess that they had made at 2° and 3°. They are both appropriately cautious about their ability to sustain this transformation, but they also know they know how to repair the relationship should it get damaged again.

[A note to IFS^sm practitioners: You will note that the movement to 5° is another way of saying that the person is developing an awareness of their parts. This awareness at 5° allows for a more durable presence at 4° and thus more stable relationships with others. I am with Mike Elkin here that we may not actually need the presence of Self in the IFS use of that term (that is, we may not need to be able construct our awareness of Self at the 6°) but may only need a reasonably competent manager (that is a part of one’s self at 4° that can reliably hold the reins).][5]

1. Last thoughts

I have found the Orders of Self to be a very useful model for understanding how we move from one sense we may have of ourselves to another as we develop through ever more complex and adequate perspectives on who we are. It provides a framework for seeing where we are coming from and for guiding the processes of transformation in ourselves and in others.

A map must accurately describe the territory if it is going to be useful. It is especially helpful if it is one that can be easily brought to mind. I find this map to be simple enough to remember yet complex enough to be helpful in negotiating some vitally important terrain. It has application for personal development, conflict resolution, communication practice and theory, and for psychotherapy.

In the chart of the Orders of Self I have listed some aspects of life and how they appear differently at different orders. For example; in the column on good and bad I have charted how these concepts are likely to appear to someone at each stage of development. These are meant to be suggestive of how the Orders can inform how we look at things and, conversely, help to determine the Order from which someone may be operating.

I welcome your questions and comments.

Mark Lee Robinson, D. Min, A.A.P.C.

Center for Creative Conflict Resolution

6454 Alamo Ave

St. Louis, MO 63105

314-863-2363

MLRobinson@charter.net

---

[1] As a short hand I will use the notation 1° to refer to the First Order of Self, and so on.

[2] While these aspects appear internal, they are “externally constructed” in that they are the product of life experiences, most of which are from outside the realm of our choices.

[3] I am using the term state in just the way that Wilber uses it, but Wilber speaks of structures where I use the term orders, and Wilber sometimes uses levels when I use the term stages. Beyond this difference in terminology I am pretty sure that we are talking about the same thing.

[4] Frankly, it was more quickly than usual. But then, don’t we always write about our successes more than our failures?

[5] I recently asked Mike about this quote. He clarified that he was only talking about working with phobias when he made this comment. Nevertheless, I stand by the assertion that we only need to have a 4° manager available to do parts work.

Creative Conflict Resolution for Faith Communities

The principles of Creative Conflict Resolution are applicable to relationships of all types and sizes. We generally teach the principles in the context of a primary intimate relationship like a marriage for two reasons.

1. Because the concepts appear simpler in a dyad, and
2. That is the context of greatest concern to most of the folks who elect to learn about Creative Conflict Resolution.

But the concepts apply to all kinds of relationships. They are just more complicated when it comes to groups.

Take for example the relationship between a pastor and a congregation. In many ways, this relationship is like a marriage. There are issues around making clear agreements and keeping confidences and remaining faithful. But while a spouse is only negotiating with a single other, the pastor has to work this out with each member of the congregation and with the help or hindrance of various groups, boards and committees. And there are ways that the relationship is very different from a marriage. We don’t expect a pastorate to last “’til death do us part.”

There are many types and intensities of relationships within any community of faith. And the nature of the mission of the community suggests that it should be unified in attitude and action. Thus, we tend to think that there shouldn’t be conflicts. This isn’t a reasonable or prudent assumption.

Consider:

· We all experience conflicts in our lives. No one is conflict free though some are in a state of denial about conflict.

· Our biggest most meaningful conflicts tend to be in the relationships we have with those we are closest to. The more intimate the relationship, the more compelling the conflicts.

· When we are able to name, address, and resolve conflicts we find that we have strengthened the relationship in which the conflict appeared. Resolving conflict builds stronger relationships.

Thus it is to be expected that in the intimacy of a faith community compelling conflicts will appear. Faithfulness is to be measured not in the absence of conflict but in the presence of conflict well resolved.

Launch of the new site

I had set as my goal the launch of a new web site for the Center for Creative Conflict Resolution during the month of May.  At times it looked like I wasn’t going to make it, but I am ready to go public. 

There are actually five inter-related sites.  One is the main site for the Center.  The others are for the book, Just Conflict; for the Building Healthy Relationships program, for Parenting Post Divorce, and for Organizational Consulting.  They are not all finished by a long shot, but I have enough of the navigation together to let the public see them and trust that they won’t get lost.

So the sites are:

• Main Site for CCCR
• Building Healthy Relationships
• Parenting Post Divorce
• Just Conflict [which has its own URL, http://JustConflict.com], and
• Organizational Development.

There is also a site for me personally on Netcipia.

Using Discipline #5 – Who holds the tool?

I want to try to look more closely at what is going on with us when we have an impulse to do things which are not in our own long term best interest and we can’t seem to stem the self harming behavior. While this may apply to dramatically self-harming behavior like cutting, it is pretty much true for all of us that there are things we do we wish we didn’t do or things we don’t do we wish we did. These can be things like;

• I eat when I’m not hungry.
• I smoke cigarettes even when I know how harmful they are to me.
• I criticize myself mercilessly when I make small and insignificant mistakes.
• I don’t check my bank balance when I am afraid I may bounce a check.

These all have in common that;

1. I Observe that I am failing to act in a way that is in my best interest,
2. Determine for myself what a better course of action would be a resolve to behave that way,
3. And then don’t.

What we typically do then is to try to summon enough “will power” to make ourselves do what we resist doing, or to stop ourselves from being so “impulsive.” This sometimes works, but typically it is not effective for the biggest issues in our lives. So let’s look more closely at how we might map this out with the use of a Fifth Order perspective of Self.

One part of me is the part which observes the behavior which it labels as impulsive and harmful and it resolves to try to stop that behavior. This part is a manager which is trying to do what it believes is in my best interest. This part will notice when I am about to eat something which is not nutritious or at a time when I am already well fed. It will see me reaching for a cigarette or criticizing myself. It will wonder about my bank balance and resolve to check it. This is a part that easily comes into my conscious awareness.

There is another part of me which is eating junk food when I am already full, lighting cigarettes, belittling me, or “forgetting” to check my bank balance. This aspect of my interior being is much harder to find. But at least I know where to find it. It will show up when I am around food, cigarettes, mistakes, and whenever I resolve to call the bank. So I can wait to ambush it.

Even if I can get hold of that part…what do I do with it? I had a client many years ago who told a whole series of sayings about relating to pigs. One I remember well was, “Never try to wrestle with a pig. You will both get dirty…and the pig will enjoy it.” I have come to think of the activity of finding the impulsive part and wrestling it into submission as a kind of pig wrestling. I may be able to dominate the pig in the short run, but it will come to the fore sooner or later. These impulsive parts can paradoxically be very patient.

There is another part, a third part of us, which is often very subtle, almost as though it were hiding in the shadows, which plays an important role in this internal drama. It is the part which gives permission and encouragement to the impulsive part.

As we get more and more parts into play here it will help to give them names so we can keep straight which one we are talking about. It is always a bit problematic to name parts which are conflicted because the names they give themselves are often very different from the names the other parts give them. So let’s try to not be too distracted by the names I will give them. I will refer to the part which sees the behavior as harmful and tries to alter it as the Manager. And I will refer to the impulsive part as the Pig. And the one who gives encouragement and permission to the Pig as the Coach.

When we first get a sense of the Coach it may appear to just be an aspect of the Pig itself, but as we watch for it we generally discover that the Pig is just an appetite of some kind, not generally very mature, but the Coach can be quite alert and even compassionate. It may say, “Wow, you are really stressed! You should take care of yourself. How about a cigarette?” Or it may say, “If you check your bank balance you are just going to get alarmed and it isn’t like there is anything you can do about it. Just forget it.”

The Coach is aware of things we need which are not so immediately apparent. If we could be more conscious of those needs we could then find ways to act to meet those needs in a more robust way. Cigarettes may ease the symptoms of the stress, but if we knew what was causing the stress, and put the energy into addressing the stressors, then we wouldn’t feel the need to smoke. So we would do well to be able to hear from the Coach about what the Coach knows about our more subtle needs.

The Coach stays in the shadows. The Coach is not likely to just come forward and tell all. The Coach has seen the way Manager relates to Pig and, while Pig is resilient and even enjoys a good fight, the Coach doesn’t want to be vulnerable to getting pummeled by the Manager. Coach would have to know that Manager was genuinely curious about what Coach knows and would respect that Coach is also trying to act in a manner that is best for the whole system.

To Manager, Coach is a shadowy figure that is inciting harmful behavior. Coach is responsible for great harm and must be rooted out and exiled from the system. Manager isn’t likely to sit down for tea with Coach. Manager will have to become able to see that Coach is actually a potential ally and that, if they can learn to work together, they can both promote the wellbeing of the whole internal system.

Manager is trying to stop Pig from digging up the vegetable garden and sees Coach as opening the gate. Coach sees Manager as trying to starve Pig and is just trying to get Pig what it needs. The wellbeing of the whole garden will depend on Manager and Coach working together to protect the plants while keeping Pig fed. Who can help Manager and Coach learn to work together? That would be the Self at Sixth Order.

The Sixth Order Self is able to step back from all of the parts and observe them as equal partners in constructing our awareness and our capacities to respond to various circumstances. Indeed, it is this stepping back and observing which constructs the Sixth Order awareness. And it is from this perspective that the healing can occur.

When we use Discipline #5 to address our needs for Self-Care, it is essential that we let the Sixth Order Self hold the tool and not let the Manager have control of it. Manager will be tempted to use it to put a harness on Pig and drive Coach further into the shadows. But Self will use it to acknowledge Manager and appreciate Manager’s wisdom and care for the system, will observe Pig’s appetites and be curious with Coach about what it is that Coach sees as the deeper needs which must be addressed to find a fuller sense of wellbeing.

A Consideration of Creative Conflict Resolution and Nonviolence

In January of 2008 I taught a class on conflict in faith communities at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis. The Class included the principles of Creative Conflict Resolution and also introduced Marshall Rosenberg’s Non-violent Communication. We were privileged to have Jeff Brown, a certified trainer in NVC conduct a portion of the class.

Following the training in NVC and the introduction of the notion of growth through development and especially the growth of our own identity through the Orders of Self, a conflict arose between one of the students and me about the efficacy of nonviolence as a tool for transformation in systems that are dominated by a powerful evil. The consideration centered around the question of whether an organized nonviolent resistance to the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 30’s would have shortened the war and reduced the carnage, particularly to Jews, gypsies, and gays.

Of course, we cannot actually know the answer to this question. Time only moves in one direction. But a careful consideration of such circumstances does allow us to clarify our cognitive maps such that we can act more effectively in the future.

There are several aspects of our map that we can refine with this exploration. The ones that rise to the surface for me include:

· What is evil?

· What does it mean for a strategy to work? What are we using to gauge effectiveness?

and

· What characterizes nonviolence generally and nonviolent resistance particularly?

What is Evil?

This is the central question and as such seems to me to be the place to start. As I have already suggested, it seems to me that evil appears differently to us depending on the perspective from which we approach it. It is not that one perspective is better or more correct than another, but that anything can be appropriately viewed from multiple perspectives and, the more perspectives we bring, the more fully we can appreciate what we are considering (as with the blind men and the elephant).

Let me just also add here that I see evil as the extreme end of a continuum of good and bad. There is no such thing as pure evil. There is no such thing a pure good. All events have consequences and even our best intentions have unintended consequences. We can for the purposes of faith posit that Christ embodies pure good and Satan is the embodiment of pure evil, but in the activities of our lives we experience good and evil in shades of gray.

A framework for describing multiple perspectives that I find to be especially useful for this sort of thing is the Orders of Self. Remember that all orders exist all the time for all people, even though we are not all able to observe from those perspectives at any given moment.

First Order

At First Order we are constructed by our experience. Our challenge is to be both fully aware of our physical existence and to not be overwhelmed by the realities of it. When the current reality is painful for us —that is when we experience hurt from not getting what we think is best for us—we see the source of that pain as bad or evil. When Joe doesn’t let Jack and Jesse play their video games, they see him as mean Perhaps “evil” is too strong a word for this context, but he is appearing to them as a bad guy because they are not getting what they want.

Second Order

At Second Order we are the ones who are constructing our own experience. It is our own choices that make us good or bad. If I act in ways that are immediately satisfying to me, it was a good choice. If I act in ways that harm me or cost me what I need, it was a bad choice. If I made a bad choice, then I am bad. We rarely define ourselves as so bad that we would use the term evil, but I have heard my clients from time to time say about themselves, “I am just evil.” At Second Order someone who makes bad choices is bad. Someone who makes good choices is good.

Third Order

Usually, however, we reserve the use of the term evil to refer to those whose acts cause harm to others. At Third Order we begin to move from an ego-centric to an ethno-centric framework. We are able to appreciate the relationships we build with others and to feel an obligation to the security and satisfaction those relationships create for them as well as ourselves. We learn to respond to the requirements of the community and to act with “honor.” When we are able to do so, we are good. When we fail to do so, we are bad. The same is true for others. When someone fails to meet the clear and universal standards for “how we behave,” they are bad or evil.

Fourth Order

Fourth Order is the source for the standards that we meet (or fail to meet) at Third Order. At Fourth Order, there are principles that define the good. Truth, Justice, and the American Way are Fourth Order ideals. When the ideals are consistent with the culture with which we identify, then they are good. When they appear to be at odds with “our” values, they are bad. We believe in Democracy. Those who don’t aspire to democratic ideals are making a bad choice. If the stress of the current situation causes us to regress to Second Order we may label them as the “evildoers.” But Fourth Order is more about good or bad values and ideals than about good and bad people.

Fifth Order

At Fifth Order we are beginning to appreciate the complexity and the paradoxical qualities of ethical considerations. We are beginning to be able to see that there are sometimes negative consequences even to choices made with the best of intentions. We recognize, first of all within ourselves, that sometimes a choice which is meant for good, does harm. We begin to recognize that all choices are made from a perspective from which the choice appears good, in so far as it was designed to meet a need of the person or party making the choice. What makes it bad is that it failed to take into account other consequences outside the sphere of its awareness and concern. This is the beginning of a world-centric perspective.

Sixth Order

The Fifth Order awareness that harm is caused by the failure to take all consequences into account, pushes for a Sixth Order capacity to hold all choices and consequences in a mutual embrace. Thus good at Sixth Order is just that capacity. Evil is the failure to take into account all of the choices and all of their consequences in a manner that maximizes the welfare of all.

Seventh Order

Even though we may personally be able to hold all people and choices in a loving embrace hich values and supports the welfare of all, there are some who are not able to do that. There are some who cannot see how their best intentions are creating harm to others. At Seventh Order we move to a cosmos-centric perspective that recognizes that the harm that others do is a reflection of their own suffering at not being able to create the welfare of themselves and others. Our response is thus to reach out in compassion to all, and not only to those who are seen as the victims, but especially to those who are labeled as the perpetrators. Good and Evil are labels that others use to make sense of suffering that is a consequence of the limitations of their perspective. It is not that good and evil don’t exist, but that they exist as categories, not as true qualities.

Eighth Order

This cosmos-centric perspective expands from concern for others to identification with others. I am not simply like them. I am them, and they are me and we are all not many but one.

What does it mean for a strategy to work? What are we using to gauge effectiveness?

Just as the categories of good and evil appear differently from different perspectives, so does the question of effectiveness. What it means to be effective is different at different orders. In general, the odd numbered orders are ones in which we are constructed by circumstances beyond our control. Nevertheless, our choices and abilities matter.

At First Order we struggle to be aware without being overwhelmed by our awareness. A First Order strategy is effective to the degree to which it helps us both know what is going on and allows us to maintain a level of equanimity with whatever is going on.

At Third Order we struggle to know what it is that others expect of us and to be able to do whatever we are called upon to do. A Third Order strategy is effective to the degree to which it takes into account the expectations of others and supports us in meeting those expectations.

At Fifth Order we struggle to know our own complexity, and by extension, the complexity of others. A Fifth Order strategy is effective to the degree to which it helps us become aware of our own multiplicity and to take into account the polarizations between our parts and the interactions between the parts of ourselves and the parts of others.

At Seventh Order we struggle to be fully aware of the complexity of the whole creation and to be present in a way that honors that complexity. The effectiveness of a Seventh Order strategy is the degree to which it allows us to have deep compassion for all beings.

In short, the effectiveness of any strategy at an odd numbered order is its capacity to support our being both bonded and bounded: both connected to our experience, to others, and to our own multiplicity and creation; and to maintain our own integrity in the process.

In the even numbered orders we are supported to recognize our capacity to create our own experience and the experience of others.

At Second Order we create our own immediate experience. We tie our shoes, we build bridges, we fight wars. We make choices and if the choices create our vision, then the strategies were effective. In the doing cycle (what is my current experience, what do I want to have happen, how can I make it happen), effectiveness is measured by how well the what I did created the what I wanted in terms of my immediate experience. Second Order strategies tend to be immediate (I want it now) and they tend to be dependent upon changing others.

At Fourth Order we are also being creative and experiencing a level of mastery. But the arena of our effort is not simply our immediate personal experience, but the creation of relationships which are embodiments of our ideals. (Is this a relationship which as characterized by trust?) A strategy is effective to the degree to which it moves the relationship toward the desired quality or ideal.

At Sixth Order mastery comes from how well we are able to act in ways that support the varied needs of the many aspects of ourselves. How well can we hold in tension the apparently contradictory concerns and perspectives and act in ways that fully meet all of the needs of all of the parts?

At Eighth Order mastery comes from a manner of being rather than of doing. To achieve mastery at Eighth Order I have to be able to identify with all, not just with what is physically like my particular physical manifestation.

Thus the even numbered orders invite strategies that range along the continuum from doing to being. They are measured as effective to the degree to which they create the immediate experience, the ideals, the harmony, and the identity appropriate to the circumstance.

What characterizes nonviolence generally and nonviolent resistance particularly?

Nonviolence is a philosophy (and the strategies that derive from that philosophy) that exists as a distinction from both violence and passivity. It observes the destruction that comes from violent and passive strategies and rejects them both.

Nonviolence assumes the presence of oppression and structures by which the oppression is created and maintained. It seeks to dismantle systems of oppression. It assumes that the oppressed will be far more interested in working to dismantle the structures of oppression and so tends to be more easily allied with the oppressed, but it also sees the oppressor as one who is harmed by the oppressive systems. This harm is much less evident, therefore oppressors are not likely to be interested in changing the system, but rather will work very hard to sustain the system.

Nonviolence sees the system as the problem, not the people in it. It thus seeks to transform the system. It does so by recognizing that the system exists only because the people continue to serve it. The system collapses, or at least changes, when those supporting it decide together to transform it.

For people to be willing to experience the stress of change, they will have to hold to a vision of a way of being that is clearly better than the current system. This perspective will have to be from a developmental level above the current one for it to be seen as more effective (though those who are entitled or privileged by the current system won’t like it in any case.)

Thus the nature of nonviolent resistance is to organize those who are oppressed by a system to act in a manner that is both not cooperating with the assumptions and activities of the oppressive system, and which embodies a vision of community that is more developed, and thus more complex, than the oppressive one.

So, could organized nonviolent action against the Nazis be seen to have been effective?

There are three things that I want to hold in the front of our awareness as I step into this.

One, the reason for this exploration is to see what we can learn about how effective we imagine nonviolence to be in addressing great evil. We are choosing the Nazis as the source and the Holocaust as the occasion because this is so widely understood to be a classic example of great evil (Holocaust deniers notwithstanding).

Two, any time we talk about what might have been different when we are talking about a circumstance in which one person or party is oppressed or victimized by another, we can be guilty of victim-blaming. It is always possible that things could have been different, if only… Nevertheless, there are good reasons why things were the way they were. European Jewry did not first experience discrimination and hatred and oppression at the hands of the National Socialist Party. Indeed, there was no action taken by the Nazis against the Jews that had not been done before to their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, short of the death camps themselves. So the gravity of the threat posed by the Nazis was somewhat like that of the frog who is placed in cool water with a fire under it. At what point does the frog decide that it is too hot and so jumps out?

Three, there were organized nonviolent actions against the Nazis. There were many individuals, some acting in concert with others, who opposed through noncooperation the activities and policies of the Nazis. The story told in the movie Schindler’s List is an example. The widespread wearing of the Star of David by the Dutch is another. There was a small movement in Germany which came to be known as the Confessing Church. Its leaders included Martin Neimoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and hanged for his protests again the Nazi regime.

Still, if we allow ourselves to speculate what it might have been like if there could have been more widespread nonviolent action to refuse cooperation with the Nazis, what do we find. Suppose, for example, that many many more non-Jews chose to wear the star. Or that many more churches and church leaders spoke out against anti-Semitism. Suppose that Jews refused to move from their homes and into the ghettos, or refused to get onto the trains. Suppose that everyone talked freely and openly about what they knew about what was happening in the camps so that the whole world was aware that genocide was occurring. Would that have made a difference? Were there those who only went along because there seemed to be no alternative who, seeing an alternative, would have also chosen noncooperation?

Nonviolence is about recognizing that the “logic” of the oppressive system is actually not what it appears to be. The glass which has the juice rising higher is not actually the glass with the most juice. There is another choice that works better…for everyone. Having recognized a better way, nonviolence then engages many people in taking a small step, a step that can easily be taken, but one which challenges the logic of the dominant system. The Montgomery bus boycott was about simply not taking the bus: a simple step that worked only because so many were willing to take it.

Nonviolence is not immediately effective in a First Order sense. If I refuse to get on the train and they shoot me, I am just as dead as if I went to the camp.

Nonviolence is not effective as a Second Order intervention. They have more power and I am not going to change them.

Nonviolence says to the Third Order forces that tell me who and how I am to be that I am not going to be their way. That makes me appear to defy convention to those who are operating at Third Order. That allows them to demean and dismiss me.

It is not until we get to Fourth Order that nonviolence begins to appear as effective. Nonviolence depends on finding others who are observing from a Fourth Order perspective that there is another way of structuring relationships and society. This new way is going to work better for all. And these others, these comrades, share a faith in that vision such that they are willing to live into it in a manner that challenges the Third Order assumptions. These are those we join with to live in the realm that is already but not yet.

To be able to act in concert with others in a nonviolent way, we must address our Fifth Order multiplicity and to know our parts that would seek to impose our Second Order will on others and have those aspects of who we are recede. We have to let go of the parts that want to be right and the parts that want to get even and just rest in the knowledge of our own complexity and complicity and be accepting.

When we can see from Sixth Order a way that all may be together in a manner that is best for all, with a Seventh Order compassion and perhaps even an Eighth Order capacity to identify with those who see us as enemies; then we can reliably let go of any attachment to the outcome and simply trust in the manifestation of Truth in our lives.

Language of Complaint

For us to construct healthy and just relationships we will have to be able to offer feedback to the other when things are not safe or satisfying for us. This is both essential and difficult. There are several things which are in the way of openness to feedback, but one of them is the manner in which we give and receive feedback. Most of us are uncomfortable with the way this happens, so let me suggest some guidelines. When we give feedback we can be offering a concern, criticism, contempt or control. When we receive feedback we can hear is as an expression of domination, contempt, criticism of our choices, or a comment on the quality of our relationship. Let’s take a closer look.

Concerns are statements that focus on the qualities which are arising in the relationship which we don’t like or find harmful. “When you promise to take out the trash and then don’t do so, it makes it hard for me to trust you and I don’t feel supported in caring for this household.”

Criticisms are statements that focus on the choices the other is making which we don’t like. “When you don’t take out the trash as you said you would you are being selfish and lazy.”

Contempt shows up when our statements are focused on who the other is… on the nature of their being. “You are a selfish, lazy bum who won’t even take out the trash.”

Control may come by speaking to others in a manner which indicates that we believe we have the right to control their actions but it may also be expressed through our physical reactions to them through pushing, pulling, or even striking them. Our focus is on what the other must do to meet our demands. “Take this out now,” we growl, as we thrust the trash into the other’s face.

It is most helpful when others offer critical feedback in the form of concerns which focus on the qualities in the relationship, or perhaps as criticisms which identify specifically what we are doing which is troublesome for them, but sometimes their anger gets the best of them. When they do, we may hear them speaking to us with contempt or attempting to control us. Rather than react back and enter into a fight, we will be more likely to construct what we need if we can translate the feedback into a concern before we respond. I suspect this is something we can all use some work on.

This theory grows directly from the work of Dr. John Gottman

Conflict around abortion rights

In the spring of 2009, an organization based in St. Louis which supports a woman’s right to make reproductive choices and which does so on the basis of religious convictions, held its annual banquet and awards dinner at a local banquet facility. The event was picketed by people who oppose the legal option of abortion. Two weeks after the banquet, the director of the organization notified attendees of the banquet by letter that the picketers had prevailed in their campaign limit the group’s use of that banquet center. They had flooded the owner of the banquet hall with email and postal mail urging him to bar the organization in the future.

The banquet hall is owned by a family which has determined that because of its position on the legal option of abortion—they oppose it—organizations which support abortion rights will not be able to use their facilities in the future. This decision was communicated separately to the pro-life organization and to the pro-choice organization. The director of the banned organization urged its supporters to contact the owner of the banquet hall to express disappointment and to promise to boycott his establishment and to make an example of him so that other businesses would not follow suit.

The core conflict is over the presence in our community of legal and medically provided options for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy. There are many perspectives on this option and very strong feelings about it. Thus there is a high intensity of conflict. It is not likely that any of the parties involved are going to stop caring so much. Similarly, it is not likely that any of the parties, especially those organizations which claim concern about this issue as a major reason for being, are going to change their perspective. So this appears to be an intractable conflict. One of the few things that the opposing perspectives agree on is that they see no reason to talk to each other.

The mediator to the conflict then becomes anyone who tries to relate to both parties, even if the context has nothing to do with the issue. In this case the family which owns the banquet hall is trying to do business and thus trying to maintain a good image in the community. Since the parties in conflict won’t talk to each other, they both try to exert influence on the mediator…the business owner.

The parties make it clear to the owner that he must make a choice, “It is either them or us.”

With this binary choice we can be assured that one of the parties will win by making the other lose and it is the owner who gets to decide the winner. When the pro-life people won this round, the pro-choice people determined to pressure the business owner for fear that others might follow suit if they thought they could do so without losing business.

So we have an issue which is a rich source of conflict between parties who have agreed not to address the issues directly with each other but to appeal to others to join their side and thus gain greater power over others. When they are forced to engage, they do so indirectly by making someone else into a mediator and lobby the mediator to make the other lose.

This is not a particularly mature way of addressing conflict. This is much like a couple of kids fighting over a toy and insisting that mom settle things for them.

President Obama has consistently responded to questions put to him about access to abortion that, while he supports a woman’s right to choose, he would prefer that the debate move to things we mostly agree on as related problems; like the incidence of un-wanted pregnancies. He points out that if we could all work together on reducing unwanted pregnancies we would be supporting the goals of both parties.

As this is one of those conflicts which I often hear people assert are impossible to resolve, let’s look at some of what it would take for us to begin to name, address, and resolve some aspects of this issue.

In order to do this we would have to shift several things in the relationship of pro-choice and pro-life camps. Assuming that representatives of both parties became convinced that some form of resolution was desirable, what would it take to begin to even have the conversation?

· Each party would have to be able to respect the integrity of the other position.

· Both parties would have to come to clarity about what the issue is that they are both concerned about.

· Each party would have to be able to speak about the issue from a place of consideration of the core values and qualities each holds to and to be able to hear as valid for them the values and qualities expressed by the other.

There are some other things the process would require, but these three seem to me to be the big ones. Let me say just a bit more about each of them.

Respecting the integrity of the other: Constructing a conversation between the parties which is direct and constructive would have to start with the recognition that there is already a conversation going on. It is just one which is indirect and destructive. We don’t talk to each other, and we communicate by trying to make each other lose.

Remember that there are many ways we can complain about others. We can express a concern about some quality which is arising in our relationship with the other. We can express a criticism of some particular choice the other is making. We can express contempt for who the other is. Or we can attempt to express control over what the other does because their integrity has no value for us. As the level of conflict intensity grows and the maturity each party recedes we tend to see the language of complaint go from concern to criticism to contempt to control. This is certainly what we are seeing in this conflict over the use of the banquet facilities. Each is trying to exert control over the use of the banquet facilities by lobbying the owner.

For us to even have this conversation, both parties would have to be willing to engage each other from at least the level of criticism or concern. Neither contempt nor control will be constructive.

Clarity about the issue: For us to address an issue constructively, we have to be addressing the same issue. That means we have to name the issue in a manner that the other party recognizes it as the issue they are also addressing. For each party to be able to do this they will each have to know the difference between what is happening and what it means to them that this is happening. This is our second crucial distinction; what happens from what it means to me when this happens.

This is a central barrier to resolution of this conflict. Each side frames the issue from a perspective which the other denies. We can see an example of this in a description of the banquet in the blog “Saint Louis Catholic.”

The banquet was organized by pro-abortion activists to "honor" representatives from Planned Parenthood and current and former legislators for their support of the abortion industry.

Those organizing the banquet would point out that they are not pro-abortion but pro-choice, they are not representing Planned Parenthood but an affiliated group, and the “honor” is not for support of the abortion industry, but for a woman’s right to choose. They are not each speaking about the same events; rather they are each speaking about what each makes the events mean. They are not starting on the same page.

Speaking to and hearing from the other: Assuming for the moment that representatives of both sides had such a strong commitment to working toward the resolution of this conflict that they were willing to respect each other enough to talk respectfully, and assuming they could frame the issues in such a way that they could agree that they were talking about the same things, then we would be in a place to do the really hard work of telling our own story and hearing the story of the other. This requires that representatives of both sides of the conflict be able to come together with each having sufficient measure of five core competencies. Each must know how they are affected by the issue, be able to talk about how they are affected, and find it safe to do so. They will have to be able to contain their own anxiety as they listen to a perspective very different from their own, and they will have to be able to reflect back to the other what the other’s perspective is so well that each feels fully heard by the other. Again, let’s explore these five around this issue.

Each is able to know how they are being affected: This is particularly hard to do because of the depth of feelings this issue evokes. For protection we tend to focus outside of ourselves rather than to speak personally about how we are protected. We talk about the effect on the fetus, on God, on women, on society, much more easily than we talk about how we are each affected ourselves. This capacity to go into our own experience is the ability to make the distinction I call the distinction between Cause and Effect and is one of the Five Crucial Distinctions. It is knowing that the external cause is not the same as the internal effect.

I have a close friend whose birth mother didn’t know she was pregnant until she was past seven months. She wanted an abortion but it was too late. He knows that, had abortion an option for his mother, he would not have been born. His support for a woman’s right to choose is thus in conflict with his wish to live. Being able to identify and address these internal conflicts is essential to understanding our own reasons for adopting any given perspective and to being able to articulate this perspective to another.

When a person who is pro-life holds to that position because “it is God’s will,” the questions remain as to how one knows the will of God, what pushes one to that particular interpretation of the will of God, and how that interpretation is reconciled with the fact that God has given us the freedom to make our own choices? As long as the focus is on the cause (because God said so) we don’t get to the effect this cause has on the person holding the position.

Each is able to speak to how they are affected: Knowing how something affects one is not the same as being able to speak clearly about that effect. My friend whose mother wanted an abortion worked for many years to be able to find the words to talk about his feelings in a way that even made sense to him, much less to others. Talking about our innermost feelings is not something we do easily or often and thus we are not particularly good at it.

Each is safe expressing how they are affected: Knowing how I am affected and having a language for expressing the effect are for naught if I don’t feel safe letting others know what is going on with me. We will have to be able to carefully construct the relationship so there is sufficient trust that we can let others know us without the fear that what we have told them about us will be used against us. We will have to trust that we know how to care for ourselves if we discover that we are not safe.

This is a huge issue in conversations between highly polarized parties. How can we make it safe enough to even talk to each other, much less to talk about things which are very personal to who we are? Instead we tend to talk about who we imagine the other to be in ways that the other doesn’t see as accurate. The intensity of the conflict creates such a high level of anxiety that it becomes hard to bring our best selves to the table.

Each is able to modulate their own anxiety of while attending to the perspective of the other: When I am listening to someone speak about their perspective about something dear to me and their perspective is very different from my own, I will become anxious. If I am sufficiently anxious it will be very hard for me to continue to listen attentively and respectfully. We find ourselves interrupting and arguing with the other instead of remaining curious about their perspective and how the issues are affecting them.

This is the very thing we are most afraid of in a highly conflicted relationship. We are afraid of the other’s reaction and we are afraid of our own. We have trouble trusting that we are each going to be able to maintain our equanimity in the face of someone who is espousing a position we find troubling at the very least. In this instance the polarized parties sometimes see each other as criminal and dangerous.

Each is able to reflect back the perspective and affects of the other such that the other feels fully heard: If we are able to remain calm and attentive then we may have been able to hear the other’s truth with sufficient clarity that we can paraphrase back to them what they have given us such that they are then able to know that we know what their perspective is and why it is valid for them. It is not necessary that we take on the perspective, only that we be able to see why the perspective is valid for the other.

The difficulty of this step (some would say the impossibility of this step) is what often stops us from even beginning to work toward a resolution. Some conflicts appear as intractable because any acknowledgement that the other’s position has any validity would be seen as traitorous to one’s comrades in the fight. When the culture of the pro-life community holds that the opposition is made up of baby killers, or the culture of the pro-choice community holds that the opposition favors the subjugation of all women, then anyone who has any truck with the opposition can’t possibly be trusted. Thus if anyone in leadership on either side tries to broker a peace, they will lose credibility with the troops.

So while it is possible to resolve the conflict…it doesn’t look likely that we will even try unless a significant portion of the base becomes convinced that such efforts are necessary and helpful. My advice to any leader who wants to begin to address this conflict in a way that might lead to a creative resolution is to get your base behind you first.