Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Incivility

There isn't anyone who hasn't been angry with someone else at one time or another. Anger is fine, but the response to that anger is the real test. And from my experience, most people fail that test. Miserably.

I know that I have disappointed and angered people in my life, much more often than I would like. But has anyone ever responded to their anger with me in a positive way? Not that I can remember - at least not very often.

When people get angry, they generally resort to these basic responses:
  • Sullen and Uncommunicative: When I'm the subject of this response, I have no idea what caused it, and start racking my brain for what I might have done to offend. When I do wheedle an answer to "what's wrong?", it usually is "If you don't know, then we have an even bigger problem". Great, what did I do now? But if this approach is used too many times, I will just ignore the silent treatment because I don't have the energy to play the game anymore.
  • Attack: A verbal barrage laying out every one of my faults and past sins, real or imagined, designed to batter me into complete and total submission. I end up feeling completely worthless, and don't even remember the original transgression. Besides, I've just been told I'm the scum of the earth, so there's not much point in trying to do better.
  • Sarcasm: A chilly attitude with plenty of little barbs and digs designed to inflict pain. This is similar to the sullen and uncommunicative in that I still have no clue about my offense. But the sarcastic treatment is more likely to cause me to avoid contact, just like you might avoid the neighborhood bully when walking home from school.
  • Whispering Campaign: A particularly nasty approach to dealing with a pique is to avoid the subject completely in my presence, but proceed to tell everyone else in the country about my horrible offense. The offended has given no indication of anything wrong at all in person, and I'm going about my business as usual until suddenly I hear from a completely unexpected third party about what a terrible thing I did. Huh?
Why do people use such destructive methods to manipulate and humiliate those who have upset them? Why can't we just approach the subject openly and honestly with the other person without subjecting him or her to a torturous ordeal?

How about responding in a way that doesn't punish the other, but actually might succeed in getting a change in behavior? Let's use a scenario that comes partly from my own experiences way back when:

A couple has just returned from a party. During the car ride home, the woman is clearly icy with the man for reasons he can't begin to fathom. He thinks the party was pretty good, they got to catch up with lots of old friends, and can't figure out why she's suddenly angry.

She saw him talking and laughing with an attractive female at the party who she believes may have been a former girlfriend, and is fuming about his gall in flirting with her at the party.

So rather than going through a combination of the four destructive responses listed above, what if she did the following:

1. Open up to the man by telling him about what she saw him doing at the party and how it made her feel.
2. Suggest a specific and realistic solution to the problem, such as introducing her to his old friends and including her in party conversations.
3. Allow open discussion and listen carefully to what he has to say, and give him positive feedback for suggesting his own ideas for solving the problem, listening to her, and caring about her feelings.

Of course, if the man show himself to be a jerk, dismissive of her feelings, or his behavior at the party went beyond just friendly conversation, all she needs is to inform him why she's ending the relationship. But if he's worth it, she can try the positive approach or test for how many times he'll put up with the four destructive reactions.

It's just tiring.

No comments: