![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat In my Not So Humble Opinion -- this is blog with two therapists discussing various ways of handling interpersonal relationships.
This fascinating. I was thinking about how many fights I've gotten into online and off, and often it's over a feeling more than an idea. A while back I saw a Sarah Silverman twitter feed, where she basically responds to an internet troll attack with compassion and curiosity. I envied her ability to do so, I'm not there yet.
The hard part is getting past that anger and the hurt. Not taking it personally. And that requires a lot of calm and quiet inside. If you are in physical pain, or emotional pain, that's a very hard place to be in. So, for now, I've been swinging away from things that trigger me. And not responding to things that result in anger or responding from a place of anger.
There's a desire to lash out or hurt, when you've been hurt. It doesn't help anyone and often just hurts you more or me more, whatever the case may be. But emotions are seldom logical. And not always easy to control.
I've wondered how certain conversations in fandom would have gone, if we tackled them from a place of curiosity instead of a need to validate our own perspective or being right? In law school, I was conditioned to fight to win, also conditioned to see both sides and be able to argue both equally, and be curious. So three things that sort of conflict with each other, yet don't at the same time.
At work -- I negotiate contracts for a living, so I struggle to be curious but also to protect my organization's interests. It's a hard middle ground to maneuver.
Fandom, you'd think would be easier -- but people are often arguing from their gut or a place of emotion. Much as they would religion or politics. It's not thought out, not logical, and often based on deep-seated prejudices, beliefs and perspectives. Also a need for validation. And those arguing are more often than not arguing from a place of pain.
A lot of people who despised Spike, were triggered by the character, he reminded them of someone who deeply hurt them in their past or his storyline hit that raw nerve. And as a result they could not understand how anyone could perceive the character differently than they did without there being something inherently wrong with that fan's world-view or moral outlook. They weren't curious, because they were too busy being offended. It was personal damn it. This can also be said of the character, Angel, who equally triggered people and upset people. Actually it can be said of just about any fictional character or story. I, for example, was deeply offended by the book "Me Before You" to the point that I found it to be unreadable. While others online were deeply offended by "Fifty Shades of Grey", "Harry Potter", "Huckleberry Finn", or "The Fault in Our Stars" (yes, there were people offended by a book about children struggling to deal with cancer).
I remember trying to deal with the Spike haters by being curious. Asking what it was about the character that triggered them -- why did they get so upset? And a few gave me some interesting responses. They'd personalized the character. Or the character was reflective of a "bad boyfriend" with "heart of gold" trope that they found to be dangerous -- because they'd either been victims of domestic assault or had friends who were victims of sexual assault and abuse. And the writer's story triggered them, much like it triggered the actor who played the role. Another friend had lost her mother to an assassin's bullet, Spike's story in the last season of the television series hit a bit too close to home. When I watched the episode in question, I felt the need to warn her not to watch it -- because I could see it from her perspective. It was not my perspective. And having since re-watched, I don't see if from hers at all any longer nor was that the authorial intent. But, here's the thing...for some, authorial intent can cease to matter once a story is interacted with -- David Bowie wrote this in a journal once. He worried in that entry that today's youth would cease to look beyond their own impressions of the work, own projected meanings to see anything lying beneath it, so the work becomes essentially meaningless. (This statement sort of haunts me.) For my friend, it did not matter that the writers never intended that interpretation nor intended for her to be hurt by it, she was. And she was furious at them. It was neither right nor wrong that she was angry and hurt, just that she was. And it wasn't their fault that she was angry. They aren't responsible for her interpretation necessarily, but...then again, maybe they are? Bowie seemed to think that was the whole point of art -- to interact with it and to elicit a response.
I think the problem is when we can't look outside our own perception and see how it may be false. Real to us perhaps, but not to others outside of us. And that's okay. We don't have to be right.
In order to understand another person, I have to step outside of my own point of view and that is almost impossible.
I've pondering this for a while now. Trying hard to look outside of myself, and to be curious. To not respond in anger and not let myself be easily triggered. Some days are easier than others.
Ann: Well, let’s face it…most of us have been brought up in the “right/wrong” approach to being in the world. You have to defend your opinions, your preferences – your rightness – at all costs, and attack the other person’s wrongness: How could they be so silly, so selfish, so careless…so whatever.
Hugh: And since you’re right and they’re wrong, why even bother listening to what they have to say? Meanwhile, the other person is in the same defensive, attacking mode. Anyone who’s ever been in that kind of fight – which is to say most of us – knows what an awful, painful experience it is. Living a life in which everything gets turned into that kind of fight is practically unbearable.
Ann: It’s pretty yucky, if I may use that diagnostic term. So let’s talk about what it takes to have a developmental fight – a productive conversation — instead. What would you say is an alternative to being right?
Hugh: Being curious!
This fascinating. I was thinking about how many fights I've gotten into online and off, and often it's over a feeling more than an idea. A while back I saw a Sarah Silverman twitter feed, where she basically responds to an internet troll attack with compassion and curiosity. I envied her ability to do so, I'm not there yet.
The hard part is getting past that anger and the hurt. Not taking it personally. And that requires a lot of calm and quiet inside. If you are in physical pain, or emotional pain, that's a very hard place to be in. So, for now, I've been swinging away from things that trigger me. And not responding to things that result in anger or responding from a place of anger.
There's a desire to lash out or hurt, when you've been hurt. It doesn't help anyone and often just hurts you more or me more, whatever the case may be. But emotions are seldom logical. And not always easy to control.
I've wondered how certain conversations in fandom would have gone, if we tackled them from a place of curiosity instead of a need to validate our own perspective or being right? In law school, I was conditioned to fight to win, also conditioned to see both sides and be able to argue both equally, and be curious. So three things that sort of conflict with each other, yet don't at the same time.
At work -- I negotiate contracts for a living, so I struggle to be curious but also to protect my organization's interests. It's a hard middle ground to maneuver.
Fandom, you'd think would be easier -- but people are often arguing from their gut or a place of emotion. Much as they would religion or politics. It's not thought out, not logical, and often based on deep-seated prejudices, beliefs and perspectives. Also a need for validation. And those arguing are more often than not arguing from a place of pain.
A lot of people who despised Spike, were triggered by the character, he reminded them of someone who deeply hurt them in their past or his storyline hit that raw nerve. And as a result they could not understand how anyone could perceive the character differently than they did without there being something inherently wrong with that fan's world-view or moral outlook. They weren't curious, because they were too busy being offended. It was personal damn it. This can also be said of the character, Angel, who equally triggered people and upset people. Actually it can be said of just about any fictional character or story. I, for example, was deeply offended by the book "Me Before You" to the point that I found it to be unreadable. While others online were deeply offended by "Fifty Shades of Grey", "Harry Potter", "Huckleberry Finn", or "The Fault in Our Stars" (yes, there were people offended by a book about children struggling to deal with cancer).
I remember trying to deal with the Spike haters by being curious. Asking what it was about the character that triggered them -- why did they get so upset? And a few gave me some interesting responses. They'd personalized the character. Or the character was reflective of a "bad boyfriend" with "heart of gold" trope that they found to be dangerous -- because they'd either been victims of domestic assault or had friends who were victims of sexual assault and abuse. And the writer's story triggered them, much like it triggered the actor who played the role. Another friend had lost her mother to an assassin's bullet, Spike's story in the last season of the television series hit a bit too close to home. When I watched the episode in question, I felt the need to warn her not to watch it -- because I could see it from her perspective. It was not my perspective. And having since re-watched, I don't see if from hers at all any longer nor was that the authorial intent. But, here's the thing...for some, authorial intent can cease to matter once a story is interacted with -- David Bowie wrote this in a journal once. He worried in that entry that today's youth would cease to look beyond their own impressions of the work, own projected meanings to see anything lying beneath it, so the work becomes essentially meaningless. (This statement sort of haunts me.) For my friend, it did not matter that the writers never intended that interpretation nor intended for her to be hurt by it, she was. And she was furious at them. It was neither right nor wrong that she was angry and hurt, just that she was. And it wasn't their fault that she was angry. They aren't responsible for her interpretation necessarily, but...then again, maybe they are? Bowie seemed to think that was the whole point of art -- to interact with it and to elicit a response.
I think the problem is when we can't look outside our own perception and see how it may be false. Real to us perhaps, but not to others outside of us. And that's okay. We don't have to be right.
In order to understand another person, I have to step outside of my own point of view and that is almost impossible.
I've pondering this for a while now. Trying hard to look outside of myself, and to be curious. To not respond in anger and not let myself be easily triggered. Some days are easier than others.