Skip to main content

the process of mindful dialogue


Relationships are notoriously challenging journeys in life; without our conscious awareness we bring into them patterns developed during early childhood experiences and other painful personal events involving feelings of rejections, disappointment shame, etc. Given how loaded the territory is, we can feel threatened during times of tension, holding onto defensive strategies that sabotage safe communication: a desire to be right, avoidance, inflexible beliefs about how others should behave.
And so, if we are to succeed in navigating our interpersonal lives, we need to develop  mindful dialogue skills to assist us when communication breaks down. What follows is explanation of how people experiencing an interpersonal conflict can successfully use the core three tools of mindful dialogue—attunement, sympathy/understanding, and empathy—to develop a deeper connection based on the safe exchange of emotionally charged experience.

When a relational conflict or concern arises between two people, a request should be made for a dialogue at a mutually convenient time; the partner should try to prioritize requests and agree to a time to meet no more than 2 days following the request. Note: It's important to use these dialogues not only to convey frustrating experiences, but to communicate positive feelings and important news as well. If we only use dialogues to express disappointments, dialogue will quickly be associated as a negative process and will wind up avoided by one or both partners. Its useful for these dialogues to be in mutually safe and discreet locations; its worth considering finding a place away from triggers and distractions, such as secluded park or riverside benches. 

The Speaker—the person who initially requested the dialogue—has a responsibility to express clearly and simply what they have experienced, using no more than a couple of sentences: eg. "I felt unheard and unseen when I sent you an email asking to make weekend plans and you didn't reply." It's essential to focus on the subjective feelings, and avoid condemnation. Globalizing statements, such as "You never…" must be avoided, as they immediately create unsafe conditions, and its important to speak from an awareness that all emotional states are subjective.

The speaker should stay focused on a single concern, letting go the desire to use the dialogue as a platform to list all of the listener's perceived defaults; key to the process is remaining focused on expressing the feelings that arise during a specific behavioral event.
The listener's initial duty is to listen quietly without interjecting, refraining from any desire to explain or justify. After the speaker has finished, its the listener's turn to simply and accurately repeat back what has been said, so that the speaker knows they've been heard. The listener should not summarize or paraphrase—which erodes communication and distorts the message—but stick as closely as possible to what's been said: "I heard you say that you felt unheard and unseen when I didn't return your message about the upcoming weekend." If the listener has missed something, the speaker shouldn't criticize, but instead thank them for what they've reflected correctly and patiently add what's been missed.

The more potentially volatile the issue in a relationship—raising children, sex, financial obligations, etc—the more important it is to speak slowly and calmly, avoiding accusations, simply expressing a feeling that results from a perceived behavior.

When we feel ourselves triggered or hurt by what's being said, its important to know that old, personal experiences are attaching themselves to the experience. In other words, one's personal history is flowing in, adding feelings of discomfort (dukkha vedana) and mental agitation (papanca). Acknowledge this is happening. Its important to self soothe: take a moment to locate and extend one's out breaths, then locate the physical stress—often in the abdominal or chest muscles—and relax them.

The next step is for the listener to express sympathy/understanding to the speaker, indicating that the listener "gets" the experience, even if they disagree with what's being said. Remember, people have different perspectives; one should listen as if a close friend has told them the same story about someone else. "Yes, I can see how from your perspective not hearing back from me would make you feel unimportant." or "I get that you feel unheard and that's a difficult experience."

If the speaker's experience is beyond understanding it means the listener is not putting aside their point-of-view and hearing from the speaker's perspective; often they're only listening to their inner commentary and self-justifications. Nothing is achieved in such cases. If what's being conveyed isn't clear, the listener should request additional help: "I'm not clear which occasion you're referring to…"

Finally, real understanding is more an intellectual exercise (sympathy/understanding); empathy derives from feeling what has been expressed, as if we've experienced it personally. How would it feel if we sent a message that was important to us and we didn't receive a response. How does it feel to be unseen? Remember, emotional experiences are universal. If we can locate some feeling of the speaker's experience, some facial or bodily mirroring will naturally arise, which the speaker will note.
Eventually there will come a time to change roles, the speaker becoming a listener and vice versa. At this point the one should not contend about the events described, justify or explain, even if there was a very good explanation for one's behavior. Mindful dialogue is not about winning or losing, its about hearing different perspectives. If we have information that the original speaker isn't aware of, we should still strive to sympathize and empathize. "I can see how sending a message and not receiving a response would make you feel unimportant. At the time my friend was ill and all my free time was spent visiting them at the hospital, but I'll definitely keep your experience in mind."

None of the above will be easy at first. It's a challenging process, asking us to sit with uncomfortable feelings, and safety and cooperation aren't easy states to establish quickly. But if we place some effort into our dialogues, we can find a new level of real understanding arising in our relationships: its worth it.

—Josh Korda, dharmapunxnyc, 06/17/14

Comments

  1. "I felt unheard and unseen when I sent you an email...and you didn't reply."

    Perhaps your behavior is unacceptable to the other party, and you deserve to be ignored, or un-friended. The real problem is how you handle rejection. This article sounds like it comes from a male (+) completely dominated by a female (-) and spends the better part of his days seeking her approval; a male who's identity is disproportionately dependent on a female. The author talks a lot about 'triggers' and hurt feelings, but those are inside jobs. If you are dealing with an emotionally unstable individual best to ignore them. Unless you are unstable yourself, and like how it feels. Then this is good advice. Otherwise, something as simple as mere plans for the weekend should not require such elaborate plan to fix it. This is dysfunctional behavior.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There Life on Earth?

Our ancestors knew that physical proximity, being seen in the eye of others via direct, face-to-face contact was, and is, the core foundation of mental and physical health. Without the emotional co-regulation that community provides, our sympathetic nervous systems never switch off, we’re forever on guard. 
Remember: The human species survived and thrived because we lived in tribes where individuals labored not just for themselves, but the benefit of others; we didn't survive by outrunning predators, for we are without wings, shells or claws; we survive because we are pack animals, wired to connect, our primary means to survive threats and heal our wounds; without connection chronic stress is the inevitable result.
     Loneliness is not a spiritual state to seek, it’s a health risk: the bonds of community, emotional mirroring, acceptance heal our wounds, help us grow, produce states of ease and confidence. People in communities live significantly longer, healthier lives.
     Withou…

Buddhism and the Bilateral Brain: A Brief Sketch of Ideas Ranging from the Ancient Greeks, Early Buddhism, Nietzsche and a Smattering of Neuroscience

In Greek mythology, Apollo was the god of the reason and logic, appealing to the ideals of precision and abstract purity. Dionysus was the god of the spontaneous, the emotional, embodied, often irrational instinct. These gods were not considered to be antagonistic but rather complimentary.
Today, from the vantage of contemporary neuropsychology, especially in the works of Iain McGilchrist, Allan Schore and Robert Ornstein, we can readily note how these twin gods neatly represented the asymmetrical brain: • Apollo depicts the perspective of the left hemisphere, which represents the world in static ideas; reality is comprised of separate and fragmented objects, abstracted from their context; reality is separated into parts. The kind of attention is inherently dualistic and isolating—self versus other, me versus you, humankind versus nature; this attention tends to represent the fluid and organic as lifeless, static, in language or symbols. • Dionysus depicts the worldview of the r…

5 ways to resist obsessive thoughts (Vitakkasanthana)

The mind can be thought of as a committee
Our thoughts are present by many "voices," some skillful and unskillful
W there are some skillful voices in there, focusing on useful ideas, there are also the many voices in the "committee" that cause us suffering by advancing and encouraging useless, stress inducing ideas, plans, worries.

Some examples of unskillful, stress producing obsessions
—are dedictated to figuring out the worst possible outcomes (fear) of any situation
—fixate on unknowable future events, i.e. what will we experience later in life?
—try to figure out what other people are thinking about us
—compare ourselves with others, especially in material concerns
in general, the buddha broke these down the thoughts of craving, aversion and delusion.

How unskillful internal voices persuade us
some of these committee members try to get their way by
—most work by repeating the same thought over and over
—some split into thousands of variations that seem different, but are …