Trust and fruitful relationships require a
commitment to ‘voice’, the effort to acknowledge problems in a relationship,
view them soberly and approach them constructively and reasonably, and to solve
them together, in give and take.
It requires an effort at mutual
understanding. Crossing what in this blog I have called ‘cognitive distance’,
differences in views, perspective, norms and knowledge, trying to understand
and be understood. That requires adequate ‘absorptive capacity’, ability to
understand, from experience and knowledge, skills of empathy, imagining oneself
in the shoes of the other, and skill of expression, with the use of metaphor to
phrase one’s views in terms familiar to the other. It requires trust in giving
space to the other, running the risk that the other employs that space to one’s
detriment.
That makes voice difficult, full of effort,
and risky. It is easier to 'exit': walk out, break the relationship, and be done
with it. Differences in perspective, views and knowledge can be fruitful but
also bothersome.
When uncertain, averse to risk, or
mistrustful, one may go for pre-emptive exit: getting out before the other
does. One may be hesitant to invest in a relationship with a high risk of loss.
This may apply, in particular, to love relationships, in fear of getting hurt,
and ‘wasting one’s best years’. Having been cheated or deserted a lot, one will
stand more ready to cut losses and flee.
According to Alain Badiou[i] and Simon Critchley[ii] love is not comfort and contentment but ongoing effort. It strikes a gap in the self, to receive a gift over which one has no power, and giving something over which one also has no power. It is a conquering of the impossible. It is easier not to engage in it.
Also, the grass may seem greener on the
other side of the hill, tempting exit to gain more.
Lacking self-confidence, feeling
vulnerable, one may be on the look-out for negative signs, tempted to give a
negative interpretation to harmless, even well-intended acts.
This is strengthened by the psychological
phenomenon of ‘loss aversion’: more weight is attached, with stronger emotions,
to potential loss than to potential gain. In a ‘loss frame’ people may fall
into emotional extremes. Even businessmen have been known to litigate in
revenge, at great cost, without the slightest chance of success.
Third parties may help, in a ‘heart to
heart’ with a good friend, perhaps, or consultation with a professional
intermediary, dousing flames of fear and emotion, defusing foregone
conclusions, recognizing the facts, showing the positive, checking out
suspicions.
In sum, voice is hard, and fragile. It
takes courage, commitment and perseverance.
And when, finally, a decision to exit is
taken, with good reasons, the question becomes how to conduct it.
One form of exit is the ambush: prepare
exit on the sly, and spring it by surprise, dropping the bomb, leaving the
other in confusion and distress. That minimizes the opportunity for the other
to block or obstruct the exit. It is a tempting form of exit.
But it also catapults the other in a loss
frame that may trigger extremes of revenge, in conflict, litigation, slander
and destruction of reputation.
The other option is a voice mode of exit.
Here one alerts the other in time, helps to unravel the relationship, giving
support in exit, and some form of compensation, perhaps, and help in finding an
alternative. Here also, third parties may help as intermediaries.
Are the dedication to voice, and the skills
needed, resisting the temptations of exit, sufficiently part of education?
No comments:
Post a Comment