Thank you for sharing such a thorough discussion around the “why” of political polarization and bringing it back to the human experience and the “stories” we as humans tell ourselves. I resonate with how true “radical acceptance” births from a place of being able to challenge our own personal stories so we can feel non attachment to others for having a different set of values and opinions.
My question is how do you start having less triggering conversations with even loved ones instead of just avoiding these kinds of difficult conversations all together?
Sometimes it is prudent to just avoid contact for a while when working on removing the trigger so healing can take place. We shouldn't feel compelled to always engage but of course this isn't a license to ignore the problem long term.
It's helpful to realize that life will inevitably take us out of our comfort zones. During the previous administration, 50% the country was out of their comfort zone. Now it's the other half. But most of our political conflicts are relatively minor compared to the discomfort of others in wartorn Gaza or Ukraine. It's all relative and perspective is key.
As StoicMom said, we can try to enter the mindspace of others. I'm not talking about the fringe unconscious extreme (on either side), but rather the common person who voted red or blue.
If people feel the need engage in these conversations, they can make sure it’s not a reaction coming from anger or that will just add to the unconsciousness. If we contribute to the unconsciousness and division, we just become what we are fighting against.
Great question! I think Chuck described the how of this well during this episode. We so often go into conversations with the intent to "be seen" or understood, sometimes with a desperate need for this. If we can enter a conversation with humility and curiosity, with the intent of "seeing" our conversation partner without trying to lead them to see things our way, we're less likely to get triggered. I think it's when we're certain we're right and if we just explain things well that the other person will come around to our way of thinking that creates problems. I'd encourage changing the goal of the conversation--make it about entering the other person's world and understanding them just a little better--eventually this tends to soften and open them (unless you change tacks and then try to lead them somewhere they're not interested in going. This can quickly shut them down since they'll feel baited.) You can probably see how this might require letting go of our certainty that our understanding is the only correct understanding? Getting okay with people having very different experiences/worldviews will serve you well in having difficult conversations. Was this helpful?
This was a fascinating discussion for me. Thank you! As a participant in the stoic mom community I am learning much about Jungian psychology.
I have a question, mainly asked as ‘devils’ advocate’. It pertains to the risks involved in allowing a client or loved one the agency of traveling the journey of their own internal suffering/struggle without applying interventions to relieve it.
While I deeply agree that in order to get to the “sunlight of the spirit”, it may be necessary to travel through the “dark night of the soul” (and have discussed this with stoic mom), I wonder if there is a risk involved. As practitioners, do you grapple with the decision whether or not to allow someone the agency of their own suffering? How do you know if an individual has the fortitude to travel such a journey?
This question is further complicated by the societal norm of seeing suffering as unnecessary: something that requires alleviation.
So by practicing the Jungian principle that invests in the value of the journey through suffering, one is going against the predominant protocols of psychiatric, psychological, and medical practices. (The suffering I refer to is psychological, philosophical, emotional, religious, or existential —not physiological, though physiological and psychological can be closely intertwined).
I welcome your thoughts and responses. As someone living with the hope that the journey through the dark night of the soul may have light at the end of it, these stoic mom podcasts are a rare place where I can speak freely and be heard. Thank you.
These are amazing questions! Thank you for asking them. Coaching is different than therapy; typically clients aren't seeking relief but rather growth, so there is an understanding that discomfort is integral to that which is sought. This can be tricky for me in my work with moms who are in such deep pain, and I have to have a sense that the ego is strong enough to do this work, and that the client feels safe with me. If not, we start there--building the ego (this sounds negative, but a strong ego is necessary) and trust. Transparency, attunement, trust, and then finally consent. I ensure the client knows what we're doing, trust my own sense of the client's current capacity, and then ask if it's ok to push deeper into the discomfort to discover what it has to teach the client about her own psyche--it's a dance and sometimes we (gently) retreat from the dive if it seems too much in the moment. And you are so right in that physiology is closely intertwined and usually more telling than the words our mind produces to explain our discomfort--or as we like to say in the community, "the stories we tell ourselves."
Also, as Chuck mentions, this is spiritual work. Modernity has indeed taught us that suffering is unnecessary, but a spiritual approach seeks to offer deep self-knowledge, and as the Stoics (the obstacle is the way) and Jungians (our wounds are intimately bound up with our gifts)--and I'm sure other ancient wisdom traditions--we must endure the excruciating breaking of our false self to discover the deeper, unbreakable true self. To always numb or distract from our discomfort is to rob not only the person, but the world of that person's most precious gifts. I think it does great harm to sell people the idea that suffering can and should be avoided. We come to judge ourselves, thinking there's something wrong with us if we're in emotional pain and we develop an intolerance of the very thing that would evolve us.
I agree with with everything StoicMom has said here, including my appreciation for your thoughtful questions and insights! I'm so glad you've found a forum to speak and be heard, I love that.
First, my ultimate objective is in service to end suffering anywhere it appears. As grandiose (!) as that sounds it simply starts with myself, my family, and those who cross my path as clients. But in my experience the only way out is through. If I demand that the world change to end my suffering, I'll never find it.
A person's agency is my primary consideration. My job as coach is not to assume I know what is best for their lives, but rather to invite gentle inquiry into their stories and emotions. We proceed at their pace to identify and work through the beliefs that cause the suffering. And with the accumulation of those insights, I find their fortitude generally grows.
To me, it violates their agency and is unhelpful if I am emotionally attached to the results of coaching. For instance, if I want them to stop suffering more than they do, I'm tempted to help too much. The analogy of the chicken breaking out of its egg comes to mind. The apparent good intentions to help it crack the shell actually prevent it from gaining the necessary strength -- via the struggle -- to survive.
Part of this is allowing others to have their own experience without our judgments of right and wrong. Ironically, part of our own freedom is allowing others to be free in this way. Hope this is helpful!
Thank you for sharing such a thorough discussion around the “why” of political polarization and bringing it back to the human experience and the “stories” we as humans tell ourselves. I resonate with how true “radical acceptance” births from a place of being able to challenge our own personal stories so we can feel non attachment to others for having a different set of values and opinions.
My question is how do you start having less triggering conversations with even loved ones instead of just avoiding these kinds of difficult conversations all together?
Sometimes it is prudent to just avoid contact for a while when working on removing the trigger so healing can take place. We shouldn't feel compelled to always engage but of course this isn't a license to ignore the problem long term.
It's helpful to realize that life will inevitably take us out of our comfort zones. During the previous administration, 50% the country was out of their comfort zone. Now it's the other half. But most of our political conflicts are relatively minor compared to the discomfort of others in wartorn Gaza or Ukraine. It's all relative and perspective is key.
As StoicMom said, we can try to enter the mindspace of others. I'm not talking about the fringe unconscious extreme (on either side), but rather the common person who voted red or blue.
If people feel the need engage in these conversations, they can make sure it’s not a reaction coming from anger or that will just add to the unconsciousness. If we contribute to the unconsciousness and division, we just become what we are fighting against.
Great question! I think Chuck described the how of this well during this episode. We so often go into conversations with the intent to "be seen" or understood, sometimes with a desperate need for this. If we can enter a conversation with humility and curiosity, with the intent of "seeing" our conversation partner without trying to lead them to see things our way, we're less likely to get triggered. I think it's when we're certain we're right and if we just explain things well that the other person will come around to our way of thinking that creates problems. I'd encourage changing the goal of the conversation--make it about entering the other person's world and understanding them just a little better--eventually this tends to soften and open them (unless you change tacks and then try to lead them somewhere they're not interested in going. This can quickly shut them down since they'll feel baited.) You can probably see how this might require letting go of our certainty that our understanding is the only correct understanding? Getting okay with people having very different experiences/worldviews will serve you well in having difficult conversations. Was this helpful?
This was a fascinating discussion for me. Thank you! As a participant in the stoic mom community I am learning much about Jungian psychology.
I have a question, mainly asked as ‘devils’ advocate’. It pertains to the risks involved in allowing a client or loved one the agency of traveling the journey of their own internal suffering/struggle without applying interventions to relieve it.
While I deeply agree that in order to get to the “sunlight of the spirit”, it may be necessary to travel through the “dark night of the soul” (and have discussed this with stoic mom), I wonder if there is a risk involved. As practitioners, do you grapple with the decision whether or not to allow someone the agency of their own suffering? How do you know if an individual has the fortitude to travel such a journey?
This question is further complicated by the societal norm of seeing suffering as unnecessary: something that requires alleviation.
So by practicing the Jungian principle that invests in the value of the journey through suffering, one is going against the predominant protocols of psychiatric, psychological, and medical practices. (The suffering I refer to is psychological, philosophical, emotional, religious, or existential —not physiological, though physiological and psychological can be closely intertwined).
I welcome your thoughts and responses. As someone living with the hope that the journey through the dark night of the soul may have light at the end of it, these stoic mom podcasts are a rare place where I can speak freely and be heard. Thank you.
These are amazing questions! Thank you for asking them. Coaching is different than therapy; typically clients aren't seeking relief but rather growth, so there is an understanding that discomfort is integral to that which is sought. This can be tricky for me in my work with moms who are in such deep pain, and I have to have a sense that the ego is strong enough to do this work, and that the client feels safe with me. If not, we start there--building the ego (this sounds negative, but a strong ego is necessary) and trust. Transparency, attunement, trust, and then finally consent. I ensure the client knows what we're doing, trust my own sense of the client's current capacity, and then ask if it's ok to push deeper into the discomfort to discover what it has to teach the client about her own psyche--it's a dance and sometimes we (gently) retreat from the dive if it seems too much in the moment. And you are so right in that physiology is closely intertwined and usually more telling than the words our mind produces to explain our discomfort--or as we like to say in the community, "the stories we tell ourselves."
Also, as Chuck mentions, this is spiritual work. Modernity has indeed taught us that suffering is unnecessary, but a spiritual approach seeks to offer deep self-knowledge, and as the Stoics (the obstacle is the way) and Jungians (our wounds are intimately bound up with our gifts)--and I'm sure other ancient wisdom traditions--we must endure the excruciating breaking of our false self to discover the deeper, unbreakable true self. To always numb or distract from our discomfort is to rob not only the person, but the world of that person's most precious gifts. I think it does great harm to sell people the idea that suffering can and should be avoided. We come to judge ourselves, thinking there's something wrong with us if we're in emotional pain and we develop an intolerance of the very thing that would evolve us.
Hope this was helpful!
I'm, deeply moved by what you are writing here, and will message you privately with some additional reflections. Thank you.
I agree with with everything StoicMom has said here, including my appreciation for your thoughtful questions and insights! I'm so glad you've found a forum to speak and be heard, I love that.
First, my ultimate objective is in service to end suffering anywhere it appears. As grandiose (!) as that sounds it simply starts with myself, my family, and those who cross my path as clients. But in my experience the only way out is through. If I demand that the world change to end my suffering, I'll never find it.
A person's agency is my primary consideration. My job as coach is not to assume I know what is best for their lives, but rather to invite gentle inquiry into their stories and emotions. We proceed at their pace to identify and work through the beliefs that cause the suffering. And with the accumulation of those insights, I find their fortitude generally grows.
To me, it violates their agency and is unhelpful if I am emotionally attached to the results of coaching. For instance, if I want them to stop suffering more than they do, I'm tempted to help too much. The analogy of the chicken breaking out of its egg comes to mind. The apparent good intentions to help it crack the shell actually prevent it from gaining the necessary strength -- via the struggle -- to survive.
Part of this is allowing others to have their own experience without our judgments of right and wrong. Ironically, part of our own freedom is allowing others to be free in this way. Hope this is helpful!
Thank you for these thoughts. They are much appreciated. The coming-out-of-shell metaphor is wonderful.
There’s a lot of wisdom here.