Episode 5: Boundaries, Integrity, and Inner Peace
Synopsis
This episode is PACKED with useful information, lenses, and applicable tools for creating quick wins around your interpersonal communication: both with loved ones and virtually online. If you've ever seen someone get smeared online for speaking their mind and wondered how on earth people are supposed to have productive dialogue online, in this episode we break down what's functional so that you can repeat it, and negative interactions so that you can enjoy more self control, and life in general.
Show Notes
Hey journeyers. 2020 is the year I realized that non-judgment alone - compassion alone - acceptance alone is like a single bookend… it doesn’t do much good. There are certain situations which call us to slice meanings apart, draw lines, and make distinctions - even take a stand or the dreaded “choose a side” in order to remain in our personal integrity.
I have criteria I use to figure out which situations call for what; which really all come down to one thing: keeping myself and others safe - including the indisputable non-negotiable value of all human life, without preference. I have a process for determining whether I want to go to the effort of sharing: I consider what could be of value, what I seek to achieve by sharing, and whether / how what I share will achieve that goal. Doing this takes energy and time as you can imagine… and the benefit doesn’t usually justify my effort, IMO. To that point, this is the very reason I often don’t share my opinions. If I’m being honest though, there are other reasons I’ve seldom shared my perspectives. I had a really interesting experience on facebook a few weeks ago that brought those into focus for me. I think you’ll find it valuable, so I want to get into the mud with you about it today.
I hope that by breaking down my own experience, you’ll have greater compassion for your own, and potentially want to examine the way that the interactions in your life impact your happiness and inner peace, or whatever value you value most.
The context.
For the first time in years, I shared a very carefully considered five and a half line post on my personal page about a specific event in American politics - one that I considered especially impactful.
It included a link to an article, and my editorial was 4 sentences:
Direct 1 sentence quote by a politician from a press conference.
1 sentence opinion.
1 sentence diagnosis by me about why this matters / why people should care.
1 sentence quote by a professor at Princeton (from the article).
Why did I choose to share that, and what did I hope would result from it?
You actually already know why: it met my criteria!
I thought it was important, I wanted to achieve something by sharing it, and I believed that what and how I shared could achieve that objective...
This is what I tangibly hoped to achieve:
I brought it up because though I’m not a fearful person, what I heard was very concerning to me. I knew I wasn’t alone, and that others would be fearful about the vague threats which were made in a sustained and consistent way over weeks (based on what I was hearing from multiple various media sources and outlets). I believed it to be a serious and important topic / threat.
I brought it up because I wanted anyone experiencing similar concern to feel supported not alone. I was writing it to someone who might feel confused about what to think, and for whom my words could provide clarity.
I shared it to implore anyone not looking to see what was going on, bear witness real time, and make conclusions for themselves.
I was speaking to those focused on other things who might benefit from knowing what was happening.
I wrote it for the friend > on my personal Facebook page < who knows my heart, my mind, and my intention, and who puts stock in my opinions and perspectives enough to be curious about why I might believe what I do, even if it deviates from their present beliefs.
I didn’t bring it up to create argument or further polarize people I care about.
I was surprised and fascinated by the response.
Before I share again, there’s one thing I want you to know, and one thing I want you to watch for:
First, I wasn’t offended by these expressions... and you don’t need to take that burden on for me either. No, the problem that I had with them is something different, related to the much broader effects of harm they cause, which is what I really want to share most.
Second, pay attention to whether these contentious choices or strategies are purely actions and behaviors, or are my interpretations. I’ve been careful to separate behavior from interpretation - but you can decide for yourself.
Here’s what I observed.
People dismissed my contribution because of the media outlet referenced (you’re always going to be wrong in someone’s eyes, aren’t you).
Some took the opportunity to translate the literal meaning of the politicians’s words, and explain them to me.
Someone chose the tact of “Oh, he doesn’t mean it; he’s just trolling”.
Another commented, "I don't think this matters”, and “this isn’t important or material".
I saw people challenge strangers to rationalize, prove or justify their comments instead of start their own conversations.
I saw passive "side-taking" in many forms....
I saw argument and antagonism about issues which weren't even brought up - making agreement on anything impossible. I noticed issue-comparison, and whataboutery. I saw condescension and people insult the broader "them" instead of deal with the human whose comment they were replying to.
Someone used my own military service in an attempt to discredit or invalidate my opinion.
I wondered where this was coming from, and what it was symptom of.
I felt a little ashamed as I watched it unfold, as I thought about how I had contributed to such non-productive dialogue by creating the post in the first place.
It’s a lot, isn’t it? One little post. In an ocean of interactions.
Where can I take personal responsibility?
My heart was in the right place, but my expression was from the holster.
I don’t regret anything that I said, but I was heavy handed and acerbic with my own tone instead of choosing vulnerability. I know that contributed to others’ reactions.
Where else can I take responsibility. Paradoxically, my process of self responsibility is too robust. I self censor. Maybe you do too.
I genuinely believe the reason that there was [relatively – from my perspective] so much reactivity to my opinion being shared was the fact that I seldom do share; if I were more vocal more often, people would probably know by now what to expect from me and just keep scrolling if they don’t like what’s on the channel.
What do I make of all of this?
If you hold ground, you piss people off - even when you do your very very very best. Plain and simple.
But I believe that sacred anger is not the same as blind anger, and it will never churn people up under its axles. Sacred anger has a place, but we don’t collectively tolerate it very well. I want to do what I can to change that.
I believe that the ability to listen well is rare in our culture. Symptoms of talking-over, not listening, include:
- Giving unsolicited and/or off-topic guidance.
- Explaining the meaning of words, instead of responding to someone’s expression, or asking questions.
- Explaining others’ intentions – as if anyone can know them.
- Justifying vagueness, which often has negative effects on many (intended or otherwise).
I see that the expectation of attack, or anticipation of attack is so common. It often reflects how a person is accustomed to engaging with others, not necessarily what is being presented or offered by the initiator. This is a direct result of trauma individuals and the collective have sustained. Reading attack into or taking offense at things that have nothing to do with us personally is called projection, and it’s symptomatic of previous trauma or abuse.
I see even more clearly now how real the pressure of getting publicly attacked or insulted is for people. Sometimes on social media today it seems as if people just want to wipe the “other side” off the face of the earth. It’s such a common theme, and it’s a horrible way to treat each other. Here’s the thing, I believe the majority can silence, but only with the minority’s permission. Even if you are just one person, your voice matters. How strongly you believe in your own worth, and trust yourself will often dictate how easily you quiet yourself.
I believe the ability to hold two ideas at once without personally feeling threatened is a really great predictor of your ability to feel tranquil amid uncertainty, and even conflict. When people take offense to someone’s opinion, it reveals a perceived lack of safety on their part, and is a very black and white lens on a world that’s full of grayscale.
I see there are so many tolerant reactions people can have to hearing an opinion or perspective they don’t agree with that doesn’t involve ignoring them. Engaging with curiosity is an alternative to unwelcomed educating, talking over, challenging, etc. People can tell the difference. Which one do you choose?
So what Mandy?
My motivation is not to tell anyone how to behave. I don’t align with restricting others’ choices. The simple truth is that our choices and actions have consequences, and we each inevitably deal with those...
What I am advocating for is more intentionality in social media.
Want to create more peace through your own communication? Here are some questions to ask yourself to start:
Before you engage, are you taking responsibility for all your own hurt and anger? Do you know what that looks and feels like?
Do weak spots in your personal boundaries help you take someone else's opinion as a personal attack, whether or not it’s real?
Do you know what Non-Violent Communication looks and sounds like?
Will your communication make an impact?
These are so worth looking into – for your own health and happiness.
What if I argue another side… Let’s flip the script.
What if your post isn’t “peaceful” at all…
{As I reflect upon my own, who knows, maybe it wasn’t}…
There’s a time for passivity, and there’s a time for action.
I think it’s important to divide around issues of safety, security, and hate. And we each get to decide what and where those lines are for us.
Confrontation of actual harm may not always look or seem “perfect”, “PC”, or “peaceful”. But that’s sometimes true because of how the table was set, not because of the message or the messenger.
Speaking your truth isn’t the problem. The problem is the intolerance and hate itself.
And if you think I’m talking about Trump, or Biden, or anything or anyone specific, you’re not hearing me.
In situations of violence, peace isn’t restored by playing nice according to how someone else sets the table. It’s restored by firm, unflinching, faithful commitment to the truth, no matter what it costs us: commitment to conversation not argument, and to action that matches passion, including real listening.
Truth is, peace can only be made and maintained by TWO sides – by BOTH sides. If one side (me in this case, maybe you in your own instances and life) repeatedly bears the burden of not rocking the boat, and maintaining a cool head, staying quiet, and being nice, but another party is punchy, it’s not peace.
Sometimes speaking truth looks at its surface like creating trouble – because when you speak truth and people don’t like it, the speaking seems to cause the reaction. But that’s not really how it works. That’s the logic of gaslighting.
It’s my calling and joy to help others uproot the source of pain and suffering.
One huge cause of suffering is injustice and indifference for all parties involved – and fear of judgment, ridicule, rejection, attack. But there is nothing to fear. You are safe.
I bring this up because I know many people probably grapple with similar concerns. I want to give hope and express kinship to those who feel fear.
I will continue to hold space for others who are wounded and make mistakes. I’m not into cancel culture. But I will ALSO cultivate a space around me (including in the digital space) that is respectful of all lives, particularly the marginalized, the defenseless, the innocent. To me, that entails holding others responsible for their words and actions, and their effects, intended or unintended.
I respect others’ right to draw their own conclusions, and to hold any opinion or preference they choose – but violence or destruction in my space will be confronted.
In the words of Glennon Doyle, “Please feel free to tell the truth. Say it directly, say what you want to say, but also please know, I am a person who has spent a lot of time learning how to say hard things, to disagree with a level of respect and kindness, I offer that to other people and I require it myself. So please feel free to disagree with me, do not feel free to be unkind or dismissive or mean, because I honor myself, I have boundaries, and I’m gonna protect all those around me who have feelings which will be exposed through all of this.”
Before we part, I’d like to share my guidelines for deciding when to engage with others and how. Perhaps they can double as a set of guidelines for the type of communication you want to allow to enter your own spaces:
I am really thoughtful about who I extend myself to “help” and who I don’t. Is help solicited? Will it be received?
When I do offer assistance to someone who holds a certain opinion, or fear, I leave generalizations and assumptions at the door.
I spend exactly zero minutes weekly trying to convince others that their opinions are wrong, or to “educate” or “save” them. The day when I have the energy to spare for that type of effort is never going to dawn in my lifetime.
I see the best way to help in this situation is actually to not engage the parasitic pendulums of “us vs. them” conflicts at all. I just keep scrolling.
Instead, I choose to have a plan of action which aligns with my values and can create actual effect and good, in the highest leverage ways possible. That’s one reason I have more peace of mind than many people I meet.
In short, reserve your energy for your own purposes, and don’t fear others’ reactions - because there will always be one. Positive or negative.