The fundamental attitude of dialogue, described above as Leary’s left upper quadrant, is far from easy to maintain for the participants: maintaining it demands diligence and effort.
Here we discuss the other possible attitudes, such as they can be described following the categories of Leary’s rose. These other attitudes can each be regarded as a form of resistance to change (see Chapters 1 and 7); that is, exclusively within the context of a dialogue. This resistance is not about truth, but about what the others want, namely no change. Now the other attitudes.
First the attitude of the octant with-down (WD). This is an attitude of:
Ĺ being focused on getting appreciation Ĺ guarding a nice climate
Ĺ soothing and covering up conflicts
Ĺ looking for the powerful and pleasing them Ĺ doing things for the powerful
Ĺ lots of smiling
In a dialogue, someone with a with-down attitude does not feel directly responsible for solutions. If this person takes any responsibility at all, then this only happens for details, while the solutions must come from the powerful. We only, in Virginia Satir’s terms (www.satirstances.com/placate.htm), placate the powerful: we make them feel good, help them and guard them. This pleasing must result in appreciation and a pleasant climate.
From the point of view inherent in this attitude, we are inclined to divert attention from unpleasant things and prevent and smooth over differences of opinion. However, dialogue, by contrast, requires that the involved parties face the unpleasant sides of issues and expose differences of opinion before reconciling them.
The down–with (DW) octant implies:
Ĺ seeking protection and safety Ĺ obeying, doing as we are told Ĺ complying quickly with the powerful Ĺ avoiding conflicts
Ĺ taking no initiatives
Essentially, people who assume this attitude do not take part in the dialogue. They just want to feel safe and protected. They leave the harsh outer world to those to whom they have delegated their destination and take shelter under their wings, a form of ‘fleeing to’.
Down–with is at odds with taking responsibility for the course of affairs, independent think- ing and presenting their own ideas and unwelcome information. People in the down–with octant have by definition the same opinion as those from whom they expect the most safety;
that is, the greatest threats.
‘Up–against’ (UA) is characterized by:
Ĺ defining the situation and how it should be (preaching) Ĺ sticking firmly to that definition
Ĺ telling others what must happen (commanding and ordering) Ĺ not tolerating opposition and playing down differences of opinion Ĺ an unmoving face
This behavior is primarily displayed by people who perceive dialogue as a threat or an infringement on their power position. People in an ‘up–against’ position usually hold on to such a view in almost any situation where a change of the status quo is about to take place.
They feel responsible for the status quo, to which they have aligned themselves, because the status quo offers them all kinds of outcomes. It is the attitude of an authority figure who wants to hold on to the past and feels threatened.
‘Against–up’ (AU) involves the following elements:
Ĺ getting angry and raising one’s voice Ĺ attacking the other person
Ĺ accusing and ‘blaming’ (www.satirstances.com/blame.htm) Ĺ threatening
Ĺ showing contempt
Ĺ disqualifying the other person
Against–up refers to a more personal and openly aggressive response to someone who is experienced as infringing on our autonomy and personal functioning. A typical case of
against–up reasoning is: ‘You get me? Then I get you. And because you behave as you do, you are guilty of it all. You are bad and unreliable.’ In short, anger and fighting as a primary stress response, when something threatens us from the outside. We typically display this attitude when we feel attacked.
‘Against–down’ (AD) comprises:
Ĺ sabotage Ĺ feigning Ĺ insinuating Ĺ inciting others Ĺ stalling
Ĺ disqualifying important moments
Against–down is a hostile reaction to an experienced infringement too, for example when someone feels forced to show openness. This against–down reaction is less primary in character than against–up. Somebody displaying this attitude has probably experienced infringements for a long time. That person does not see his situation as his own responsi- bility, but as caused by the actions of others. He lives the life of a guerrillero, alone or with some comrades. He lives in occupied territory, where the powerful are not to be trusted.
Moreover, he has learned that displaying overt anger and aggression are dangerous.
Lastly, ‘down–against’ (DA) encompasses:
Ĺ lack of interest Ĺ maintaining latitude Ĺ not committing yourself Ĺ keeping silent
Ĺ being late or not showing up at all Ĺ being easily distracted
Down–against is a passive form of resistance, a response to a perceived lack of freedom. It is the conduct of a convict. People in a down–against position just try to evade the influence of the one in power, to maintain some freedom for themselves. People in this position don’t feel responsible for the situation and are not really interested in more active participation.
They do not actively participate at all, as they do not gain anything from it in any case.
What they do want lies outside their horizon for the moment.
All these forms of resistance are a matter of a down and/or an against attitude, which of course is expressed in people’s non-verbal behavior. In addition, these attitudes often are of a somewhat nervous nature, which also shows in their non-verbal behavior. I describe a number of these non-verbal behavioral elements in Chapter 8 and Addendum 1.
To complicate things further, often – but not continuously – we cover up these attitudes with a display of benevolence, paying lip service to the goals of dialogue. Disapproval and open criticism often are ventilated only in our own circle. This ventilating of criticism touches, for that matter, on another important point: this kind of resistance usually is not an individual but a collective affair. Those involved support each other and so reinforce each other’s resistance: ‘If all of us see it the same way, we can hardly be wrong!’ This collective character can make the resistance surprisingly effective and well coordinated.
As it is, people have proved able to coordinate their intentions when they realize that they want the same thing (Schelling, 1960).
Another point is that in principle all this behavior is situationally determined: these attitudes are responses to another party in a particular situation. As such, these attitudes are not personality traits, even though some people are more inclined to certain behavior than others are. Often the behavior in question is a response to a perceived threat, infringement or loss. It is important to realize that this behavior is not a constant, but a response stemming from a certain view on an event, which we can often exchange for another one.
In a dialogue we irrevocably touch on resistance from time to time. How do we cope with that? To start with, we should recognize resistance as such. That is why its different forms are elaborated in this section. Dealing with this kind of resistance consists each time of an invitation to the other to explain his attitude. Try to find out what has brought it about. What does he want? What doesn’t he want? Which assumptions and goals drive him? What is really important and what is more of a side issue? What are the implications of his attitude?
What is good about it? Is it possible to rephrase the attitude as a surplus or a distortion of an essentially good attitude? What can we do about someone’s power position, their autonomy, his feeling of being suppressed and the lack of freedom he experiences? What must be done? The results of these questions should be taken seriously. The approach needed here consists each time of a mixture of inquiry, our repertoire of questioning techniques (see Chapter 6) and advocacy, clarifying our own position and the reasons we act as we do. In addition, we can use techniques such as ‘really seeing’ (see Chapter 6), evoking fantasies (see Chapter 6), being alert to non-verbal behavior (see Chapter 8) and wording (see Chapter 8).
In practice, coping with ‘with–down’ and ‘down–with’ often turns out to be extra difficult.
Of course, we can ask questions about the attitude and clarify its implications as well.
However, when the person in question goes along with that, this easily may turn out to be more of the same. Moreover, it is often not unpleasant, and actually quite tempting, when somebody agrees with us or tries to maintain a nice atmosphere. After all, it is a very socially desirable behavior, and can we blame somebody for being nice?
Coping with resistance usually implies that progress comes to a standstill for a moment.
Raising the issue may start with a neutral phrase such as: ‘I get the idea that something is the matter.’ In addition, we can ‘focus’ on the person in question, following the techniques described in Chapter 6. When he denies that anything is the matter, while we are rather certain that there is something, we can say something like: ‘I still get the idea that something is bothering you’, perhaps adding our motives for thinking that. If this does not help either, we can propose a moment of awareness (see Chapter 6). Sometimes it is useful to propose a coffee or tea break. In other cases it turns out quite well to have a five-minute silence to think for a while; that is, when the group has some experience with dialogue and is open to such an approach. Lastly, it makes sense to return to the issue later when we together take stock of where we are, what has been accomplished and what still has to be done, episodes that are normal parts of a dialogue (see Chapter 6).