Rick’s Christmas

A few years back I had a man in my program I will call Rick. He was in his early twenties. He was ordered to complete the Abuse Prevention Program as a consequence of abuse in a relationship with a girlfriend. While in the program he found a new girlfriend. It was a much healthier relationship and Rick was able to understand and apply the principles of Creative Conflict Resolution in that new relationship.

Once a participant completes the Abuse Prevention Class he moves into the Practice Group.  Rick had completed the class months earlier and was addressing well the conflicts in his relationship with his girlfriend, but he had not addressed other conflicts in the group, particularly those at work. He was having trouble staying at a job.  As he interviewed well, he easily found a new one, which he would then again quit in anger.

No one completes the program until they have met all of the goals. Because he was doing so well in his primary relationship, he challenged me on why I was saying he hadn’t completed the program. He wanted to know what he still had to do.

I asked him to identify his five most significant relationships.  This is the first question in the oral final exam for the class.  Rick had heard this question at least twenty times.

Well,” said Rick, “there is my girlfriend, my brother, her mom, her dad…” and he paused thinking if there was anyone else.

“How about your dad?” I asked.

He had told some of his family history months earlier. His dad had gone to prison when Rick was four years old for child abuse. Rick never described what his dad had done to his brother and him. As this event happened nearly twenty years ago it must have been pretty significant. After his dad’s release while Rick was a teenager Rick had trouble in his relationship with his mom and went to live with his dad. That arrangement lasted about a year and a half.

Shortly after Rick entered the program his dad had done something dismissive to Rick’s brother. Rick and his brother were really tight and Rick wasn’t going to let that stand. He went to his father’s shop to confront him. But knowing how his dad is, he tucked a gun in his belt at the small of his back.

Standing in his dad’s office with his dad seated at the desk, Rick began to tell his dad what he thought of him and what he thought he should do. Dad would hear none of it and ordered Rick to leave. Rick became more demanding and Dad opened the top right drawer. He pulled out a gun and waved it at Rick. Rick pulled the gun from his belt and they leveled loaded pistols at each other.

Fortunately neither had the poor judgment to pull the trigger.

Rick knew that his relationship with his dad was an important one for him.  He also knew he wanted to get out of the program so he started paying attention to his feelings about his dad. He was psychologically minded enough to know that he didn’t need to actually talk to his dad to address his issues with his dad.

The first thing he noticed was that he put his dad’s face on every boss he had. As soon as he had a job long enough to begin to feel comfortable in it he started reacting to his boss with the feelings he had towards his dad. Just identifying that allowed him enough distance that he stopped quitting jobs and, because he was actually pretty bright and industrious, he quickly got promoted to a place where he wouldn’t go any higher unless he got his GED. He put his mind to that and a month later passed the test.

It was early September when Rick started to work on his issues with his dad. By mid-October he was working on his GED and by mid-November he had passed it. Just after Thanksgiving he decided that he wanted to talk to his dad. He called him on the phone and, at the end of the nearly two hour conversation, his dad was in tears. They spent a couple of hours together on Christmas and they both enjoyed it.

It is not typical that participants in the program experience this kind of rapid transformation. Rick already knew the principles and had practiced applying them in his relationship with his girlfriend. What is typical is that Rick initially “knew” that he couldn’t positively impact his relationship with his dad. He “knew” that everything that was wrong in the relationship was his dad’s fault. He “knew” he had nothing to gain by even addressing the issues.

What he didn’t know was how powerful he could be in transforming his relationship with his dad simply by changing how he approached him.  When he was able to calmly identify what he needed as qualities in his relationship with his dad, and persistently act in ways that moved to create those qualities, he no longer had to change his dad or be changed by him.  He created an entirely new and healthier relationship.

The Obama Doctrine

I have read and reread President Obama’s lecture to the Nobel Prize committee and distinguished guests upon his award of the Peace Prize.  I find it to be a powerful and important statement, not just of American foreign policy under this President, but of how we as humans might learn to address and resolve conflicts.

I have been working on an essay about the principles of nonviolence Martin Luther King used in his efforts on behalf of civil rights in America so I was especially sensitive to Obama’s references. To have a President, especially one who is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, cite King (and Gandhi) as models to follow and to do so in a way that is coherent and carefully considered illuminates the reasons Obama got the award. That he received it saying so many things that so many of his liberal supporters find disagreeable makes it only more remarkable.

I myself didn’t agree with everything he had to say. But my disagreement has mostly to do with his use of the term nonviolence in ways that, while consistent with popular usage, limits the meaning to “a set of tactics appropriate to actions taken by oppressed persons addressing grievances against an authority which is morally sensitive.”  If we limit the term in that way then he is right, it wouldn’t have worked against the Nazis and it won’t work with al Qaeda.

But if we are looking not so much at the tactics as at the philosophy that undergirds it, and think more creatively about how conflicts can be resolved, then we discover some important principles that unite Nonviolence and the Obama Doctrine. Among them:

• We are all connected in a great web of care and concern. What affects one of us affects all of us.
• Passivity or patience in the face of oppression is not only an abandonment of our moral responsibility but is also an invitation to greater violence.
• The road to peace is through a process of relationship building with those with whom we disagree.
• Justice is not simply about the rule of law but is also about the equitable distribution of rights and resources, but such equity is not possible without the rule of law.
• We cannot allow the fact that others abandon righteous behavior to allow us to depart from the values we hold.

These are all examples of the kinds of principles which I hope to celebrate and promote through the promulgation of Creative Conflict Resolution and through Just Conflict.  I welcome your comments.

“Just Conflict” is now available

A little before six this evening UPS delivered 100 copies of my book.  I went on Amazon and discovered that they have it listed.  There is no image yet and they admit it isn’t in stock, but you can order it.  I am discounting the price if you want to come by for one and I will be taking them to the IFS Conference this weekend.

I will give a copy to anyone who will read the whole thing and write a review.  You can pan it if you want, but I want a commitment to read and write about it.  I will post your review on the web site, Just Conflict, and will invite you to post it to Amazon as well.

Now I get to promote the thing.  I will be sending copies to anyone I think will want to interview me publically or will want to publish a review.  I welcome your suggestions.

Parallels between IFS and CCR

Three weeks ago I suggested some connections between Internal Family Systems theory and Creative Conflict Resolution.  Since then two other parallels between IFS and CCR have come to mind. One has to do with the futility of getting others to change and the other is the distinction between what we want and what we need.

From time to time I will have a client ask me, “But how does Self get the part to change?” The assumption is that the only way to end the conflict is for the part to be different and the agent of transformation is the Self so the Self must, by some mechanism, get the part to change.

If the part is going to change it will be because the part has discovered a different way of being and has found support for transformation. The Self creates a relationship to the part in which the part is able to transform in just the ways that best meet the needs of the part recognizing that the ultimate intention of the part is the well being of the whole person. It is just so with all of us. We can’t change each other. We know that. But it doesn’t stop us from trying.

We often conflate want and need using them as synonyms. From the perspective of Creative Conflict Resolution there is a critical distinction to be made between them. What I want is a specific change in my circumstances which is dependent upon others acting differently. What I need is a shift in the qualities in the relationship I have with others which I can move towards simply by altering the choices I make.

Because what I want is for others to be different and because I cannot make others change, when I am focused on what I want, I am likely to create for myself feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. When I shift my attention to what I need, while often a difficult shift requiring more Self awareness than I am accustomed to, I am then attending to an option for my own choices which I can create for myself. As we do this, we discover how immensely powerful we each are.

Tank on empty; hair on fire

I've been doing better in the self care department lately but when I think about what a mess I've allowed my life to become and alllllllll the areas that need attention, I feel overwhelmed.

How do I decide what to pay attention to?  It feels like no matter what I do I have to let go of things that are important - things other people seem to manage just fine. I resent myself - knowing that this huge mess is a product of my choices. And I resent that my energy and motivation last for about... 30 minutes... When it will take weeks of concentrated efforts to get organized, clear out past obligations, etc.

I need a game plan....?

The best resource I have to offer is Discipline #5: The Self-Care Routine.  [If you are not familiar with it you can learn more about it here.]  It sounds as though you are close to overwhelm and that you are upset with yourself; not only are you running on fumes, you are fuming at yourself.  We want to both fill the tank and put out the fire.  Let’s start with the fire.

So there are parts of you that want to do a better job of self-care.  They are dedicated to your welfare and observe that there are other parts that are sabotaging your well-being.  The “sabotaging” parts don’t see it that way at all.  They are just trying to relieve the sense of overwhelm by allowing for some r&r.  They know you just need to chill sometimes.

So we have parts who want to work harder and parts that just want to “chill.”  These parts are in conflict and a part of what we are hoping to construct here is a way to reduce the intensity of the conflict between those parts.

At the same time we want to fill the tank; we want to do things which actually get us more of what we need… and there are a lot of things we need.  If we are not careful our anxiety about all of the things we need will push us further into overwhelm. Remember, “Progress, not perfection.” We can only improve what we are able to do; we will not become perfect at it. We want our expectations to be spot on with what actually happens.  If we expect more of ourselves than we are actually going to be able to do, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment.

So, do you have a plan?  Is it a plan for doing things you can’t or don’t do, or is it a plan for doing better what you already do?  What do you do when you don’t follow the plan?  What do you observe about yourself when you don’t do what you decided was good for you to do?

The book is in the publisher’s hands

Sam and Silo by Jerry Dumas

The book (Just Conflict) in final form went to the publisher on Wednesday and is now with the printer.  I should see a proof copy next week and have copies available for sale before the end of the month.  That is the plan as I will be at the IFS conference over Halloween weekend and hope to sell more than a few copies there.  We will do a book signing in St. Louis in November.

Why we resist the Bothers Me Log

Between Friends by Sandra Bell Lundy

Bothers Me Log

Conflict Resolution in IFS

Internal Family Systems theory is a system for personal, relational, and emotional healing which embodies some novel notions about the nature of conflict and its resolution. It is not just a map of the terrain of our interior awareness; it is a set of tactics for how to traverse that terrain safely and to create healing in the land of our internal experience. This paper (posted electronically) illuminates the creative ways that IFS supports healing through a series of perspectives which are totally harmonious with Creative Conflict Resolution.

[I am assuming my readers will already be familiar with IFS. If you are not I suggest you begin with a consideration of some of the resources available online through the Center for Self Leadership. A good general overview is available here.  Links are to the site of the Center for Self Leadership or to the Center for Creative Conflict Resolution site about the book, Just Conflict.]

From the perspective of Internal Family Systems theory and therapy we all are mentally composed of many parts, aspects, attitudes, moods, abilities, and interests. When we are calm and centered we appear to be well integrated. But, when we are under stress, some of those parts of who we are get pushed to extreme positions. Some parts don’t like the emotions, memories, or tactics of other parts and they are able to force those parts out of conscious awareness and effectively send them into exile. These parts are in conflict and the protector parts appear to have won the conflict. At one level a conflict is the way one part treats another but, at a more basic level, the conflict is the tension between the parts. They each see and respond to a given circumstance in very different ways.

Some conflicts are mild but some are intense. The greater the intensity of the conflict the more likely it is that parts will be pushed to extreme positions and the more anxiety the individual holding those parts is likely to feel. Intensity in a conflict is a quality which is constructed by two aspects of the constituent relationships.

One aspect is the degree of ownership each of the parts feels toward a given event, issue, or circumstance. The more attached each is to the event, the more ownership they can each be said to carry.

The second aspect is the degree to which they hold a harmonious perspective. The more they see the event the same way, the more harmonious the points of view. When two parts (or parties) have high ownership but they see the event as meaning something very different, they will have a high intensity conflict.

Typically a part will deal with the intensity by:

• disallowing ownership by acting as though it doesn’t really care about the circumstance,
• over functioning by taking on too much responsibility for the outcome,
• bullying other parts into compliance with its perspective and strategies, or
• acquiescing to the perspective of another more forceful part.

None of these strategies is effective in resolving the conflict. This is the opposite of what we mean by being assertive and is a way to submerge the fighting but not get the parts what they each need.

In order to fully resolve the conflict we must construct a resolution that meets the needs of all of the parts. This requires a framework for understanding that is more comprehensive than the point of view of any of the parts themselves. It must transcend their perspective while it includes their perspective. This is the task for what IFS refers to as the Self and what Creative Conflict Resolution labels a Sixth Order level of awareness. This perspective by any name is more complex than the paradigm of any of the parts but it allows a way of being that is simpler.

Being in Self has many qualities (the C’s), but one we want to cultivate especially is compassion. This is the ability to

• be present to another when the other is troubled
• in a manner that fully hears and appreciates the circumstances of the other
• without being overwhelmed by the other and
• while supporting the other’s innate capacity for healing.

This is a capacity which we can develop.

When we are in Self and bring sufficient compassion to a part we construct a relationship with it which supports its healing by:

• Knowing the part (developing an image of it, where it is, what it feels like, what it is called, what it is trying to do for the whole)
• Respecting the part (acknowledging and appreciating its worth and its place in the structure of the whole person, thanking it for what it is trying to do and acknowledging it when it is feeling unappreciated)
• Caring for the part (taking its concerns seriously, acting to support what it needs, witnessing its feelings and its memories and helping it discover and go to a place of safety without the burdens it has undertaken on behalf of the whole person.)[relational needs]

This is a very different kind of relationship than we are accustomed to or may have even witnessed in our daily life. This is a relationship of radical accountability which constructs for us and for others the deeply healing presence of Self Energy.

Emotions: Feeling your Feelings

Pros and Cons by Kieran Meehan

I have been a follower of Kieran Meehan’s strip, Pros and Cons, for about a year now.  If you are not familiar with it, the central characters include a psychiatrist, a cop, and a prosecuting attorney.   The feature I most often see and like about the strip is the way he is able to skewer some widely held and unwise notions.  These are cognitive distortions which are so common they become hard to recognize. 

In the case of this offering, the clueless client is so attached to the notion that emotions can be turned on and off that he hears his therapist’s intervention as a response to his analogy, not to the notion itself.  We can turn off awareness of our emotions but to do so takes a large investment of energy.  Such a choice also results in us being disconnected from our experience. 

While Meehan makes the choice look foolish, the truth is we all from time to time decide not to feel our feelings.  We decide to turn off our emotions to get through a difficult situation.  We can do this, for a while, at great cost.

Getting Others to Give Us What We Need

We are hurt when we don’t get what we need. It is healthy to act in ways that move us toward what we need. We use our best cognitive maps to guide us in figuring out what we can do to get what we need. Sometimes we use a poor map and, not only don’t we get what we need, we actually create the opposite of what we need. Here we will examine a very common way this happens.

One of Abraham Maslow’s most enduring contributions was his map for a hierarchy of needs. He pointed out that there are different kinds of needs and that we have to have met certain lower order needs before we can fully establish the higher order ones. We have to have shelter and food before we can fully experience self-esteem and affiliation with others.

When it comes to the lower order needs of things like food, water, clothing, etc. we can get what we need by having others give them to us. If I am hungry and you have a sandwich and I can prevail on you to give me half, then you have met my need. I was able to get you to meet my need. I may come to believe that I get my needs met by getting others to change how they treat me.

But the higher order needs are different. They are not physical objects which we can receive or be denied; they are qualities which are created out of the relationships we create with others.

If, as a child, I had parents who were curious about what was going on with me, I was repeatedly invited to discover my own feelings so I could tell them. I was thus taught how to attend to myself by the fact that they gave me attention. I will then be able to grow to adulthood as someone who can attend to my Self. I enjoy the attention of others, but I don’t need it.

On the other hand, if my parents didn’t pay attention to me, I did not learn to attend to myself, and I grew to adulthood as someone who doesn’t know how to attend to my Self. I will need to get attention from others since I don’t know how to create it for myself. I will be needy for attention.

When others attend to me I will sense a great relief as those needs are met. But as soon as the light of the other’s attention is focused somewhere else, I will be plunged into darkness, will be hurt and angry at the other for leaving me bereft, and will go in search of someone who will attend to me.

Suppose then I find someone who gives me attention and affection. We build a stable relationship and enjoy the comfort and security we build for each other. When at some point I do something which disappoints or hurts my beloved and she responds by withdrawing, I will be afraid and angry. I may demand that my beloved return to being my source for attention and affection. She gave it to me before. I can’t create it on my own. I have to get her to give it to me.

The problem here is that the very things I may do to try to create what I need are most likely to get me the opposite. Since my cognitive map for our relationship and my way of getting my needs met is that she is my source for affection and she has met that need in the past and could meet that need now, I will have to demand that she return to meeting my needs.

But affection is not a sandwich. This is not something she carries around in her pocket and can choose to share or not. Affection is a quality which is created in the relationship by the choices we each make. For me to get what I need, I will have to repair the relationship we both want. The more I blame her for not being who I believe I have a right to insist she be, the farther I will move from the relationship I need. It is not that I can’t get what I need. It is that she can’t give it to me. I will have to create it for my Self. And that may take learning some skills as an adult that I didn’t learn as a child.

Cultivating Critical Feedback

A poor application of Discipline #3: Cultivating Critical Feedback

Empathy

I have finished Chapter 12.  It is a consideration of how we can create relationships which support the transformation of others.  One of the qualities we have to create if we want to help others grow is that of empathy or compassion.  There are stages to the growth of compassion.  We start with actually being turned off by the problems of the other and only grow to genuine ability to connect and support the other.  I came across this comic and it really speaks to those early stages.

[from My Cage]  More on the stages at compassion.

Finishing touches

Work on the book Just Conflict nears completion.  We will be finishing a draft for publication of a single copy to get a feel for what it is like in the hand and to the eye.  I am confident we will have a book for sale by mid-October.

Development of a site for the book

I have been working for many months now on a book which will try to capture and express the core content of Creative Conflict Resolution.  The book is tentative titled Just Conflict: Harnessing the Transformative Power of Conflict to Create Just Relationships.  

There is a blog which is for the readers of the manuscript and one which we be the vehicle for explaining and promoting the book. The readers blog is on Vox and you can find it here.  The site for the the content and promotion of the book is here.

I am hoping to have the book ready for sale in the Fall of 2009.