Robin's Interesting Thoughts

“There is a whole section in the bookshop called ‘self-help,’ but there is no section called ‘help others.’ The irony is that success and joy actually come from the service we offer to others. It’s not ‘How can I lose ten pounds?’ — it’s ‘How can I help my friend feel healthy and strong?’ It’s not ‘How can I find my dream job?’ — it’s ‘How can I help someone I care about find their calling?’ It’s the act of service, not the selfish pursuit, that actually helps us solve the same problems we may face in our own lives more effectively.”

-Simon Sinek, Together is Better (p. 131)

“The flavor and the sheer joy of non-doing are difficult for Americans to grasp because our culture places so much value on doing and on progress. Even our leisure tends to be busy and mindless. The joy of non-doing is that nothing else needs to happen for this moment to be complete. The wisdom in it, and the equanimity that comes out of it, lie in knowing that something else surely will.

“It reeks of paradox. The only way you can do anything of value is to have the effort come out of non-doing and to let go of caring whether it will be of use or not. Otherwise, self-involvement and greediness can sneak in and distort your relationship to the work, or the work itself, so that it is off in some way, biased, impure, and ultimately not completely satisfying, even if it is good.”

-Jon Kabat-Zinn
(Wherever You Go, There You Are, p.38-39)

One observation from Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton has stuck with me. He writes:

“More lawyers have come to me for therapy than have members of any other profession, and it’s not coincidence, since so much of their training is to learn to live by rules. One important rule they try to live by is that the proper way to be angry is to have a fight using the rules. They often try to do this in their private lives, with complete lack of success. Perpetual arguing to convince others of the rightness of your case doesn’t work worth a damn in personal relationships, and we all know it but can’t seem to stop.” (p.21)

I thought this was fascinating. You’d expect lawyers and the legal system to be a reasonable place to look for ideas about how to resolve conflicts. Indeed I have repeatedly done so in the past, in both home and work settings. But if I’m being honest, Blanton got it right — my attempts tended to fail miserably, leaving me confused and deflated.

It’s only recently that I’ve come to understand that resolving conflicts has absolutely nothing to do with arguing a case. Quite the opposite, it is a creative process of collaboratively inventing new solutions that have the potential to meet everyone’s needs.

The courts are built on punishments, blame, winners, and losers. Conflict resolution is built on a search for opportunity and shared goals.

The two have essentially nothing in common except that they are both methods of dealing with a dispute.

I think it’s telling that our legal system evolved directly from the methods used by kings and patriarchs to issue decisions. We merely replaced the sovereign with a set of laws, interpreted by judges and juries. We the people hold the power to create the laws (at least in theory), but we remain subjects of those laws and juries, just as we used to be subjects of the king. If we do not follow the rules, we are judged and punished by an outside arbiter. The rule of law.

There are many reasons why this doesn’t work well anymore, at least in normal life. For one thing, we want to be free, autonomous adults — not subjects to an outside authority (not even one called “fairness” or “justice”). For another, the technique of punishment focuses our minds on fear, scarcity, and self-protection, all of which work against any quest for peace and reconciliation.

Of course, fighting it out in a courtroom is preferable to fighting it out on a battlefield. And trial by jury is certainly preferable to the whims of the monarch. But do we really need to be fighting at all?

Could we be using some of that energy instead on inventing new ways of living together and helping each other such that people feel less compelled to commit crimes in the future?

This is the direction known as restorative justice and it is clearly on to something.

Perhaps the spouses of lawyers have known it all along.

A friend was recently telling me about a frustrating encounter they had had with a relative.

“I was trying to have an open-minded discussion but it became clear that their political beliefs were simply whatever the NRA endorsed. How was I supposed to engage with that? It left no room for debate.”

I suspect a lot of people have found themselves in a situation similar to this. We’d like to be able to talk with people on the other side of the political spectrum but cannot seem to find a bridge. I tried to bring to mind what I’ve learned about nonviolent communication. What question could be asked that would invite connection rather than judgement and conflict? Something that would reflect our genuine curiosity? Something that would honor the fact that everyone is the expert of their own experience?

How about this:

“Why is the NRA so important to you?”

“We spend our lives rushing around hardly pausing
to breathe” my friend said. “Are we
human beings or human doings?”

I wondered the same as I sat
at a committee meeting listening
as the debate circled back for the third
or fourth time.

And yesterday at the department of motor vehicles
as a representative reached for a form,
assisting the gentleman twenty six ticker spots
ahead of me

And as I drove home, stopping behind
a woman cautiously awaiting an opportunity
to turn left

While a crane leisurely hoisted a beam
into its place on a new overpass, then meandered back
to the pile where a few thousand more
were ready

And this morning as I sat at the window
watching the birds in the soft morning light
as a light snow fell around them.

I think I am both.

A human being
impatient
And a human doing
nothing.

(inspired in part by “The Present” by Billy Collins,
from The Rain in Portugal)

“Life-alienating communication both stems from and supports hierarchical or domination societies, where large populations are controlled by a small number of individuals to those individuals own benefit. It would be in the interest of kings, czars, nobles, and so forth that the masses be educated in a way that renders them slavelike in mentality. The language of wrongness, should, and have to is perfectly suited for this purpose: the more people are trained to think in terms of moralistic judgments that imply wrongness and badness, the more they are being trained to look outside themselves — to outside authorities — for the definition of what constitutes right, wrong, good, and bad. When we are in contact with our feelings and needs, we humans no longer make good slaves and underlings.”

-Marshall Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication (p.23)

The building blocks of community, as outlined by Peter Block (in his book Community: The Structure of Belonging) and summarized for the Enlivening Edge community conversations:

• Invitation rather than mandate
• Possibility rather than problem-solving
• Ownership rather than blame
• Dissent rather than resignation and lip service
• Commitment rather than barter
• Gifts rather than deficiencies

In the entire history of the world, not one person has ever chosen to be born. It’s simply not a power we have. We’re a planet composed of people who found ourselves here and are doing our best to make the most of it.

All this is obvious, yet it’s just so existentially strange.

I suppose the uneasiness many people feel about birth control has to do with this. Deciding to have or not have children really is a way of playing god.

Dear Williams College Presidential Search Committee,

As you know, one of the challenges facing higher education right now is the paradox of wanting to create a diverse and welcoming environment yet not knowing what to do with the diverse set of people who disagree with that aim (whether full-on white supremacists or those who just dislike affirmative action).

I believe that many college leaders have been far too heavy-handed in dealing with this challenge — and therefore not as effective as they could be. For example, Williams’ outgoing president has repeatedly said that tolerance and respect for diverse views is “the one thing that’s not up for debate.” The grave downside to this approach is that it misses out on the critical educational opportunities that come from debate and conversation. If it’s just “not ok” to have racist beliefs, what is the racist community member to do? Stay silent and stay racist? Act out with racist graffiti as we have seen? If the debate is allowed to happen, I believe that the thoughtful community at Williams will have the opportunity to test their ideas, learn how to have difficult conversations, learn to empathize with “the other”… and perhaps break out of this polarizing cycle that the nation and world is caught up in.

Note that the leader can (and hopefully will) still firmly support diversity efforts. The trick is to do it in a way that invites conversation rather than denounces it. I have seen this done effectively by some leaders. For example, notice in this community letter how the author avoids any moralistic language but rather invites the reader to consider the consequences for community members of color.

There was a lovely article in a recent alumni magazine about a Williams professor who grew up as a white supremacist. He came to Williams and learned a more full history of the South and came to understand the problems (both moral and logical) with white supremacy. He now passes this on to students in a simple way. He doesn’t explicitly condemn racism — he doesn’t need to. He simply shows students primary documents that make the conclusion obvious.

This led me to wonder whether the Williams of today should offer admission to a student who was openly white supremacist? It may be an interesting question to ask candidates.

If yes, does that violate community standards? If no, how could we have modern successes of the type in the story? I hope Williams’ next president will be able to grapple with the subtleties and tensions in this sort of question and will not resort to a firm yes or no.

Indeed I have come to realize that overcoming hatred and division is not a matter of right and wrong, inclusion or exclusion. Rather it is a process of having difficult conversations and learning how to empathize with marginalized communities and those doing the marginalizing. Only then can we truly move forward together. My hope is that the Williams leaders of tomorrow will be able to grasp these subtleties and will not resort to moralistic thinking which simply deepens the divide between “us” and “them.”

Best,
Robin Stewart

“Maya Angelou suggests there are four questions that we’re all unconsciously asking each other all the time: […]

1. Do you see me?
2. Do you care that I’m here?
3. Am I enough for you?
4. [Am I] special to you?”

-Katherine Schafler (via Thrive Global)

As we interact with others, we can be mindful to demonstrate — through our attention and body language — that the answer to each question is YES.