::::::::
“Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean”.--Quoted by a friend
It was an interesting learning experience.
I was at a friend’s Christmas party, who is also my activist partner. This guy is full of brilliant ideas, very determined and empowered, he “gets it” right away and is a lot more than just concerned. There is a fire lit under him, and he won’t be stopped.
He was talking with two guests at his party and “lit into” these people in a way which one could say would be less than productive. Of course, it’s understandable: When passion and conviction unite, and when those two meet face-to-face with urgency and red alert, it’s very difficult to contain that emotional fountain bubbling beneath the surface.
Then again, it’s understandable too how the two guests reacted: Denial, “you’re a conspiracy theorist”, “I feel sorry for you because I think you are very paranoid”, etc.
My activist partner would not “let up” and kept driving the point home in his heated way. He made a very important point that when people automatically label activists as “paranoid” without having researched the facts first, they are rushing to a premature and out-of-line conclusion. He said that he was irritated that people listen to the censored mainstream news and don’t bother to search further, or take the time to read a small book which he wanted to give them. “Our house is on fire” he said “we have got to put the fire out”. But right as he absolutely was, it still didn’t work. The two women left the party.
Sometimes our effectiveness is not about “being right”, but instead it’s about honoring the listener's psychology involved. In fact, “being right” can at times be our losing point, where the psychology of human interactions is concerned. So the secret of effective activism, I learned from this observer’s experience, is to be armed with all the convincing facts but also is not to spew those facts. For others to believe in our work goes much deeper than being convinced by facts alone. It’s interactive psychology, not facts which are the tipping point.
It was a good learning experience because I will be honest in saying that I have made the same mistake once or twice. I verbally blasted a group of people I was networking with in a proactive way when they were silent and uncooperative at key moments which were of gravely serious concern. I was furious with the lack of ethic and just couldn’t believe it. I “popped” and blasted them all for their complicity. And of course, it only backfired, with me labeled as “The problem” instead of them taking responsibility for their own selves. Naturally, I left that group.
Why do I share this story? Because I think many of us activists run into the same psychodynamics. We feel strongly about the urgency at stake, especially in post-911 America, and become attached to the idea of convincing people. We drive the point home and back it up with real-life facts, only to find that denial on the receiving end is thick enough to simulate a brick wall, which we are only banging our whole bodies (not just our heads) against. Denial can and does take people to their graves, and is the hardest thing in the world to push past, if not even impossible. To boot, attachment rarely works, even when it‘s not interacting with denial.
What’s the solution?
I don’t pretend to know it all, and in fact am going to buy a copy of Cracking the Code, to learn the secrets of effective self-projection and communication. And I told my activist partner that was probably the wisest next step which both of us could take.
But being in the observer’s role of what happened at the party, the detached overview of the situation did yield a few insights:
Perhaps it’s best to be interested and curious in what informs a person’s beliefs, rather than “being positional” and trying to convince others. I observed that the two women he was talking with were psychologically blocking him out, as if to shield themselves from the barrage and from the unwanted information. They registered non-verbal cues of anger and resentment at being “pushed”. They didn’t want to be “brought down” with politics during the holidays, or probably for that matter at any time. I think people have to be ready to “hear” us: We can lead the horse to water, but we can’t make it drink.
Talk about a lesson in how to turn people off to our cause, and in a hurry too: The more we push past the wall of denial, the more we convince them that we ourselves are “the kooks” and that the information must be all the more non-credible. That’s the last thing any of us need for our movement!
It seems that the secret of convincing people is for ourselves to be believable, in our manner and in our formation of ideas. (IE too much negative predicting will be viewed as “paranoid” etc). Once we ourselves have credibility, then the facts will be “heard”. Lacking that believable self-projection, those same exact facts, no matter how accurate, will be tossed out as far-fetched.
I think if my friend had asked questions of the two women, listening with a genuinely open mind to their point of view and concerns, then sharing his own, it would have been much more effective.
It’s a salesman’s tool: When you listen to a client, you have them in the palm of your hand. Any objections the client offers to buying your product (in this case, “buying” the “ideas” and “facts” as “the product”) are only the keys for a salesman to close his/her sale: One finds out what the objections are, compassionately addresses the needs, and bingo! Sold. Thus, the objections to the sale become the catapults to success.
Same thing with our activist work. Perhaps we are best equipped to respond to peoples’ mindsets when we “hear them out” first and know where they are coming from. In order to be effective, we need to first understand their beliefs and further, what psychological underpinnings drive those beliefs. No small task!
Here’s a great example of a denial-based belief which was said at the party, for us all to wrap our brains around: “I don’t believe that Bush deliberately lied about the weapons of mass destruction. I think he just didn’t know”.
Another interesting statement: “ I think we Americans do ‘get it’ now and are waking up. We all know that the Patriot Act is a violation of our liberties”. “Do you know what the Patriot Act is all about?” I asked the lady. “No” she answered. So much for waking up. Without knowing what the specific civil liberties violations are, and how much of a police state the Patriot Act creates, how can people claim that they are “waking up” and are truly concerned? How aware and responsible does the lack of knowledge make us as citizens? If a friend or neighbor was arrested without warrant or probable cause under the Patriot Act, would they think the person was arrested for good reason and even was a terrorist? Uh-oh. Ignorance is bliss, but it sure doesn’t make us responsible citizens.
Some other interesting things were said at the party, none of which I agree with at all, but which none-the-less are important for us to take note of as activists:
“Your family life is much more important than whether or not we lose the bill of rights”.
Yes I agree: Of course family comes first. But by golly, what happens to us when we lose that bill of rights? I think we Americans are so accustomed to our freedom that we can’t fathom the horrors which occur in dictatorship. Tianenmen Square is not the abnormal example: It was only the most public one that we know of. I can tell you that friends of ours behind the Iron Curtain told my sister “Shhhhh!” immediately when she breathed the word “government” in a public café. That’s all it took: One word. And these were ordinary citizens, not big fish in the pond. Other friends of ours behind the Iron Curtain were threatened with their lives based on writing a book which exposed the dictatorial government in its act. Yet another set of friends told us that if they had left Hungary without governmental permission, their family members would have been taken hostage. Citizens in Greece could be jailed for singing a song which decried the government….When the day comes that we lose our bill of rights, watch out!
How do we deal with this wall of denial and just plain innocence, when the matters at stake are so urgent? How do we brief people in to the realities of life in dictatorship (which as everyone on this forum knows America is becoming) when they don’t want to hear the story in the first place? Tough question and once again, it’s possible that we can lead the horse to water but can’t make it drink, and we must accept that. Maybe, ironically, when we back down in honor of peoples’ limits we will be most effective.
Then again, maybe there is a way to convince people which works.
I don’t know about you, but I am all for buying a copy of Cracking the Code and letting Opednews benefit from the purchase. I also like the book “How to Win Any Argument” which is not about arguments at all, but about verbal presentations and being perceived in the way one wants to be perceived. It’s excellent.
After the party, my friend e-mailed me with a bit of shame, saying “I must learn to control my outrage” and that he had to somehow put a curb on his emotional passion. I agree with the need but disagree with the method. I think control never works, and particularly to control impassioned conviction, which comes right from the soul, is not only futile but unhealthy. Instead, I suggested that to voice the “hot thought” which fuels the outrage would be key. Then, the emotions would subside on their own. Plus, communication would be enhanced. Passion and conviction are trying to vociferously accomplish an important task, and to hold them down would be counter-productive. To channel the energy in a healthy and focused way would be key.
Far from “being soft and gentle” as my activist friend has been coached in his Toastmasters meetings, I think that to share from the soul is the truest way to be “heard”. Fakeness will never cut it. We’ve got to be our authentic selves, and to swallow that authenticity will never work. Spirit is what communicates and motivates. It’s only a matter of how we do it. We must only be sure to “say what we mean, mean what we say but not say it mean”: Offensive statements will never be heard, and offensive statements are exactly what are often made when much is emotionally at stake. When we voice the cause of the concern, the truth is aired and has the greatest carrying power. Heavy-duty emotions are only trying to get an important deed accomplished: As the core issues are voiced, the function which those emotions are trying to accomplish will be filled, and therefore the feelings will subside on their own. And people begin to connect on a deeply heart level when the most core truths are voiced. To voice the deepest truths which fuel our convictions and our concerns may be the key to communications in life generally, not only in our activist work. If communication is love and truth in action, amen! So be it. Bring it on.
