What If...

Have you ever played the What If game?  It's where we try to arrive at a conclusion without all of the information.  Or, we don't know what to do or are afraid of a certain outcome.  Or, we don't want to follow the path set before us.  We become preoccupied with all of the possibilities that could happen, cycling through an infinite number of  variations:  What if...

Let's play around, though, with the current political environment or a key issue where people have starkly contrasting views.  We seem to stay in our corner, befriending only our position.  We sometimes are in a stalemate with others:  we can't talk civilly without labeling the Other.  Our corner becomes ours... and we feel safe by pushing others away.

But, what if...

What issues cause divisions in your life?
(Photo Credit:  Understanding Political Correctness, Money Crashers)

Recently, someone texted:  "Growing up, we were taught not to talk about religion and politics.  Now that we are grown, we don't know how to talk about religion and politics!"  What an interesting outcome:  we don't have the skills to talk about what may be important to us!

Barry Johnson's work on polarity management provides a dialogical framework to talk about:

• What I understand is positive about your [or my] position; and
• What I fear or am concerned about your [my] position.

The ability to put into my words what I hear about your thoughts provides a connection that may not be readily available when I am cornered -- or retreat into my corner [position].

But... what if...

What do I hear about your thoughts and goals? 
(Click on image to enlarge)
(Photo Credit:  Using 'Polarity Thinking' to Achieve Sustainable Positive Outcomes, Elsevier)

In Johnson's polarity map there are two boxes near the center:  Shared Aspiration and Outcome to be Avoided.  I wonder:  what if we would spend more time exploring aspirations and outcomes that we agree upon rather than the corners that protect us?

Don't get me wrong!  More work is needed to understand the pro's and cons of each position, but it seems our current communication pattern (i.e., "protecting the corners") has created downward spirals of misunderstanding and mistrust.  What if we changed the starting point?

For instance, what if:

• Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates explored a common aspiration?
  Example: respect for all life, the unborn and the mother.
• Gun Control and Gun Ownership proponents agreed upon an outcome to be avoided?
  Example:  how to avoid unnecessary deaths.

What if we were to instill individual values...
and... respect for differences?

What if our starting point wasn't the opposing corners but a shared understanding of aspiration and outcome?  Even though our values and decisions may separate us, we might have an anchor of understanding and trust that may keep us from becoming fully divided.

And, what if... we begin to teach our children how to talk about religion and politics in ways that nurture curiosity, explore differing truths, and allow for common aspirations and outcomes to unite and restore rather than divide and ignore?

This week, may we be open to possibilities that show us the What Ifs of our wonderful world!
 

Larry Gardepie

Dialogue San Diego Consulting

(click on link for website)