This past week I witnessed two friends come to loggerheads about a political issue. One friend had tried to reach out in the form of a letter to someone who had very different political opinions. The other friend chastised the letter-writer for being too soft and gentle, to the point of appearing close to supporting the views of other person and becoming part of the problem. This got me thinking about something I learned years ago.
During my career as a therapist, I learned from another therapist one of those things that can’t be taught. We both worked on an inpatient psychiatric unit where some patients were very troubled. There was one seriously depressed patient who seemed to be intractably stuck in depression. My colleague was able to break through and the emotional logjam that held this person back eased and began to resolve. When we debriefed to evaluate how she had helped to effect this change, she said, “I met her where she was at.”
I immediately knew what she meant and also realized the wisdom and power of this simple-sounding perspective. Instead of beginning a session or conversation with one’s own ideas of what will work, what is needed, or what must change, one starts and stays for as long as necessary with an open, curious, and nonjudgmental mind. One starts with questions, neutral questions to learn about the other and gain information. This is not easy, especially when one has strong feelings about a situation or differing opinions.
Along with the process of asking neutral, information-seeking questions, one adds reflective statements about what you have learned, “so, you are especially upset about the possibility of your daughter’s school closure.” And so on.
This process creates understanding and builds trust. These two components create the foundation for potential compromise and resolutions. Whenever there are strongly differing opinions or ideas, I think of this simple framework for dialogue. Imagine if our congress practiced these simple although demanding principles of engagement.