My sidekick NPR radio and I were driving to the boat. This followed a busy visit off-island to see family. On the radio was Jon Meacham, the historian, suggesting which historical era was most similar to the present day. “I thought that our current moment was like 1933 or 1968.” I started thinking about history. 1933––post financial crash, labor movement, and rise of fascism. 1968––civil rights, women’s movement, Vietnam. Interesting thought experiment.
My thoughts wandered away to consider a recent conversation. A family member, I’ll call them Jan, has been upset with me for a couple of years. Finally, when we found ourselves coincidentally in the same city, Jan agreed to meet. We talked. I listened as carefully as I could. I wanted to settle things and hoped Jan did too.
Listening with an Open Mind
I’ll spare you the messy details, but what seems clear is that Jan and I had, and still have, absolutely different versions of our shared personal history—particularly about one interaction a couple of years ago. Talking about this remembered interaction, our present-day discussion revealed two different versions of events. The split screen of Jan’s remembered account and Sara’s remembered account look so divergent, they could be scenes from different movies altogether. Different genres even.
Jon Meacham continued on the radio. “I am increasingly concerned . . . that this is more like the 1850s, where there are competing versions of reality itself.” I was struck by the last part of this sentence: competing versions of reality itself. In his reference to the split-screen storyline from history so long ago, I connected to how differently Jan and I had remembered our shared interactions.
Meacham continued to talk about US history 173 years ago. “It was not settled by a congressional debate. . . It was settled by . . . the Civil War . . . 750,000 Americans dead.” Continuing with my thoughts, I compared my personal situation. So far, no munitions have been launched between me and Jan. I guess you could
characterize our recent period as a Cold War—with neither of us talking much and resentment building on both sides.
Personal Histories—Mutuality and Future Focus
The personal conflict stories that we tell ourselves often differ from those of others who lived through the same events. Why we see things so differently is a bit beyond my pay grade. Do we block out events that are distasteful? Create a heroic narrative for ourselves and a villainous one for the other person? Do we remember the exact opposite of what might have actually happened due to a weird twist of brain cells that attaches most strongly with negative events? Does memory just fade over time? And what about trauma and emotions?
One thing I know for sure is that memory is notoriously flawed, as has recently been shown by research into criminal case lineups and witness statements. When it comes to the situation between Jan and me, events and conversations were certainly perceived very differently by the two of us—though we are both perfectly capable thinkers. In the field of conflict resolution there are two ways of looking at this. One way is through what is called mutuality and the other is through being future focused.
Mutuality
Now, two years after the event, when Jan listened to me, and I listened to Jan, we practiced the complicated dance of mutuality. We were doing our best to open ourselves up to what had happened for the other person. We tried to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. Here’s what I learned: something I had said and done had really bothered Jan. Instead of rejecting that by putting my hands over my ears I tried to take into my own consciousness Jan’s version and consider it as valid and real for them. To consider the possibility that I might be remembering things wrong. To think about how crappy it must have felt to be Jan in that situation. It wasn’t easy.
As I reflect on this situation, I realize that I learned about the powerful application of the concept of mutuality when I became a conflict coach. The CINERGY model, which is the foundation for our own CLAMSHELL model of conflict coaching, builds into and then out from a midpoint mutuality crescendo. The coach walks their coaching participant through a mutuality exercise. They guide the person to imagine what the other person is going through. The coach helps them to consider the other person’s perspective as valid and worthwhile.
Future Focus
In a conflict, once both people learn about what happened for the other person, it’s time to look forward to the future. Instead of spinning around and around and trying to convince the other person that your version is the truth, the idea is to consider if there’s anything you can do to resolve things. That’s what’s meant by the concept of being future focused. So one thing more was added into the mix: I tried my best to offer a sincere and heartfelt apology.
I’m in the future focused stage now with Jan. Do I think Jan’s version is right? Well. Here’s what I say to that, though it is hard to say: Does it really matter? I’d like to have as good a relationship as possible with this family member, and fighting for my version isn’t going to get me there. So, I’m going to try to see what I can do, within my capacity, to make things right and move on to a better future. To make a plan to keep Jan within my circle of concern. To make peace, if possible.
Macro and Micro Histories
Mark Twain is often credited with saying “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Actually, it turns out that he didn’t really say that, but it’s a great quote anyway. Finding comparative events from the past helps us to imagine what might be coming. To be prepared. Jon Meacham surveyed the last few centuries and found a past era that may be a rhyme with today’s time.
“Competing versions of reality itself,” seems a common conundrum on the national and international stage. In thinking about what has worked in my situation with Jan, could it be that the three-step process––1) listening with an open mind, 2) applying the mutuality lens, and 3) being future focused––could apply? Are these helpful constructions on the macro level?
In my personal conflict, one I am now pleased to see as a work in progress, I was helped by the words of an expert in American history. Though personal histories and societal histories might not be accurately matched as rhyme, they may have a similar tune and cadence. Looking at the past with a wide macro lens or up close with a microscope, if we filter out the noise and confusion, we might find a familiar melody there.
Micro conflict approaches here here here here here
Macro conflict approaches here here
John Meacham interview here