Click for printer friendly page

Universal Rules

click here for the full list of rules

OK, so I'm being a bit facile here, and you’ve likely gathered by now that Into the Centre isn't Romper Room. Being the fan that I am of honest communication, you might be wondering how I'm incorporating in the concept of baseline politeness with our focus on complete honesty.

There's an old expression, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Thus it is with any tool. The Communication Model we use and recommend, which is an adapted version created by Ben Wong and Jock McKeen, is a simple tool. And as with many tools, using it gets easier with practice. On the other hand, its misuse (as a "hammer") is also "easy."

One of my friends has a son who is a carpenter. One day, he and I were building a wall. I've been doing renovations off and on since the 70's, and he's a professional. I watched him repeatedly seat a nail in two to three swings of his hammer, while it took me 10. I tried to swing harder, and only succeeded in bending the nail. To his credit he kept a straight face and didn't laugh at me. I realized quickly that there is swinging a hammer and swinging a hammer.

On the other hand, a hammer in the hands of a person bent on mayhem can cause incredible damage. In a sense, it's still a tool – what's change is the intent.

Perhaps, then, all tools might best come with 
the first line of the Hippocratic Oath attached: 
"First, do no harm."

Now, how does all of this apply to "please and thank you?" Well, mommy was trying to teach us to be polite. In a sense, she was trying to help us to reign in our innate selfishness. She was teaching us to share – to recognize the needs, wants and desires of others. In a sense, we were being taught not to take things for granted.

Now, notice how often, in our interpersonal relationships, we forget all the stuff that mommy taught us. We make demands, have all sorts of expectations and see our role as "smartening up" our partner. We might get good at the Communication Model, and then use it as a bludgeon to try to manipulate our partner into "seeing things the right way." (Read, "my way.")

What's missing in many relationships is what might be called an "intrinsic civility." As a rather crude demonstration, let me tell a story:

A teenage client had just terminated therapy. A couple of days later her mom called (I'd seen mom and daughter together twice) and made an emergency appointment. When they came in, mom reported that she'd read her daughter's diary and had found out she was no longer a virgin. They'd had the weekend from hell, as the mother used verbal bullying to express her displeasure. She was pleased to demonstrate by reaming out the daughter, during the session.
I interrupted her tirade, and asked the mom what she did for a living. (I knew the answer.) She said, "I teach communication and problem solving at work. And I know why you're asking. You're wondering why I'm not using that stuff with my daughter."
I agreed that I was curious.
Mom replied, "Well, I don't love the people at work!"
I said, "Oh. I get it. The rule is, 'treat others with dignity and respect and ream your nearest and dearest an new orifice!' Hmm."
The mom immediately apologized to her daughter.

In the above story, the intrinsic civility I'm suggesting is demonstrated by the behaviour the mom was not engaging in. The mom (and I would suggest this was sub-conscious) was treating the people at work with more civility than her own daughter. And her logic, such as it was, was that she "didn't love the people at work." It was only when I stated her belief back to her that she began to suspect that maybe her behaviour, and therefore her belief, was somewhat off the mark.

I can't tell you how many people I've worked with whose belief seems to be, "I love you. You're my (partner, parent, child) and I'm going to demonstrate my love by belittling, badgering, griping, moaning, manipulating and complaining, until I break your spirit and get you to do things the way I want you to do them. When you're finally broken, I'll really know you love me." The message seems to be, "My job is to make you into a good person (read, a person who behaves exactly as I think you ought to behave) and I'm willing to do anything to make you change. In theory I love you with all my heart; in practice, I despise everything about you."

Now, I wrote that in strong language to get your attention. I picked the word despise, and you may want to defend yourself by saying, "I don't despise my partner. I just want him to be a better person." And I am looking in from the outside, and what I see is a continual barrage of verbiage designed to get the partner to behave differently. If you don't despise your partner's behaviour, why the campaign to break his spirit? At least be honest about the game.

On the other hand, if my goal is to communicate and at the same time to be civil, I would ditch the pressure and the demands and the game playing, and simply enter into dialog about what I am annoying myself over. I would choose to use a style of communication that works, rather than one that hurts.

For example, I know that Dar, given her history, hates lectures and being proven wrong. When this happens to her, she shuts down and curls up. In the same way, I react with anger if I'm told that I can't do something.

So, for 20 years, I've been resisting lecturing and "wrong-finding" as I communicate with Dar. I use other approaches that, historically, have led to dialog and issue resolution.

Now, some might say, ""Well, that's well and good. But what if your principal style is lecturing and "wrong-finding?" Don't I have the right to do what comes natural? If my partner loved me, he'd just understand and make allowances for me."

Well, I would reply, "Does your approach pass the "utility test?" In other words, does it work?

Most would reply, "No, it doesn't, but I have the right to be me."

Yes, you do. You just might end up "being me" all by yourself.

Civility says, "How do I get the result I want, while treating the other person with dignity, politeness and respect?"

And the utility question leads me here: "If I do what Dar dislikes and do what she shuts herself down over, am I accomplishing my goal of communicating and resolving our issue?" If the answer is "no," (and of course it will be) then I need to ask myself, "Am I engaging in behaviour I know doesn't work in order to anger, punish or hurt Dar?" 

In other words, when I do things I know do not work, I need to own that my goal is not resolution. 
My goal is to hurt my partner.

In the case of the mom in the above story, I suspect her "real" goal was "I've been hurt and disappointed by your behaviour, and I'm going to extract my pound of flesh by hurting you back."

Now, it's a Phoenix theme that no one hurts us; we hurt ourselves. So, one could argue that the mom could act cruelly, and the daughter could choose not to hurt herself over it. This is so. However, my inquiry is this, "Why is the mother lying to herself and to her daughter, by saying she is trying to "help" her daughter, when the "truth" is she's actually trying to punish and break her daughter?" The daughter can look after herself. This does not excuse the mother from total responsibility for her own behaviour. Her mother needs to get over herself and own what's up. If her goal is to punish and break, she needs to stop pretending it's for the daughter's good.

Civility is all about respecting the person one is engaged with. It can be as simple as please and thank you. It can be as simple as choosing to avoid communication and behaviour ploys that are meant to be hurtful. It can be a simple as remembering that the person I am about to skewer is a person I profess to love.

Ever again, whole living has to do with utility. Whole life has to do with discipline. Whole life is about total honesty. And primarily, whole living has to do with elegantly reaching resolution. Relationships are neither wars nor skirmishes. Stop being uncivil.