Rules of Engagement......
Jun. 18th, 2005 10:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poltr1I've been thinking (a lot) about what happened in my life this past week. I'm still angry, but not as angry as I was on Tuesday night when I got the Howler. Part of me says that I should drop it, that I should let this incident go and move on. Part of me says that I should hang on to it, lest I forget what happened or comes back to haunt me later. Yes, I shouldn't have done what I did at the time, but I felt that person deserved every bit of it. What's that about karma and the Rule of Three?
I know I have shortcomings. We all do. These are the parts of me I hide and deny from others, and from myself. These are what I call my "shadows". Many of them have names. And some have been elusive enough to remain unnamed.
Is LJ an appropriate venue to bring those shadows out into the light? Perhaps, or erhaps not, but there needs to be some boundaries to be set beforehand. Cyberstalkers are everywhere, so this is not a good place to out someone's shadows without safeguards in place.
I've also been thinking about bushido, the code of conduct for the samurai in ancient Japan. (Here's another definition, from the Asian Studies department at Pacific University.) Knights in Europe had a similar code of conduct, which we know as "chivalry". Not only were these warriors physically conditioned for peak performance, their minds were trained as well, to fight with honor, courage, rectitude (making right and just decisions), and respect.
So, how can people use this concept to "fight" fairly, if it's a verbal disagreement -- a debate, discussion, or argument? How does one prevent (or minimize) getting emotionally wounded, or worse, having an ear (or other part of one's anatomy) bitten off? By defining a protocol -- specifically, rules of engagement -- that is agreed to on both sides before things get started.
Here are mine, as of now. I may add to this later.
1) Attack the idea being expressed, not the person expressing them.
2) Use "I" statements instead of "You" statements. (Example, say "I disagree" instead of "You're wrong".) This minimizes defensiveness, and enables the person to "own" what they're thinking or feeling.
3) Be honest. Tell the truth; do not lie. But don't be brutally honest. Brutal honesty is more brutal than honest.
4) Do not use sarcasm as it can easily be misinterpreted as hurtful and malicious. This is especially true in a written medium, such as LJ, where vocal inflection and gestures are not present.
5) If it's a personal issue, I use the "four-quarter communication" method. The issue is divided up into four quadrants: Data (background info), Judgements (opinions), Feelings (anger, sadness, fear, shame), and Wants (desired outcome). While this may "clear the air" between people, it may or may not resolve the issue.
6) If engaging in person, use a broomstick, staff, or other item to "ground" the emotional energy between the participants.
7) My anger has little to do with another person. Despite the stimulus, other people don't make me angry or cause me to get angry; the anger is my reaction or choice in response to that stimulus. Similarly, another person's anger has little to do with me.
8) I realize that other people's anger masks out their love (or whatever love they have) for me.
[Added 6/20/05 11:34]
9) Praise in public, criticize or rebuke in private.
10) Don't say anything *about* someone that can't be said *to* someone.
These are the standards that I am setting for myself. Occasionally, I'll slip up. Does that make me a hypocrute? No, only human, and a forgetful one at that.
I know I have shortcomings. We all do. These are the parts of me I hide and deny from others, and from myself. These are what I call my "shadows". Many of them have names. And some have been elusive enough to remain unnamed.
Is LJ an appropriate venue to bring those shadows out into the light? Perhaps, or erhaps not, but there needs to be some boundaries to be set beforehand. Cyberstalkers are everywhere, so this is not a good place to out someone's shadows without safeguards in place.
I've also been thinking about bushido, the code of conduct for the samurai in ancient Japan. (Here's another definition, from the Asian Studies department at Pacific University.) Knights in Europe had a similar code of conduct, which we know as "chivalry". Not only were these warriors physically conditioned for peak performance, their minds were trained as well, to fight with honor, courage, rectitude (making right and just decisions), and respect.
So, how can people use this concept to "fight" fairly, if it's a verbal disagreement -- a debate, discussion, or argument? How does one prevent (or minimize) getting emotionally wounded, or worse, having an ear (or other part of one's anatomy) bitten off? By defining a protocol -- specifically, rules of engagement -- that is agreed to on both sides before things get started.
Here are mine, as of now. I may add to this later.
1) Attack the idea being expressed, not the person expressing them.
2) Use "I" statements instead of "You" statements. (Example, say "I disagree" instead of "You're wrong".) This minimizes defensiveness, and enables the person to "own" what they're thinking or feeling.
3) Be honest. Tell the truth; do not lie. But don't be brutally honest. Brutal honesty is more brutal than honest.
4) Do not use sarcasm as it can easily be misinterpreted as hurtful and malicious. This is especially true in a written medium, such as LJ, where vocal inflection and gestures are not present.
5) If it's a personal issue, I use the "four-quarter communication" method. The issue is divided up into four quadrants: Data (background info), Judgements (opinions), Feelings (anger, sadness, fear, shame), and Wants (desired outcome). While this may "clear the air" between people, it may or may not resolve the issue.
6) If engaging in person, use a broomstick, staff, or other item to "ground" the emotional energy between the participants.
7) My anger has little to do with another person. Despite the stimulus, other people don't make me angry or cause me to get angry; the anger is my reaction or choice in response to that stimulus. Similarly, another person's anger has little to do with me.
8) I realize that other people's anger masks out their love (or whatever love they have) for me.
[Added 6/20/05 11:34]
9) Praise in public, criticize or rebuke in private.
10) Don't say anything *about* someone that can't be said *to* someone.
These are the standards that I am setting for myself. Occasionally, I'll slip up. Does that make me a hypocrute? No, only human, and a forgetful one at that.
