(from the writings of Dr. Thomas Gordon and Noel Burch)
A handful of men meeting in Philadelphia through the long, hot summer of 1787 argued, debated, compromised and eventually produced one of the world’s most remarkable documents, the Constitution of the United States of America.
The writers knew it had some flaws but, flawed or not, they submitted the results of their efforts to the thirteen state governments for ratification and went home to attend other matters. They didn’t dream that the tediously crafted document they had written would create such a furor. But it certainly did, one that lasted four years. The reason: there were no guarantees in the body of the proposed Constitution to protect people from certain governmental excesses with which they were all too familiar. For a while it looked as if the proposed Constitution would fail to be ratified but fortunately its framers had foreseen a need for flexibility and had included processes for amending the document. They just hadn’t thought it would be so soon.
And what were the changes that had to be made? They became known as the Bill of Rights, the first ten constitutional amendments that, in essence, protect some of our most fundamental values from governmental interference and abuse.
The members of the Constitutional Convention learned that people liked their idea of a government that had checks and balances and allowed participation in its affairs. However, in order for them to approve it, the new government had to be strictly limited in its ability to interfere with such values as freedom of assembly, speech, press, religion, petition, privacy, due process and equality … and the people were willing to dump the entire process if these values were not protected.
The importance of values is clear. People have fought and died to protect them. So, what are they?
According the Webster’s New World dictionary, a value is that which is desirable or worthy of esteem for its own sake; thing of quality having intrinsic worth. Values are those qualities to which we attach the concepts of “good” and “right” and we almost all share the same fundamental values, our differences being primarily matters of priority.
Yet, its differences of values that often drive families apart, dissolve friendships and separate us from each other. We may have assured that some of our social and ethical values are protected from governmental intrusion but how can we deal more effectively with personal values, those in our homes, businesses, schools, churches and social organizations?
The Smoker
One of the ways to determine the difference between a conflict of needs and a value collision is that when needs conflict there are concrete, tangible effects of the conflicting behaviors but no real effects when values collide. Suppose that, much to my chagrin, my brother tells me he has started smoking again. If I were to confront him with my concern what would my I-Message be? “When you smoke tobacco I worry about your health because …because what? As long as I don’t have to breathe secondhand smoke what tangible effect does his smoking have on me?
Answer: None. That doesn’t mean I won’t hate it. I’m undoubtedly afraid it will hurt him and I want to do everything I can to prevent that. But it’s his health at risk, not mine.
One of the things I can do is express my thoughts and feelings in the least threatening way possible, with a two part I-message consisting of a non-blameful description of behavior and my feelings about it. When you smoke cigarettes I’m afraid you will permanently damage your health. Or something like that. He may continue to smoke, after all, tobacco is at least as addicting as heroin. But maybe not. Perhaps my concern is all it will take to get him to quit. I’ll never know until I try.
Let’s change the scenario a bit. Suppose my brother is fourteen and in my custody. Is there now a tangible, concrete effect of his smoking on me, an effect he will understand and agree to? If there is I can resolve the situation with the no-lose conflict resolution method. But what could the effect be?
Many people have said “Well, there may not be any real effect on me but I’d just put my foot down and tell him NO SMOKING and that’s IT!”
Think that will work?
Communication roadblock one, ordering, directing and commanding, is probably less effective in a values situation than any other. If what someone is doing clearly has real, negative effects on me, if it hurts me in some way, he or she may not like it but can perhaps understand why I might jump all over him/her. I’ve heard kids excuse verbal, even physical violence done to them by saying something like “well, I guess I had it coming”. But those examples are all in situations where the behavior does cause negative effects. In a values collisions where’s the effect? What price am I paying? Negative reinforcement to correct behavior isn’t advisable in any situation and when it’s about a collision of values, isn’t even understandable.
As you read it was there a difference in your attitude depending on the age of the brother? Many people are struck by the shift in how they would approach the same behavior by the same person but at a different age. There was a guy in one of my seminars who said “I think it’s odd that so many of us here would act reasonably with an adult brother but punitive with him as a kid. Why is that? I would hate to think it’s just that we all believe might makes right.”
…Thoughts?