Uniquely, in human affairs, when a difference of opinion, that we cannot live with, arises, it can lead to disagreement,conflict, clashes and even perhaps war. There is a philosophy that recommends the following four Steps be considered and adopted in such situations, starting from the earliest sign of disagreement over an issue.
Step 0. The first question to ask and deeply explore is - Can one live with our differences without affecting each other? Sometimes this is possible. In which case one should try to simply go ahead without disturbing anyone or affecting anyone else's legitimate interests. But if we see that it is not possible to do so, then the following steps are recommended in the strict order presented. The four steps in order are Reasoning, Yielding, Discriminating and Fighting.
Step 1. Reasoning:
Attempt to convince the other party of one's point of view using logical reasoning. Of course, when we go to convince others, we want them to listen to us, accept logic, reason, facts and accept the conclusions that they lead to, for the greater good, not of narrow selfish interests. To be fair, when we do this, we need to go with an open mind and be willing to be convinced by the other person's reasoning and logic and concede our position if that is the best thing to do. This requires both parties to keep in mind that it is not a personal win or loss. It should be a triumph of logic, reasoning and overall welfare. Resolution of the issue at this step, requires both parties to have a common agreement and values of what is really the greater good over and above illegitimate or narrow self-interest.
Note: Being insincere in reasoning, trying to be too clever, cunning, playing with words, specious reasoning, taking advantage of the other's ignorance or weaknesses in the argument does not count as 'reasoning' under this step. Only that which is undertaken with honest, sincere intentions counts. Principles of fairness and equal respect are critical, important and need to be accepted by both parties.
Step 2: Yield in goodwill, Compromise:
If a sincere attempt to reason fails, then try to yield some ground, try to compromise as much as you can to demonstrate goodwill towards the other party. One should not confuse yielding out of goodwill to yielding to superior logic or reasoning. If the other party yields similarly, acknowledge and appreciate the goodwill. Often it will be possible to come to an agreement if both parties yield a little. Sometimes it might just take just one party to yield some ground. Resolution of an issue at this second step indicates that both parties do not agree upon what constitutes the larger good, but have enough goodwill to accommodate each other and work things out. It is a less than perfect solution, but good enough to move on. This cannot be repeated too often with just one party yielding or compromising all the time. That will ultimately generate resentment and illwill.
When the situation is resolved by any of the two above steps, both can walk away feeling good about themselves and/or the other. These are the most positive and desirable ways to achieve resolution of a conflict of view points (not conflicts of self interests being presented as conflicts of view points). The two above are the 'Nice' approaches, between two 'Nice, intelligent and wise parties'. When an issue cannot be resolved within the two steps described above it is evident that there is something 'Not Nice' with atleast one party. If the 'Not Niceness' is NOT from our side, we then step into the next two steps which are less desirable, but sometimes unavoidable for the greater good. They are as follows.
Step 3: Discriminate, separate:
Take apart the other party's support system, think carefully, discriminate between their good and bad points. Divide them and render them weaker. This is the equivalent of a cold war. This has the possibility of rendering the 'Not So Nice' opposition weak enough to either accept reason or a compromise. This step brings out all the cleverness, cunning and devious nature in humans. It need not all be evil. It is not only the evil side that has the exclusive right to such tactics. It is better that the good side also have an understanding of all the tactics used in step 3.
Step 4: Fight!!
When all else (the three steps described above) fails, one may be left with no other option but to fight. Then whoever prevails has their way. Might is right! One has to accept that and move on. Animals (other than humans) accept this with grace everyday. Sometimes the weaker but morally right side is defeated, they perish or go extinct. This is also the case with some human societies and cultures. History is replete with examples of these.
We are all mostly taught the first two steps. We are taught to be 'Nice' mostly. It is indeed the preferable way. But looking at the human realities, we need to understand all the steps.
Some observations and notes on the Four Steps:
The prescribed order of adopting the Four Steps is critical and as important as understanding the steps themselves.
Consider for example, why is it that 'Reasoning' is the first recommended step and not 'Yielding in Goodwill'?
That is because, reasoning is done with someone who one respects as an equal, with one who believes has the values and intellectual capacity to do so. One goes to reason with a willingness to yield to the superior reasoning from the other side. If the issue is sorted in this stage, there is no one who is belittled or made to feel taken advantage of. It is the best relationship one can have with other humans when we have a different, conflicting point of view to start with.
Yielding in goodwill indicates an allowance for someone one cannot reason with, as with a loveable child or someone who is immature. It is good for a little while, but not as a constant pattern. It still indicates the presence of a positive feeling of goodwill or love towards the other. It has to be valued and appreciated and reciprocated. Exploiting someone's yielding nature will ultimately lead to illwill and resentment. It also makes one party feel superior or inferior in accepting a compromise on fairness.
The true nature of an individual or a party to a disgreement can be usually judged in which approach or step they take as a default starting point. If they start with Step 1, they are treating you as an equal, with respect and fairness in mind. If they start at Step 2, they have goodwill towards you, but perhaps do not consider you very reasonable or mature. But both Steps 1 and 2, form the 'Good' and 'Nice' approaches.
Those that start from Step 3 or Step 4, are clearly 'Not Nice', but rather 'Nasty'. It is not to say that nice and good people cannot become nasty. They can and do, but it is important to see where their starting point lies and what is their preferred, default approach.
Those that use Steps 3 and 4 as their preferred approach indicate an aversion to listen to reason, truth, goodwill or compromise. They are usually the known arrogant, aggressive, controlling types or those that are blindly aggressive, sometimes even to their own detriment.
One can judge not just individuals, but the times we live in, the society or culture by looking around and seeing which approach dominates as a starting point in resolving differences.
There is an ancient philosophy that describes these four steps and suggests that mankind goes through phases where the dominant approach in the society itself, is one of the four steps described above. The best, golden period is when Step 1 dominates. Gradually, human societies decay into stages when Steps 3 and 4 dominate. This leads to large scale conflicts, destruction and devastation like world wars and then there is a reset to one of the other stages.
Looking over human history I have found this wisdom to be timeless! What do you think?
Copyright (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2015
All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment