19: Consequences of Poor Communication Skills

Introduction

The first two sections of the book were primarily focused upon uncovering underlying assumptions that frequently lead to faulty conclusions. For instance, a common assumption is that the Group good is equivalent to the Individual Good and that the Leader is oriented towards the welfare of everyone in the Group. This assumption leads to an unquestioning obedience to the Leader's directives, which could be self destructive - not in the best interests of the Individual. However, if the Individual realizes that he is frequently sacrificed for the good of the Group, then it behooves him to question and explore the Leader's directives to make sure that they are in his best interests. The Individual does not want to be chosen as the ‘fall guy’ for the Leader and Group.

Rather than continuing to examine the mental misconceptions based in intellectual laziness, we are going to explore the roots of emotional responses. In the prior section, we investigated the idea of consequences for understanding and reacting properly. In this section we are going to explore the consequences of anger and fear and their connection. We begin by examining the underlying assumptions behind communication based on anger and fear. In this light, we will discuss the consequences of inappropriate communication and suggest a more appropriate orientation.

We are going to use an example from a more intimate level as a springboard for the discussion - namely a series of events from our personal experience. What could be more fascinating or rewarding than exploring personal relations? Especially when it concerns one’s own Person.

A Personal Example of Anger from R

The three characters from this Play of Life are L, D, and R (no names to preserve anonymity).

R encountered an external situation that evoked the emotional response of anger. Let us recreate the situation the best we can.

R purchased a trailer that fulfilled many of his needs - a place to store his tools, his motorcycle, and any other personal belongings that didn’t fit in his small apartment, which he rented from D&L. It was a convenient way of expanding his personal space. Further the trailer was mobile so that he could move anything he had easily. It was the garage that R had always wanted and needed. His trailer made him very happy in that it fulfilled many of his needs.

Unfortunately, because of its size it didn’t make a lot of other people in the neighborhood happy. To make a longer story a bit shorter, neighbors called the police to have him remove it from the street. This triggered an initial anger, which was somewhat neutralized when his landlords D&L allowed him to move it into their driveway, temporarily.

However, temporarily became permanent and at one point L asked R to move his beloved trailer from their driveway - the trailer which fulfilled so many of his needs. R, feeling his situation threatened, subconsciously assumed that the best response to defend his position was the threat of implied violence, expressed as anger. He behaved in an intimidating fashion to L - i.e. raising his voice and jutting out his chest and chin.

R: “L has threatened my treasured trailer; therefore she must not like me. She must be the enemy. I must discourage her from attacking me by threatening her through an expression of anger.”

Of course, these were not conscious strategies but learned automatic responses that he was victimized by - behavior patterns that he needed to investigate and control - so that he would not be destroyed by them.

D & L’s Inexperience with Anger

L, one of the principals and D’s wife, was raised in a nourishing supportive environment. My Person, called D, while not grown in a nutrient rich soil, was, at least, not raised in a hostile environment. Neither of them knew anyone who was regularly beaten as a child, when they were growing up. L never felt the blow of a hand. She only knew strokes and caresses. While D was struck a few times, it never hurt and was of no consequence because it was not really meant to hurt as much as to scare.

While this nutritive upbringing has many positive features, the down side was that someone raised in this type of environment does not know how to deal with anger appropriately because they’ve had no practice. D’s basic response to anger had been to avoid it - certainly not confront it. L, having always been treated with respect by her parents, was used to speaking her mind without fear of retaliation.

L responds with Anger and R retaliates

When L was confronted with R’s anger she responded with anger, assuming that no one should behave this way. Because of the misunderstanding L did and said things that only added fuel to R’s emotional fire - establishing her firmly as the enemy.

The enemy has responded. Retaliation is in order. This is the violent response to anger. This is the common response that our culture teaches. Instead of teaching us to work our problems out in open dialogue, the model teaches us to retaliate to get our way and teach our enemy a lesson. R raised his voice even louder and made increasingly threatening gestures - attempting to push back L’s attack on his Homeland, as symbolized by his trailer.

L suppresses anger, comes out as passive aggression

Sensitive enough to realize the negative consequences of accelerating emotions and a bit afraid of the implied threat of physical violence, L decided to remain silent in the midst of R’s anger - for fear of saying the wrong thing. Unfortunately anger that is suppressed comes out as passive aggression. This is natural and normal.

While L was quiet externally, she naturally released her anger towards R in little passive aggressive bursts - ‘inadvertently’ stepping on R’s toes, pushing his buttons, in short making him mad. In response R continued to defend his trailer from attack by continuing to intimidate L with his angry threatening behavior. While L still wanted the trailer moved, she was afraid that she might say the wrong thing that would trigger a violent response from R.

This sequence of events put her into an increasingly passive aggressive mode. L suppressed her anger. However, as is natural, it continued to inadvertently leek out in behavior and words that further aggravated R. She did little things that made him angry - rather than confront him directly with her frustrations - for fear that he would lash out in some type of verbal anger.

With emotional retaliations being thrown back and forth on subtle levels, an undeclared cold war chilled into freezing.

D attempts to avoid face to face Confrontation with Anger

Then came the blow up.

L, in order to clean the driveway, which was filled with R’s trailer, had ‘accidentally’ blown dirt all over another one of R’s prized possessions, his beloved motorcycle, his Harley.

R told D: “You had better warn your wife, L, that she had better not get dust on my motorcycle or else.”

D, who was a coward, in terms of interpersonal interactions, couldn’t just confront R. He had spent his whole life avoiding confrontation - why start now. Thus he resorted to passive aggressive behavior. He retreated quietly instead of confronting R face-to-face and saying: “Hey man. That was uncool. You shouldn’t be threatening my wife like that. She may have been getting even with you - because you were getting even with her - because she was getting even with you - because you were getting even with her - ... But that’s not the point. The point is that threatening is not cool.”

Unfortunately D did not say that. Unfortunately D was afraid that R might respond angrily. And D did not want to experience anger. He attempted to avoid displays of anger - at all costs.

“Why?” you, the Reader might ask, if you even care. “Had R ever manifested physical violence?”

“No.”

Reader: “Had R ever hurt anyone physically?”

“No, but he had regularly threatened to do bodily harm to people who crossed his path.”

Reader: “But never did?”

“No.”

Reader: “Then why so afraid?”

Because D had never learned the language of confrontation. He had always run away as fast as he could at the first signs of anger. He had learned this automatic response in his childhood. His Mother had experienced a roller coaster of mood swings due to a premature hysterectomy before the days of hormone maintenance. Little D had learned to respond to these erratic emotional outbursts by retreating into his own private worlds of books, sports and friends. Confrontation was never successful in these circumstances because the angry outburst was based on an emotional roller coaster rather than a specific reason. Further these emotional explosions would always pass. So D’s strategy towards external anger was one of quietude rather than face-to-face confrontation. However just like R’s displays of anger, D’s retreat before anger was equally unconscious and reactive.

Inappropriate response to Anger Times Three

Thus we have R, L and D all responding inappropriately to anger. R felt unjustly attacked through his trailer and so retaliated with behavior designed to intimidate L. Because L was irritated but didn’t know how to express herself she resorted to passive aggressive behavior designed to aggravate R. Because D is an emotional coward he ran away from anger, avoiding confrontation.

Meditation leads to Resolution

However D’s thoughts were disturbed. As was his style, he went into a deep meditation to clean his mind of preconceptions. In the midst of quietude, the Little Voice said that it was time for R to leave. Because of the codependent frustration that both L and R were experiencing, the anger was not going away and was only going to accelerate to retaliation on more intense levels. While D was afraid of retaliation, he gave R notice to vacate the premises in the time allotted by law in order to prevent any permanent damage that would probably occur if the anger were allowed to accelerate. In the midst of quietude he realized that he had no other choice under the circumstances.

While D is still an emotional coward, he faced his fears and confronted the situation. While he would rather dance with the gods than get involved in the affairs of mortals, he made the move that was required of him at the time it was required. While R threatened to retaliate in undisclosed ways, D talked and listened and talked and listened until R’s anger abated. Because of D’s compassion R finally left quietly, not willingly, but at least without hatred, resentment, and animosity. Most importantly, although they had to take the situation to court, D, L, and R separated as friends.

While D’s behavior was not impeccable, it was the best he could muster under the circumstances. At least he spoke up when his wife was threatened. This was admirable. D should be commended for standing up to his fear of retaliation from R, rather than backing down.

 

Home    The Firing Process    III. Logic Problems    Previous    Next    Comments