These are just a few of the unjust incidents that a 3 year old had to deal with on his birthday:

> After seeing his grandmother shake pepper onto her omeletomelet at breakfast, the boy started to shake pepper onto his fruit salad of melon, pineapple and grapes.  She instinctively took the pepper shaker out of his hand saying, “No, pepper isn’t for fruit.  It won’t taste good.”  MBYB Point: This is a motivation issue, not an enforcement issue.

> Looking into the box at his birthday cake, he asked “Can I lick it?”  He was told “No” by his grandmother. MBYB Point:  This is a motivation issue, not an enforcement issue.

> The boy excitedly grabbed his favorite DVD birthday present to take with him into the bathroom as his father led him to his bath after the party.  The boy’s father said, “No, you don’t bring DVDs into the bathroom,” and he took it out of his son’s hand.  The mother, seeing the 3 year old near tears, said, “Well, I don’t see any problem with him taking it in if he wants to.”  MBYB Point #1: By either parent, this is a motivation issue, not an enforcement issue.  MBYB Point #2: If his parents’ decisions with him are abitrary, based on their feelings in the moment and not on a consistent standard of fairness, how will he learn appropriate behavior?

> At the end of the party, several of the adult guests violated the boy’s body, literally, by physically holding him for hugs and kisses that he clearly did not want. He loved his aunt and he loved his grandmother.  He loved his mother who also pretty much demanded a hug from him because her voice told him she would be disappointed in him if he didn’t give her one.  He didn’t have any real problem with any of the other guests.  He just didn’t feel like hugging or kissing anyone in that moment at the end of the party.

MBYB Point #1:  The child learns that his body does not belong to him, that adults can touch his body in ways that he finds uncomfortable any time they want.  They do this either physically because they are stronger, or emotionally as in the case of the mother who would withhold her love and approval if he didn’t give her want she wanted.  In the presence of the most loved and trusted people in his world, with no one stopping the violations, he could only learn that he must be wrong for having boundaries about his body, that the adults must be right.  MBYB Point #2:  When his body gets violated at will by adults, what can be said to him when he hits other people such as another child at daycare, or the man who was in the playground with his daughter?  What justification can the parents use that would make sense to him?  Given what happened at the party, there can’t be a rationale that others’ bodies are not to be touched in ways they don’t want.  He will learn most from how he is treated, not by what he is told — especially when what he is told is inconsistent with how he is treated.

Ed

Red “stop” - green “go” - See my webpage “Whose turn is it?”

Red-Green-Light

Ed

Remember, when someone says, You’re not listening to me, or You never listen to anything I say, or Why can’t you just listen, it is not just an unquantifiable, ethereal, vague, subjective, judgmental criticism.  Without saying it, they are specifically speaking about your reaction being one or more of the 14 typical non-listening human habits.  See the list on the following link:

http://www.lisbepartners.com/content/view/what-listening-is-not.html

I’ve found that no matter how clearly I present Conscious Conversation in a workshop, peoples’ real learning of  the listening/speaking turns occurs only when I point out the ‘red’ interactions between people in the room as they react, unskillfully, to the material.

Yesterday, my son David was talking about something very important to the two of us.  I was listening, feeding back what I thought he was trying to tell me.  Understanding what I was doing, he stopped speaking and suggested, I know you are listening to me, and then when I am done you will probably just do what you want to do anyway.

That gave me pause.  He was right.  So should I have listened?  Or would it have  been better to say, David, I don’t think I’m open to what you are saying”

The LISTENING turn can get very manipulative and controlling.  The better we are at listening, the more we need to be honest with the speaker.  This all has to do with the primary question: Whose turn it is to speak or to listen? I am saying here that maybe that fundamental question is not enough.  http://lisbepartners.com/content/view/whose-turn-is-it.html

Ed

MBYB is only about the moment of disagreement in relationships of unequal power such as  parent:child and teacher: student.  Isn’t the true nature of any relationship defined by how conflict is resolved?  All else between adults and young people is easy — we share, we encourage, we laugh, we teach, we love.

MBYB demands that parents and teachers separate fantasy from reality regarding what we really want when young people challenge our thinking, our decisions, our values, our behaviors, our choices.  At times of conflict, what we say we want in our relationships with kids, and what we do in our behavior with them are worlds apart.

Think about a recent time where someone younger than you expressed his/her disagreement with you by saying something like, “No, I don’t want to” or “Why do I have to?” or “That’s not fair!“  The content of the disagreement doesn’t matter — doing homework, staying up later, cleaning a room, visiting a friend’s house, pushing someone in the lunch line.  Step #1 is you saying what you want or what you think.  What usually happens next, and what would you prefer happens next?  What is your ideal Step #2? Ideally, what do you want when your daughter (son) (student) challenges you?

Choose from the following options:

> She says nothing about how she feels, and does what I want, immediately?

> She says nothing about how she feels, and does what I want, immediately, smiling warmly, pretending to agree with me even though she really doesn’t?

> She says nothing about how she feels, and does what I want, immediately, smiling warmly as she accepts everything I say as “right” and “true” and gives up any internal contrary beliefs or opinions she may have had?

> She states her disagreement in perfectly skillful, elegant, and respectful language no matter how strongly she feels about the issue, and when I repeat once more what I want she does it without another word regardless of her own feelings?

> She states her disagreement, perhaps angrily or with an attitude, and when I tell her once more what I want she immediately drops any of the contrary thoughts, reasons or issues she had, and always accepts whatever I say as ‘right.

> She states her disagreement, and even if spoken with anger and an attitude because of her strong feelings, I say something like, OK, so we don’t see this one the same way.  Thanks for telling me the truth about how you feel.  Let’s take a few minutes to talk about this, and try to figure out what might work best for both of us, or at least for the one of us whose reasoning seems most valid here regardless of our personal feelings?.

What do you, the adult, want when a young person disagrees with you . . . really?

Isn’t it usually any option but the last one?  I rarely see that one as I watch what actually happens between adults and young people.  MBYB is only useful for adults who are sincerely interested in the long-term results (e.g., ethical choices, responsible decision-making, socially just behavior) of resolving conflict through reasoned conversation.  The other options are all coercive, useful for adults whose primary interest with young people is to develop obedient and compliant behavior.

Please see MBYB Overview on website http://www.lisbepartners.com/content/view/mb-yb-overview.html

Ed

Following is an email message from a good friend who knows how to listen.  He felt terrible that he forgot to listen in an important conversation with me:  I defined for him my difference between success and failure in this work:

Stephan’s email to me:

I felt a missing as your car went down my driveway.  A missed opportunity for me to listened, or considering the limited time you had available, a missed opportunity for me to schedule an appointment with you when time allowed so that I could offer my listening.

Please accept my apology for being not present to your discomfort and feeble attempt to fix the situation.  You deserve much more from me then that and it pains me that I fell so short.
When you need to speak, I promise to be present and listen.

My EMailed Response:

WOW . . . you really took that missed opportunity pretty hard and you are committing to being different with me in the future.

Thanks, that’s great.  I love your commitment to me and to the listening process, and I want you to know I see things a little differently.  You recognized pretty soon afterward that you missed that listening opportunity with me. That recognition is the necessary first part of the process of success.  So I don’t see that as the “falling short” you describe.  I really have it be successful, to recover a conversation and see what could have been different.  That recognition can happen within the conversation, immediately afterward, a day or a month later, etc.  And as soon as it’s noticed it can be recovered:  Hey, Ed, I didn’t listen . . . if you still want to talk, I’d love to give the conversation another shot.”

Also, I noticed that you weren’t listening — and I could have reminded you — that is our job with each other, right?  So, I have an equal part in that responsibility.

I have a website that pertains to the value of the individual–not as a potential convert or client for religions or cults–but as the source of something sacred, creative, and NEW, for the person as well as her community.

Ed’s unique method of conscious conversation allows for this “seed within the other” to be nourished by the effective listener.  the website is about the interiority of the person, as personified in the mystical traditions of the Western religions as Sophia, the divine feminine:

www.sophiaandthedragon.com Kathleen Damiani

During a long car ride, I was listening to a conversation between two friends. The speaker, a person who is almost always quiet and laid back, starting screaming and ranting about her sister.  It was the loudest, most uncensored voice I’d ever heard her use.  She was furious.  I thought to myself, Wow, great opportunity to listen and find out what all the anger was about and maybe clear up an issue that I knew has been bothering her for quite awhile.

Before I could start listening, the speaker’s friend began responding with many of the 14 reactions.  In my opinion, her goal was to get her friend quiet and rational, to move her toward problem solving.  That is always what this speaker’s friends do with her, and always, as evidenced here, the problem does not go away long-term.  The friends’ non-listening  “works,” temporarily as it did here — she calmed down almost immediately and then headed in the direction her friend was taking her, agreeing to have a direct conversation with her sister.

The point of this blog comment:  When they were done, I suggested that listening would have been a better option during the tirade than the logic that was used.  Both defended the process they used:  “We’re friends and we have a special rapport for our communication,” “You don’t always have to listen.” etc.  Those kinds of comments imply that the the non-listening friend consciously chose not to listen in the conversation, and that the speaker was aware that she was not being listened to.  My observation was that neither was true.  The non-listening friend did not say to herself, Well, I could listen here but I don’t think that would work very well in this case. That would have been fine.  There are many reasons to choose not to listen.  That is not the issue.  The issue is that we need to acknowledge our unconsiousness in order to begin being more conscious.  That’s the first step.

Ed

Had some ideas about listening over the weekend:  the necessity of it, as we enter a time in history when conventional religions and institutional frameworks may not be able to provide either security or coherence about human life, death and how we are to live.  We’re in a time where things-as-we-knew-them are disappearing.  Our world is being undermined due to economic, environmental and ethical collapse.  Atrocities, war, genocide have metastasized over the planet.

Exoteric, fundamentalist and dogmatic religions offer people a sense of security through belief systems and community.  But what happens when religions become corrupted by hatred, literalism, exclusion, or scandal?  Then we realize that they are MAN-made.  The bible and all the holy books are written by men, then interpreted for the next thousand years by a host of other men, each with their own agenda and choice of meanings in translations.  Religious leaders–those priests & preachers who mediate between the person and their god–presume to know what, by definition, is impossible and fruitless to know; i.e., the term “god” if it means creator or supreme being, is beyond our descriptions and concepts.

Here’s my question:  Can we turn to each other and see the “god” within the other instead of somewhere out there?  As things collapse, so will the religions and their institutional clones.  What does that leave us with?  Only each other.  But, how can we benefit from, and connect with, each other so that ALL OF US thrive, and not just a few dominant ones?  I think the only way is through listening, the kind Ed teaches:  a listening that is NOT just paying attention so I can feed it back, but a “you” (other) focus that censors my own reaction.  The kind of listening that Ed stresses delves into deeper & deeper levels of the speaker, to help her discover her inner vision, or that “longing of the heart” for something nobler, more compassionate and creative.  This deeper dimension of the speaker, when expressed, is a gift that benefits not only her, but the listener and the community.

Kathleen