Comparative Gratefulness: Learning the Art of Celebration

I’m sitting comfortably in my study with a hot cup of coffee. Today is Thanksgiving and I am thinking about my life and inwardly calculating my degree of gratefulness.

I’ve noticed that, too often, my tendency toward self-pity causes me to look sideways rather than heavenward when I’m voicing my prayers. The inner script goes something like this:

God, I’m having a really hard time. But, at least, I can be thankful that I’m not as bad off as [insert someone’s name here].

 

In many ways, that’s a better prayer than the one that actually forms when I glance over at others. As I hear them voice their woes with their own lives, I sometimes find myself chuckling at the trivial nature of their life challenges.

“At least, you don’t have the burdens I have!” I want to scream.

But they do have burdens and they impact them in the same way as mine do me even though they are different. Their problems cause worry and anxiety. And challenges plant a seed of envy as these folks look around and see others who seem burdenless because the cargo they carry is different.

True thanksgiving in moments like this can happen. Moving from a perspective of self-centeredness to one of gratefulness takes a small step.

Pray for others.

Pray to increase the good in their lives. Pray for their safety. Pray for their happiness. Pray that their loads be lifted.

Pray for your family, your friends, your enemies.

When we change the flow of our prayers, we alter the very nature of our relationship with God. When we pray with a view that others are more like us than different, when we pray with the understanding that every individual is valuable, when we pray with true gratefulness . . . we must also pray knowing that “Thy will be done” can only be offered honestly when “my will” merges with His. And we can, at last, experience true gratefulness.

And from those prayers flows true joy.

 

Crossing our Fingers and Eating Donuts

After almost 2 weeks of server problems and related email feed problems, I’m pleased to announce that we are close to being 100% functional — at least in the website department. In anticipation of the last piece coming into focus, hopefully at 5 a.m. on Thursday, August 28, I’d like to treat you to a donut. Similar to this one:

Here’s the catch. My email feed has to work tomorrow at 5 a.m. by sending this post to my joeycope.com subscription list. If it works, I’ll buy a couple of dozen donuts and provide the real thing to any of you who comes by the office in the morning.

So, if you’re on the list and you’re reading this on your email Thursday morning and you live within driving distance of Abilene, come on by 1541 North Judge Ely for a donut. If you’re not on the list, maybe you should sign up tonight. Use the form on the lower right of this page.

And, if you can’t come by, just enjoy the virtual donut above.

 

(The other good thing is that, if this works, I’ll no longer be staying up hours after my bedtime trying to find the problem. And, I’ll catch up on those posts about our Africa trip. Thanks to Brad Palmore at Branchweaver — unless this doesn’t work.)

It’s a Question of Style

Recently I was a participant in a training for a very specialized interview technique. As we listened to the background and the purpose for the methods we were to learn, I immediately began connecting with my previous training and experience as a mediator.

We were asked to come up with five great questions that we could use to build momentum in the interview. I wrote five questions. I have to confess; I didn’t write five different questions. In fact, I didn’t write two.

I wrote five versions of the same question.

In my estimation, each one was an improvement on the previous. Some were more succinct. Others were more elegant. Number Five was pretty close to perfect . . . in my estimation.

So, when my turn came, I offered my question.

Scarcely had my mouth closed when another trainee, a veteran of dozens of these trainings, offered constructive criticism. I had begun my question with “Tell me about a moment  . . .”

“Never say ‘Tell me,'” he offered. “Doing that places the emphasis on you instead of the person you are interviewing.” He and the instructor then went on to offer alternatives.

Dutifully, I wrote them down. It hasn’t been twenty-four hours and I’ve revisited that advice a dozen times.

And, I now firmly believe that advice was wrong — at least for me.

I understand the higher purpose of placing the other person in a place of prominence where your attention is riveted on her story. Yet, it misses the very important element of relationship between the two people in the conversation.

When I ask you to “tell me about” something important to you, I invite you to deepen our relationship. I enlist your partnership in the conversation. In this time of disengagement from others and intentional isolation, people are searching for others who care enough to connect.

So, the next time we sit down for coffee and you say, “Tell me about your day . . .”, I’ll be smiling. I’m sitting with someone who wants to share information and relationship.

 

Stuck on You: Attachment Theory & Resolution – Part 2

Trust me. Trust. Me.

Even in the most sterile of business transactions, trust is the hinge the entire deal swings on. Broken trust is the fuel that feeds the flames of conflict.

In Part 1 of this series, we highlighted two separate, yet related, concerns of mediation parties and their attorneys: trust and the exploration of emotions.

The primary concern is that of trust. How do we come to trust the words and the actions of the other party? This is particularly difficult when the lack of trust is what propelled the dispute into mediation.

The second concern touches on control. Yet it most often surfaces in an expression of fear regarding the exploration of emotions by the parties during mediation. “I’m afraid I will grow emotional and say something I shouldn’t . . . I’m afraid my client will, in an emotional state, make poor decisions about settlement.”

Recent research suggests that peacemakers can learn much about reconciliation by studying the ways that relationships form. Some of our earliest ties to others are explained through the theory of attachment.

Edward John Mostyn Bowlby was the fourth of six children born to an upper, middle class, London family. John was raised primarily by his nanny. Except for the summer months, John and his siblings spent only an hour a day with their mother. In that societal echelon, parents were inclined to limit their attention and affection in an effort to avoid spoiling children.

As John would later report, his nanny’s decision to leave the family when he was four years old, had much the same effect as the loss of a mother. With his own experience, a special interest in child development, and with his background in psychology and psychiatry, Dr. John Bowlby became increasingly interested in the effect on children resulting from separation from familiar people. World War II had greatly increased the occurrence of such separation of children from significant adults. Dr. John Bowlby was a front-row observer of the effects of these separations.

Dr. Bowlby’s theory of attachment is founded on the concept that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver. If that relationship fails to materialize, the child is at risk in her or his social and emotional development. The attachment is instinctive and carries with it the quest for survival.

Psychologically, attachment brings security. Security, in turn, sets the stage for trusting interaction. An infant attaches to its primary caregiver or caregivers and experiences security through close proximity. As the child seeks to broaden its social horizons, the attachment relationship provides a safe haven from which to explore other relationships and situations.

As children grow, the gravity of attachment lessens as the attachment relationship is negotiated. Many a parting conversation at daycare sounds something like, “You stay here and play with your friends. I’ll be back to get you right after work.” Over time, the goal of the attachment behavioral system is less about proximity and more about availability. As long as the primary caregiver is available in times of stress and fatigue, longer periods of separation become possible as the child develops independence.

Regardless of the stage, attachment and security in special relationships revolves around either proximity or availability of significant people. As individuals mature, the need for a close relationship with a primary caregiver fades. But those relationships are often replaced by essential ties with trusted friends and loved ones. Just as with children and primary caregivers, these areas of working trust become safe havens for contemplation and exploration of other opportunities. And, perhaps more importantly, maintenance of stability in increasingly complex life situations.

But what happens when these attachments are ruptured?

In the next segment of this series, we’ll take a look at a significant cause of loss of trust and the resulting conflict among individuals in a wide range of relationships — the attachment injury.

In mediation, parties have an opportunity to rebuild trust even when the injury to a relationship has cut deeply. Yet they must be allowed to deal openly with their underlying feelings and emotions.

Trust me. Trust. Me.

 

Sources:

Bretherton, I. & Munholland, K.A. (1999). “Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited.” In Cassidy, J. & Shaver P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Cassidy, J. (1999). “The nature of a child’s ties.” In Cassidy J. & Shaver P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.

 

Stuck on You: Attachment Theory & Resolution – Part 2

Trust me. Trust. Me.

Even in the most sterile of business transactions, trust is the hinge the entire deal swings on. Broken trust is the fuel that feeds the flames of conflict.

In Part 1 of this series, we highlighted two separate, yet related, concerns of mediation parties and their attorneys: trust and the exploration of emotions.

The primary concern is that of trust. How do we come to trust the words and the actions of the other party? This is particularly difficult when the lack of trust is what propelled the dispute into mediation.

The second concern touches on control. Yet it most often surfaces in an expression of fear regarding the exploration of emotions by the parties during mediation. “I’m afraid I will grow emotional and say something I shouldn’t . . . I’m afraid my client will, in an emotional state, make poor decisions about settlement.”

Recent research suggests that peacemakers can learn much about reconciliation by studying the ways that relationships form. Some of our earliest ties to others are explained through the theory of attachment.

Edward John Mostyn Bowlby was the fourth of six children born to an upper, middle class, London family. John was raised primarily by his nanny. Except for the summer months, John and his siblings spent only an hour a day with their mother. In that societal echelon, parents were inclined to limit their attention and affection in an effort to avoid spoiling children.

As John would later report, his nanny’s decision to leave the family when he was four years old, had much the same effect as the loss of a mother. With his own experience, a special interest in child development, and with his background in psychology and psychiatry, Dr. John Bowlby became increasingly interested in the effect on children resulting from separation from familiar people. World War II had greatly increased the occurrence of such separation of children from significant adults. Dr. John Bowlby was a front-row observer of the effects of these separations.

Dr. Bowlby’s theory of attachment is founded on the concept that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver. If that relationship fails to materialize, the child is at risk in her or his social and emotional development. The attachment is instinctive and carries with it the quest for survival.

Psychologically, attachment brings security. Security, in turn, sets the stage for trusting interaction. An infant attaches to its primary caregiver or caregivers and experiences security through close proximity. As the child seeks to broaden its social horizons, the attachment relationship provides a safe haven from which to explore other relationships and situations.

As children grow, the gravity of attachment lessens as the attachment relationship is negotiated. Many a parting conversation at daycare sounds something like, “You stay here and play with your friends. I’ll be back to get you right after work.” Over time, the goal of the attachment behavioral system is less about proximity and more about availability. As long as the primary caregiver is available in times of stress and fatigue, longer periods of separation become possible as the child develops independence.

Regardless of the stage, attachment and security in special relationships revolves around either proximity or availability of significant people. As individuals mature, the need for a close relationship with a primary caregiver fades. But those relationships are often replaced by essential ties with trusted friends and loved ones. Just as with children and primary caregivers, these areas of working trust become safe havens for contemplation and exploration of other opportunities. And, perhaps more importantly, maintenance of stability in increasingly complex life situations.

But what happens when these attachments are ruptured?

In the next segment of this series, we’ll take a look at a significant cause of loss of trust and the resulting conflict among individuals in a wide range of relationships — the attachment injury.

In mediation, parties have an opportunity to rebuild trust even when the injury to a relationship has cut deeply. Yet they must be allowed to deal openly with their underlying feelings and emotions.

Trust me. Trust. Me.

 

Sources:

Bretherton, I. & Munholland, K.A. (1999). “Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited.” In Cassidy, J. & Shaver P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Cassidy, J. (1999). “The nature of a child’s ties.” In Cassidy J. & Shaver P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.