Afternoon Tea
Acrylic painting / 30” by 22”/ $399
What will be said over tea? Will talk be honest? Politically correct? Will problems be solved or understanding gained?
Political Correctness meets Freedom of Expression
A few weeks ago I received a comment concerning my newsletter about population explosion. The note came through my private email with a request not to publish the response because it was not politically correct. The writer commented that the Catholic Church is the problem underlying overpopulation. Her words made me stop to consider just what it means to be politically correct. What happens to society when thoughts become so constrained as to limit dialog?
I remember a club I once visited with a policy that excluded members from discussing politics. It seemed strange to me for the associates were friends. In another instance, an acquaintance belonged to a religious organization that instructs parishioners not to participate in activities or form friendships outside of the church. At home our own congressional delegates will not cross party lines to speak to each other. There is little desire for understanding or consideration of diversity in a search for consensus. In these cases the organizations have chosen an effective way to avoid conflict by sealing mouths to differences.
My experience in general is that people want to be polite and are therefore cautious. They may be loath to share beliefs if they think their companions will disagree. Instead unorthodox opinions are hidden for fear of ridicule or even rejection. Yet by doing so, they accept to live in a constant state of tension, stepping gingerly on egg shells as they navigate social situations.
But back to the question of what is politically correct communication? How can we navigate the quagmire of indoctrination, strongly held beliefs and disruptive actions? Let’s consider terrorism.
We have watched ISIS and Taliban extremists terrorize our citizens through both words and horrific deeds. Many Americans develop fears, and are willing to label all Muslims as extremists which unfairly places peace-loving citizens in the terrorist category. It some circles it is even politically incorrect to make comments that look for the causes of Islamic terrorism without being labeled soft or unpatriotic.
Those living in the Middle East may have another view of terrorism. Americans are often seen as the perpetrators by those facing drone attacks and bombings by U.S. planes. It follows logically that a someone living in an area experiencing such threats will develop a closed mind to positive statements about the United States. To them we are the enemy and it would be politically incorrect for one of their countrymen to say something favorable. A great many minds on both sides of the issue are completely closed to further discussion.
Political correctness in these cases is defined through the lens of each particular group. The word itself implies a certain amount of dogma about an unquestionable truth that is not open to opposing comments. Presenting views that are unaccepted by the audience often turns the speaker into a seemingly bad person. The speaker’s motivation may get challenged by a response that closes further conversation. Correctness by most compassionate people condemns hate speak and words that rile angry emotions.
So how does one discuss complex, emotional issues? What is the best way to express personal beliefs to those not wearing the same badge? Is there a way to have an honest dialogue about sensitive issues such as population control and terrorism? I do believe there is a way to use constructive methods to resolve personal, organizational and political conflicts.
Non-violent communication provides a hopeful path leading to peaceful and productive outcomes. It is a compassionate process that shares values rather than dogma. Actions become evaluated by how they contribute to life and the human needs they serve.
Discussion starts by exploring how and why hateful views are passed down within families and communities. By focusing on values participants quickly realize that most people want the same things. Desire for safety, security, health, housing, joy, food ,education, community, and justice is universal. Once these desires are acknowledged the process goes on to evaluate just how successful early teachings and biases are in meeting individual and group needs. By examining root causes of specific situations conversations can become richer and honesty is given a chance to thrive.
Non-violent communication provides a language that invites dialogue, thus enabling empathetic connections. It allows anger to be fully expressed and it promotes rapport in communication without resorting to hostility. This enabling vocabulary breaks down patterns that lead to anger and hopelessness. Feeling words are used to express emotions such as affection, engagement, gratefulness, inspiration, exhilaration and hope. Unsatisfactory expressions are avoided that might produce fear, confusion, embarrassment or tension.
I began this article by mentioning a woman who blames the Catholic Church for problems caused by overpopulation. Let’s consider how she might communicate without creating animosity.
She could start the discussion by stating her own fears and establishing an invitation for further dialogue. For example, “I am afraid that there are not enough resources to support the increase claimed in population projections. I believe water and land will be at unsustainable levels by 2050 and worry that such a mass of humanity will result in increased violence, wars and migrations. I don’t know where my family will find safety in such a world. Does this problem concern you?” It is difficult to get angry at such beginning comments for they establishes a safe forum for truthful expression that will not threaten friendships. It sets a platform for discussing the role of religion without producing dangerous emotions.
As conflicts spread across the globe and cultures continue to merge we need ways to accommodate understanding and compromise. If we are not going to be ruled by war then we have to find win-win alternatives. Books and workshops in non-violent communication are offered throughout the country. Like most things, honing listening skills and inviting dialog does take practice but the rewards of getting to know neighbors on a deeper level is great.
http://www.cnvc.org/about-us – Center for Non-Violent communication.
Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd Edition: Life-Changing
Tools for Healthy Relationships (Nonviolent Communication Guides) Third
Edition, Third edition Edition
by Marshall B. Rosenberg PhD (Author), Deepak Chopra (Foreword)
______________________
For sale on Amazon by Marilynne Eichinger: The True Story of Streetwise, overcoming homelessness and beating the odds. Go to AMAZON. What is it like to live on the streets? How do we help so many young people escape a life of hopelessness?
Home » Blog » Political Correctness meets Freedom of Expression
Table of Contents
Afternoon Tea
What will be said over tea? Will talk be honest? Politically correct? Will problems be solved or understanding gained?
Political Correctness meets Freedom of Expression
A few weeks ago I received a comment concerning my newsletter about population explosion. The note came through my private email with a request not to publish the response because it was not politically correct. The writer commented that the Catholic Church is the problem underlying overpopulation. Her words made me stop to consider just what it means to be politically correct. What happens to society when thoughts become so constrained as to limit dialog?
I remember a club I once visited with a policy that excluded members from discussing politics. It seemed strange to me for the associates were friends. In another instance, an acquaintance belonged to a religious organization that instructs parishioners not to participate in activities or form friendships outside of the church. At home our own congressional delegates will not cross party lines to speak to each other. There is little desire for understanding or consideration of diversity in a search for consensus. In these cases the organizations have chosen an effective way to avoid conflict by sealing mouths to differences.
My experience in general is that people want to be polite and are therefore cautious. They may be loath to share beliefs if they think their companions will disagree. Instead unorthodox opinions are hidden for fear of ridicule or even rejection. Yet by doing so, they accept to live in a constant state of tension, stepping gingerly on egg shells as they navigate social situations.
But back to the question of what is politically correct communication? How can we navigate the quagmire of indoctrination, strongly held beliefs and disruptive actions? Let’s consider terrorism.
We have watched ISIS and Taliban extremists terrorize our citizens through both words and horrific deeds. Many Americans develop fears, and are willing to label all Muslims as extremists which unfairly places peace-loving citizens in the terrorist category. It some circles it is even politically incorrect to make comments that look for the causes of Islamic terrorism without being labeled soft or unpatriotic.
Those living in the Middle East may have another view of terrorism. Americans are often seen as the perpetrators by those facing drone attacks and bombings by U.S. planes. It follows logically that a someone living in an area experiencing such threats will develop a closed mind to positive statements about the United States. To them we are the enemy and it would be politically incorrect for one of their countrymen to say something favorable. A great many minds on both sides of the issue are completely closed to further discussion.
Political correctness in these cases is defined through the lens of each particular group. The word itself implies a certain amount of dogma about an unquestionable truth that is not open to opposing comments. Presenting views that are unaccepted by the audience often turns the speaker into a seemingly bad person. The speaker’s motivation may get challenged by a response that closes further conversation. Correctness by most compassionate people condemns hate speak and words that rile angry emotions.
So how does one discuss complex, emotional issues? What is the best way to express personal beliefs to those not wearing the same badge? Is there a way to have an honest dialogue about sensitive issues such as population control and terrorism? I do believe there is a way to use constructive methods to resolve personal, organizational and political conflicts.
Non-violent communication provides a hopeful path leading to peaceful and productive outcomes. It is a compassionate process that shares values rather than dogma. Actions become evaluated by how they contribute to life and the human needs they serve.
Discussion starts by exploring how and why hateful views are passed down within families and communities. By focusing on values participants quickly realize that most people want the same things. Desire for safety, security, health, housing, joy, food ,education, community, and justice is universal. Once these desires are acknowledged the process goes on to evaluate just how successful early teachings and biases are in meeting individual and group needs. By examining root causes of specific situations conversations can become richer and honesty is given a chance to thrive.
Non-violent communication provides a language that invites dialogue, thus enabling empathetic connections. It allows anger to be fully expressed and it promotes rapport in communication without resorting to hostility. This enabling vocabulary breaks down patterns that lead to anger and hopelessness. Feeling words are used to express emotions such as affection, engagement, gratefulness, inspiration, exhilaration and hope. Unsatisfactory expressions are avoided that might produce fear, confusion, embarrassment or tension.
I began this article by mentioning a woman who blames the Catholic Church for problems caused by overpopulation. Let’s consider how she might communicate without creating animosity.
She could start the discussion by stating her own fears and establishing an invitation for further dialogue. For example, “I am afraid that there are not enough resources to support the increase claimed in population projections. I believe water and land will be at unsustainable levels by 2050 and worry that such a mass of humanity will result in increased violence, wars and migrations. I don’t know where my family will find safety in such a world. Does this problem concern you?” It is difficult to get angry at such beginning comments for they establishes a safe forum for truthful expression that will not threaten friendships. It sets a platform for discussing the role of religion without producing dangerous emotions.
As conflicts spread across the globe and cultures continue to merge we need ways to accommodate understanding and compromise. If we are not going to be ruled by war then we have to find win-win alternatives. Books and workshops in non-violent communication are offered throughout the country. Like most things, honing listening skills and inviting dialog does take practice but the rewards of getting to know neighbors on a deeper level is great.
http://www.cnvc.org/about-us – Center for Non-Violent communication.
Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, 3rd Edition: Life-Changing
Tools for Healthy Relationships (Nonviolent Communication Guides) Third
Edition, Third edition Edition
by Marshall B. Rosenberg PhD (Author), Deepak Chopra (Foreword)
______________________
For sale on Amazon by Marilynne Eichinger: The True Story of Streetwise, overcoming homelessness and beating the odds. Go to AMAZON. What is it like to live on the streets? How do we help so many young people escape a life of hopelessness?
Table of Contents