Tag Archives: zhi mian

Existential Activism

This blog was originally published on November 29, 2012, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

At the 2012 Existential-Humanistic Institute Conference, John Galvin presented on the topic of “Existential Activism.” It was a wonderful presentation that led to many interesting thoughts and discussions. Although I had long aspired to being socially responsible, I never considered myself an activist prior to a colleague referring to me as one. When this occurred, I was surprised. My vision of an activist was someone who spent much of their time involved in protests, marches, promoting petitions, and similar activities. I have come to recognize that this is too narrow of a definition of an “activist.”

Prior to Galvin’s presentation, I had given some thought to an existential approach to activism, and even developed a section of a course on socially engaged spirituality relevant to this topic. However, Galvin’s presentation inspired me to give some more thought to this topic.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

A Zhi main Existential Foundation for Activism

Activism, at its best, is a complex process that is about more than an issue or cause. It is rooted in an honest, direct facing of many interrelated factors. This is represented in the idea of zhi mian, a Chinese concept that means “to face directly.” Zhi mian is a unifying concept that calls for people to face themselves, others, and life directly while emphasizing that facing each one of these requires simultaneous facing of the others.

Facing life directly and honestly is frequently what inspires one to activism. For example, much of the world has turned a blind eye to the horrible conditions in Darfur. When one becomes aware of what is really occurring in Darfur, many feel compelled to speak out for the many who are suffering in this region and begin to take action.

Authentic activism also calls us to face others directly. Too often activism is associated with anger; however, at its best, it is rooted in empathy. There are two aspects of this empathy; however, one is frequently neglected. It is easy to recognize the need for empathy for the individuals who are suffering, but we must also consider the importance of empathy for individuals or groups holding a different perspective that we seek to persuade through our advocacy. Some times this means empathy for the people occupying the role of oppressor. I will speak to this aspect of empathy in more detail shortly.

Existential activism also emphasizes facing oneself directly when engaging in activism. In particular, there are at least two important considerations of this aspect of zhi mian. First, it is important to consider why one is drawn to the particular issue and the motivation for advocating for it. Individuals often are drawn to be an activist for causes that are close to their heart. While people are often more effective advocating for issues they are passionate about, it is easy for this to cloud one’s judgment at times. Regular, honest self-reflection is vital in being an effective activist.

Second, it is necessary to face oneself directly regarding what one hopes to achieve through activism. It is easy for egos to get intertwined with causes, especially when one begins gaining some recognition for his or her activism. Shifting the focus from advocating for a cause to promoting oneself impedes effectiveness and often introduces some destructive elements.

Activism without an Enemy

What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.

(Becker, 1973, p. 204)

This quote by Ernest Becker is challenging for activism, especially if we interpret “kill” metaphorically. Activism tends to be activism against something, someone, or some group. In the discussion following Galvin’s presentation, I commented that there is a big difference between an activism for something, as opposed to an activism against something. When advocating against, too often we quickly turn those who we are advocating against into the enemy. We assume negative motives, we disconnect from our empathy, and we blind our self to any counter arguments that may be valid. As Sam Keen (1991) states, “In the beginning, we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image. We think others to death and then invent the battleaxe or ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology” (p. 198). Keen goes on to state that the true heroes are those who can look inside themselves, acknowledging their own shadow elements and potential for evil. This skill is necessary for the activist.

Existential activism should be rooted in a bold empathy, one that is courageous enough to take an empathic approach to the oppressor as well as the victim. When this approach is taken, it helps the activist have greater sensitivity and wisdom when engaging those who disagree with our perspective on the cause we are advocating for.

Politics provides many examples of this. As is evident, there are good people on both (or many) sides of most political issues. Yet, in contemporary partisan politics, the tendency is to assume negative motivations on the part of those who disagree with our viewpoint and quickly turn them into the enemy instead of partners with a different perspective about how to improve conditions in our country. This is too easy. Furthermore, this stance is not one that is effective in most situations.

Activists are called to go beyond selective empathy, to engaging the world with an empathic stance. This is not to say there are not times when it is necessary to condemn individuals, groups, or acts as evil. Clearly, there are times to advocate against. However, this is not our first calling. Our first calling it to understand empathically, to allow people and groups to be innocent until proven guilty, and to seek change through compassion before condemnation.

Systemic Understanding

Although existential psychology has not always given adequate attention to systemic issues, it is important to do so when considering existential activism. Activism always occurs in a context, and good activism should always take into consideration how best to advocate within a particular context.

I worry that activism too often seeks extremist ends without an openness to compromise. It has a tendency to seek big changes in quick time frames. Often, this is not how effective change occurs within a system. When change occurs too quickly or too radically, it can create a lack of stability that can, in some instances, be ineffective and even dangerous. Of course, there are also times when quick or radical change is what is necessary. Yet, often the most successful forms of activism will promote a gradual, sustained change over time that allows for compromise and respects the interconnected, complex systemic issues.

Content and Process

In psychotherapy, we often separate content from process. The same is important when considering activism. Existential activism can inform both content and process. It helps us identify important causes, but it can also help us give consideration as to how to go about activism.

Learning to be an effective activist is challenging and complex in ways quite similar to becoming an effective psychotherapist. There is a great deal of knowledge needed that must be continually updated in order to be an effective activist. There are also challenging interpersonal and leadership skills, and a broader awareness of the interplay between individual, group, and larger social systems, which need to be developed and refined over time. I am thankful for places like Saybrook University, and their Social Transformation Concentration, that helps prepare individuals for this complex calling.

Conclusion

Existential activism is bold enough to speak the truth and, when necessary, confront evil while remaining compassionate enough not to create enemies through disagreement. It is honest enough to recognize when our motivations shift from our ego to our heart and when our own issues may harm our cause. Existential activism is audacious enough to take an empathic stance toward various sides and individuals involved with the issue, not just those who share our perspective. It is courageous enough to continually confront ourselves as we confront others. Existential activism is patient enough to let change gradually unfold and wise enough to adjust our approach to activism to the context. Finally, existential activism is humble enough to always remember the root of activism is beyond us.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. The Free Press.

Keen, S. (1991). The enemy maker. In C. Zweig & J. Abrams (Eds.), Meeting the shadow: The hidden power of the dark side of human nature (pp. 197201). Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Beyond Existential Martyrdom

This blog was originally published April 16, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

In a recent email exchange with a friend, Michael Moats, I was teasing him about having a good attitude after witnessing a scary event. What began as good-natured humor also led to an important serious conversation as Michael wisely noted, “I still think there is something here to write on about the martyrish love affair I sometimes hear with people of existentialism.” I deeply appreciate Michael’s positive attitude and believe that it reflects his deep existential nature. For those who know Michael, they can attest that he does a wonderful job at balancing zhi mian (facing life directly and honestly, including the difficult parts) and maintaining a positive attitude.

Photo by Louis Hofman

The Dangerous Lure of Suffering

“…despair is suffering without meaning”
~ Viktor Frankl (2000)

In existential psychology, we often talk of suffering and the value of suffering. While this is not intended to glorify suffering and pain, it often comes across this way. There is nothing glorious or heroic about seeking suffering for the sake of suffering. When we seek suffering for suffering’s sake, we dishonor ourselves and dishonor the deeper potential inherent in suffering. Existential psychology, like Buddhism, advocates that, “suffering exists.” Life and suffering are inseparable; this is a basic given of life. From this recognition, existential psychology often encourages people to be open to the suffering that already exists. This is an important distinction: Existential psychology does not encourage seeking suffering, but rather being open to the suffering that exists in the world.

Seeking and excessively dwelling in suffering is dangerous. It often has negative consequences for our psychological, spiritual, and physical health as well as negatively impacting our relationships. Avoiding or denying our suffering that exists, too, brings with it the same risks. Yet, being open to suffering does not necessitate such seeking of it.

Misplaced Meaning in Suffering

Existential psychology will often speak of finding the meaning in suffering. This language can be somewhat misleading. It is not the suffering itself that is meaningful, but what we do with the suffering. The “in suffering” that is being referred to is the experienced suffering resulting from being open to it. In other words, it is the meaning found while in a state of suffering that is the “meaning in suffering.”

For example, when talking about finding meaning in a tragedy, such as rape, child abuse, or a natural disaster, people will sometimes respond saying, “How can you say this was meaningful! It was not a good thing that this occurred!” Talking of the value of suffering ought not glorify tragedy or suffering. Rather, it is referring to the meaning that can be created and emerge from the tragedy. This does not convert the tragedy into something good, but rather uses the tragedy in the service of creating something good.

As a personal example, one of the things I like most about myself is that I am a compassionate, empathetic person. I am very aware that it is suffering that I experienced in my life, as well as the suffering of those I cared about, that influenced me in becoming a compassionate, empathetic person. It is not good that this suffering occurred, but I am thankful for the very meaningful gifts that emerged largely as a product of this suffering. But it was not a simple linear process of suffering and then becoming compassionate and empathetic. Rather, from an early age I learned to open myself to the suffering that occurred. Through doing this, I was able to explore my suffering and begin working to create meaning from the experience of suffering. Had I chose a different response to the suffering I experienced and witnessed, it could have led to a very different result. Thus, what is meaningful to me is what I created from my suffering, not the suffering itself.

Balance in Existential Psychology

The ability to forget the past enables people to free themselves gradually from the pain they once suffered; but it also often makes them repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.
~ Lu Xun (1923/1961)

The purpose of opening oneself to suffering is to eventually transcend the suffering. When one does this, the suffering does not necessarily go away, but it no longer has the same hold over us and we are able to experience the beauty that often is connected to suffering. For example, our suffering often deeply connects us to others who care about us or who share in our suffering. Suffering is not intended to be the end; it is just part of the journey.

Some people picture existentialists as a group of people who are always serious and maybe even at least mildly depressed. While surely this fits some people who identify as existentialists, my experience is that existentialists tend to be a rather joyful bunch embracing life, laughter, and relationships very deeply. It is critical for us to keep this balance. The principle of zhi main is to face life directly and honestly. When we do this we will experience both the joys and the sufferings of life more deeply.

Applications

I worry that some existential therapists similarly have the instinct to “go for the tears” and see this as what successful therapy is about. This can be an important part of therapy—helping clients open themselves to the pain that they are experiencing and share it. However, therapy, like life, should never glorify suffering and pain. Additionally, existential therapy should also embrace the laughter, the joy, and the celebrations. In life and in therapy, we can zhi mian the joys as well as the suffering.

References

Frankl, V. E. (2000). Man’s search for ultimate meaning. Perseus.

Xun, L. (1961). What happens after Nora leaves home. In Y. Xianyi & G. Yang (Eds. & Trans.) Lu Xun selected works (Vol. 2). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Press. (Original work published in 1923)

Note: this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, this site supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

An Existential Approach to Microaggressions

This blog was originally posted on the New Existentialist Blog on July 11, 2013. It was reposed here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

The interest in theory and research pertaining to racial microaggressions is booming, yet it rarely gets mentioned in the existential literature. This is a problem that needs to be rectified. I have written and co-written numerous articles arguing for the need for greater attention to diversity issues in existential psychology (see Hoffman, 2008; Hoffman, 2012a; Hoffman, 2012b; Hoffman & Cleare-Hoffman, 2011; Hoffman, Cleare-Hoffman, & Jackson, in press; Hoffman, Oumarou, Mejia, & Alcahé, 2008). However, it is also important to recognize what existential psychology has to offer the diversity literature. Existential perspectives can contribute to the literature on microaggressions as well.

What are Microaggressions?

According to Sue (2010a), “Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (p. 3). There has been a shift from racism most often being expressed overtly to more covert forms of racism. Because microaggressions are ambiguous, it is easy to deny that these really are racism, and it is often difficult, if not impossible, to “prove” otherwise.

Courage

In many ways, it takes greater courage to confront microaggressions than overt forms of racism. Even when microaggressions are pointed out gently and tactfully, the response is often one of defensiveness and anger. Individuals who confront microaggressions are often accused of being “too sensitive,” trying to create problems, or “playing the race card.” Thus, individuals voicing concern even about the possibility of microaggressions or racism are often belittled, bullied, and verbally attacked for suggesting the possibility.

Frequently, I have witnessed individuals who have courageously voiced concerns about possible racism in the form of microaggressions. In these situations, it is frequently evident that these individuals carefully craft their words, intending to softly, sensitively voice their concerns without accusing others. Still, the response is often vehement attacks or mocking that seem to either consciously or unconsciously bully the person into not voicing such concerns again.

Courage is a common topic in the existential literature. For Tillich (1952), courage is not only bravery but also connected to ethical action. It is evident that courage is necessary in addressing overt or covert forms of racism. At one time, to take a stand against racism signified a great risk—the risk of being put in jail, physically beaten, or even killed. While these particular risks are not as common today, there is still a great risk in standing up to microaggressions and racism.

Zhi Mian (i.e., facing directly) and the Daimonic

Zhi mian, or “facing directly,” is becoming a better-known topic in the existential psychology literature, as evidenced by the number of New Existentialist pieces discussing this topic. Just as it takes courage to challenge microaggressions and more overt forms of racism in others, it also requires courage to zhi mian, or face directly, racism in ourselves and others.

Nathaniel Granger conducted a courageous dissertation by conducting a heuristic research study on racial microaggressions in higher education among African American males. In a heuristic study, the researcher is a co-participant, thus Granger’s study also explored his own experiences of racial microaggressions in higher education. During his final dissertation meeting before his defense with myself (I served as Nathaniel’s chair) and Justin Lincoln (who served on his dissertation committee), I used a phrase that had racial implications without being aware or considering the origins of it. Nathaniel immediately responded saying, “Now Dr. Hoffman, that’s kind of a racial microaggression right there.” I was appreciative and, more importantly, impressed. Nathaniel demonstrated courageous zhi mian.
Zhi mian also includes the ability to face oneself directly. In the scholarly literature, the idea of being free of racism or “colorblind” is widely recognized as naive and unrealistic. We all have some racist tendencies within us. Yet, it is easier to assert this as a scholarly position than to experience this as a lived reality.

Rollo May (1969) described “the daimonic” as something innate within individuals, such as an urge, impulse, or tendency, that has the potential to take over or overpower the individual. The daimonic becomes more powerful when we deny, repress, or ignore it. Similar to courage, this shows that the ability to zhi mian ourselves has an ethical component to it. Our denial of the potential for racism only increases its potential and power. Instead, we need to recognize this reality and be honest with ourselves. There is no nobility in the denial of being racist, rather it represents a dangerous self-deception. I am not saying that the claim to not be racist necessarily has bad intentions. Indeed, some people assert this with good intentions. However, even good intentions can be dangerous.

While zhi mian calls us to a certain boldness in facing microaggressions and racism, it also calls us to do so empathetically in some (but not all) situations. If the potential for racism is universal, then we cannot sit too harshly in judgment. Instead, we recognize the struggle against racism as a universal struggle.

Conclusion

As our society continues to struggle with racism, particularly in the form of racial microaggressions, existential psychology has something to say. It is important for us to courageously face this topic directly and honestly. It is not an easy path, but it may be the necessary path in moving forward.

References

Granger, N., Jr., (2011). Perceptions of racial microaggressions among African American males in higher education: A heuristic inquiry. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Retrieved from Proquest, UMI dissertation publishing (3453836).

Hoffman, L. (2008a, November). Applying existential therapy in a culturally sensitive manner. Invited paper presented at the 2nd Annual Existential Humanistic Institute Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Hoffman, L. (2011, August). Diversity and existence: The existential frontiers of diversity. In D. N. Elkins (Chair), The new existential-humanistic psychology: Science, diversity, awe, and spirituality. Symposium presented at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Hoffman, L. (2012a, October). Toward a deep diversity of humanistic psychology: Facing our challenges, embracing our opportunities. Society for Humanistic Psychology Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/publications/newsletters/humanistic/2012/10/embracing-deep-diversity.

Hoffman, L. (2012b, April). Creating diversity in the home of humanistic psychology. Society for Humanistic Psychology Newsletter, Retrieved from http://www.apadivisions.org/division32/publications/newsletters/humanistic
/2012/04/creatingdiversity.aspx

Hoffman, L. & Cleare-Hoffman, H. P. (2011). Existential therapy and emotions: Lessons from cross-cultural exchange. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39, 261267.

Hoffman, L., CleareHoffman, H. P., & Jackson, T. (in press). Humanistic psychology and multiculturalism: History, current status, and advancements. In K. J. Schneider & J. F. Pierson (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges of theory, research, and practice (2nd edition). Sage.

Hoffman, L., Oumarou, S., Mejia, M., & Alcahé, A. (2008, August). Exploring diversity issues in existential-integrative therapy: Embracing difficult dialogues. Presented at the 2nd Annual Society for Humanistic Psychology Conference, Boston, MA.

May, R. (1969). Love and will. Delta.

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions, marginality, and oppression: An introduction. In D. W.
(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact (pp. 322).
John Wiley and Sons.

Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be. Yale University Press.

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

A Cultural Crisis of Responsibility: Responding to a Denial of Our Humanity

This blog was originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on May 6, 2014. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

When I received my new insurance cards for our family’s vehicles, I was struck that on the back it reads, “Do not admit fault,” in bold print. In a previous employment setting, we were told to never admit a mistake due to the possibility it could create a vulnerability to being sued. Many therapy students, by time they graduate, are so afraid of making a mistake that could cost them their licenses that they end up being highly constrained therapists, often leading to ineffectiveness.

I was recently part of an intense disagreement that occurred within a group setting. In trying to understand and work through this conflict, I consistently attempted to recognize my contributions to the conflict and acknowledge them with an apology. Several people who were aware part of the process as well as others I consulted with encouraged me to stop admitting mistakes. Their reasons were primarily twofold. First, they noted that often I seemed to be looking for my mistakes and acknowledging things that were not really my fault. Second, they worried that this would be used against me. Although my friends and colleagues were right, I insisted on acknowledging my contributions to the problems even when minor or unintentional. I felt my integrity would not allow for me to do anything else. Additionally, I hoped that my taking ownership of part of the problem would make it easier for others to do the same. In the end, taking responsibility was ineffective, but I still feel good about my choices to take responsibility where I contributed to the problem.

It seems American culture has become terrified of responsibility. Taking responsibility is often hard enough without the cultivation of this fear. Yet, we seem to be taking this to extremes, as so often happens in the United States, and it is contributing to some rather serious problems.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

Authenticity, Zhi Mian, and Self-Acceptance

The denial of responsibility is almost inevitably an inauthentic and self-deceptive endeavor. The
principle of zhi mian calls us to face ourselves, others, and the world directly and honestly. When we do this, we are flooded with the recognition that we are imperfect and responsible for many mistakes. This is part of being human.

An authentic call to responsibility pushes us toward a deeper self-acceptance (See Hoffman,
Lopez, & Moats, 2013). Self-acceptance too often is intertwined with attempts to rationalize ourselves as being right or justified in our mistakes instead of embracing our humanity as imperfect creatures. Authentic self-acceptance requires that we are honest with ourselves about responsibility. Instead of seeking to justify our mistakes, we embrace them. This is not easy. If it seems to be, then one should question the authenticity and depth at which this is embraced. Yet, when we can establish a foundation of self-acceptance that is honest while deeply acknowledging our own imperfections and humanity, then we can use this self-acceptance as a foundation for responsibility.

Mutual and Collective Responsibility

The idea that ‘it takes two to have a conflict’ is a common cliché, but rarely is the deep meaning of this simple phrase lived and embraced. This cliché again points to our humanity; we are all imperfect and that even when our intentions are good, we will still make mistakes.

In my marriage, I have learned over and over that it is ineffective to try to identify and point out the mistakes that my wife is making. It is not because my wife is resistant to acknowledging her faults or mistakes; in fact, the reason has nothing to do with her. Instead, this is ineffective because of the impact it has upon me regardless of her response. When I look for my wife’s mistakes, I feel like a victim and become angry, typically about something over which I have very little control. When I focus on looking for my own mistakes, even when they are unintentional, I have a very different attitude. I am able to approach conflicts softer with greater openness.

In leadership roles in organizations, I increasingly find myself advocating for mutual responsibility. Conflicts within groups and organizations easily become polarized, with individuals or groups being blamed for the problems. This, too, is deception. Organizations and groups are almost inevitably destined to repeat cycles of scapegoating, blaming, and conflict if they cannot learn to take mutual responsibility for problems. This rather simple idea too often seems to become lofty idealism when brought into practical application.

Of course, there are always exceptions. I am not suggesting that shared responsibility is a universal. Child abuse, rape, and other tragedies have innocent victims. Yet, if we are honest, conflicts and problems where there is a single responsible part are quite rare in comparison to the pervasive examples of collective responsibility.

Conclusion

Most pieces I write for the New Existentialists I write with the hope that it may have at least some positive impact, even though most likely small. Yet, I write this piece with a sad heart, confident that it will have little to no impact. There is too much cultural pressure to the avoidance of responsibility and I don’t foresee a change or even much hope. We see this in politics, in business, in friendships, and in families. I have witnessed and experienced too many friendships and relationships end over this deep resistance to responsibility. I do not see myself as above this either. When confronted with my mistakes, my typical first reaction is defensiveness and often anger. Frequently, I act from this place instead of mindfully watching my first reaction and waiting to respond until I have more honestly analyzed the situation.

So why do I write this piece? In part, it is a confession. In part, it is to hold myself accountable to striving toward more authentic responsibility and self-acceptance. But most of all, I felt compelled to write.

References

Hoffman, L., Lopez, A., & Moats, M. (2013). Humanistic psychology and self-acceptance. In M. Bernard (Ed.), The strength of self-acceptance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 317). Springer.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Politics and Existentialism: Zhi Mian and United States Politics–Part 1: Facing Conflict and Disagreement Directly

This blog was originally published on October 22, 2012 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

United States politics is fraught with conflict and disagreement as is evident even to the casual observer. These are natural occurrences in all organizations and political systems. They can be used poorly or for gain. Often, disagreement and conflict, when handled properly, can encourage creativity and development. When handled poorly, they can stifle any growth or development. Rarely in our political system do we witness them being used well today.

Stages of Conflict

Speed Leas (2002) developed a model for the levels of conflict based upon his work with churches, but it has relevance well beyond this setting. Although, as with any stage model, it has its limitations, it can help illuminate a common progression witness during the presidential and other political campaigns.

According to Leas, prior to the emergence of conflict, the focus typically is on sharing one’s ideas. Gradually, there is a shift to critiquing the ideas or others and/or defending one’s ideas. As the conflict escalates, the focus becomes being critical of the other person and defending oneself. Already at this point, the content is no longer the central focus; instead, the focus is now on the individuals in conflict. Often, this is where attacks on the person’s character emerge. As the conflict escalates, the desire is to emotionally or physically harm the other person, often reaching a point of intractability, where it seems impossible to continue to work collaboratively together.

More than three presidential elections ago, I began teaching about models of conflicts during a presidential campaign. I found that the campaign provided great illustrations of the levels of conflict. Since this time, I have observed each political election in relation to these stages of conflict. Not surprisingly, the model fits quite well, although there have been some changes over time. With each subsequent election cycle, it seems that the candidates move more quickly through the stages of conflict.

“I Am Not a Role Model”

Conflict is big entertainment in the United States. It sells our reality TV, sports, news media, and our politics. It often seems that the more sensationalized the conflict, the more interest. Yet, conflict in politics is much different than conflict in reality TV, and it is a sad state when they begin resembling each other. When Charles Barkley was playing in the NBA, he famously noted, “I am not a role model.” It is also sad when we need to urge our politicians, who should be role models, to make the same disclaimer.

Politicians today regularly model a type of violence to our children: an emotional violence. This violence can be extremely painful and leave deep, emotional scars just like physical violence. However, there is a more disturbing side to this. If you were to put children and even many young adults in similar conflicts in terms of the level and intensity, many would lack the resources to keep the violence at the verbal level. Politicians have years of practice at dealing with this conflict and have a constant support system surrounding them as outlets to vent and reminders to watch their tongue. In a very real way, it can be argued that politicians routinely model styles of conflict and behaviors that could easily be translated into physical violence if the individuals and contexts were changed. We ought to expect more from our political leaders. We ought expect from our politicians that they are able to deal with conflict in an honest, diplomatic, and respectful manner.

Zhi Mian and Political Conflict

“…we must dare look things in the face before we dare think, speak, act, or assume responsibility. If we dare not even look, what else are we good for?” (Lu Xun, 1925/1961, p. 198)

Zhi mian is a concept that is becoming better known in the existential literature in the United States. It is being popularized through Xuefu Wang (2011), who has introduced the term from the writing of Chinese literary figure Lu Xun. This term can be translated as “to face directly,” and symbolizes a unity of facing oneself, others, and life directly, honestly, and with integrity. This is lacking in United States politics.

Instead of looking honestly at conflict, it is routinely distorted and spun for political gain. Taking responsibility for one’s mistakes in most situations is considered political suicide. It is more advantageous to distort, deceive, and lie than to apologize or own one’s mistakes. If we were to zhi mian United States politics, even if just related to political conflict, it would require radical change in the behaviors of politicians and the news media. It would encourage asking what we can learn or gain as a country from these conflicts instead of focusing on how it can be used to the advantage of a politician or a political party. It would require listening to the other perspective and reflecting upon our own. It would require much of what Schneider (2004) advocates for his existentially rooted awebased
approach to politics.

Conclusion

My dream for United States politics is that we could attract and elect politicians that I would want my children to see as role models. However, today, I am embarrassed to say, politicians are one of the last professions to which I would look for role models for my children. If my children emulated many of the behaviors of politicians they would be sent to time out or grounded. It is sad when our children are the role models of morality for our politicians.

References

Leas, S. B. (2002). Moving your church through conflict. Alban Institute.

Lu Xun (1961). On looking facts in the face. In Y. Xianyi & G. Yang (Eds. & Trans.) Lu Xun selected works (Vol. 2). Foreign Language Press. (Original work published in 1919)

Schneider, K. J. (2004). Rediscovery of awe: Splendor, mystery, and the fluid center of life. Paragon House.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.