Things I've learned from counselling #3
Jan. 28th, 2013 09:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberett[content note: abuse]
Nobody has to be wrong.
A major feature of my childhood was being told that my father didn't care who'd done what, he just wanted us brats to be quiet and stop squabbling, how many times does he have to tell us before we'll get it through our thick heads, and being shouted at or threatened with violence until I parroted "Yes daddy, sorry daddy, I won't do it again daddy."
Surprisingly enough, I ended up with pretty shoddy skills in the general area of conflict resolution.
My first reaction to any conflict - for a long, long time - was self-loathing: I am bad, I am wrong, I have broken everything, if I am abject enough maybe things will be okay eventually.
My first step out of that response was to externalise: if it's not me who was obviously, 100%, vilely wrong - then clearly it's the other party. And off I stalk in my towering righteous rage...
... but of course It's A Bit More Complicated than that. One of my many hats is active listening; my work with![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
vaginapagina (on the LJ side, rather than the DW!) requires me to gracefully mediate in conflict resolution on a pretty regular basis. One way or another, I come into contact - very frequently - with the idea that in disputes, a lot of the time an awful lot can be fixed by getting participants back to a point where they can assume good faith of each other. Because both parties have history getting them to the point of conflict...
... and the difficult bit? Turned out to be applying the same principle to myself: the idea that just because I'm having a disagreement with someone doesn't mean I'm awful and inhuman, and also doesn't mean they're awful and inhuman, and that there is in fact a middle path.
Like so many other things, this one is a work in progress for me - but I'm getting better at it, and that's okay.
Nobody has to be wrong.
A major feature of my childhood was being told that my father didn't care who'd done what, he just wanted us brats to be quiet and stop squabbling, how many times does he have to tell us before we'll get it through our thick heads, and being shouted at or threatened with violence until I parroted "Yes daddy, sorry daddy, I won't do it again daddy."
Surprisingly enough, I ended up with pretty shoddy skills in the general area of conflict resolution.
My first reaction to any conflict - for a long, long time - was self-loathing: I am bad, I am wrong, I have broken everything, if I am abject enough maybe things will be okay eventually.
My first step out of that response was to externalise: if it's not me who was obviously, 100%, vilely wrong - then clearly it's the other party. And off I stalk in my towering righteous rage...
... but of course It's A Bit More Complicated than that. One of my many hats is active listening; my work with
vaginapagina (on the LJ side, rather than the DW!) requires me to gracefully mediate in conflict resolution on a pretty regular basis. One way or another, I come into contact - very frequently - with the idea that in disputes, a lot of the time an awful lot can be fixed by getting participants back to a point where they can assume good faith of each other. Because both parties have history getting them to the point of conflict...... and the difficult bit? Turned out to be applying the same principle to myself: the idea that just because I'm having a disagreement with someone doesn't mean I'm awful and inhuman, and also doesn't mean they're awful and inhuman, and that there is in fact a middle path.
Like so many other things, this one is a work in progress for me - but I'm getting better at it, and that's okay.