Step Up, Step Back

01Preface

Those who struggle with communication tend to do at least three core things:

These behaviors and tendencies don’t even address the nuances of passive-aggressive and aggressive forms of conduct rooted in lower emotional regulation, but, no matter the context, they still have a negative impact on community collaboration and morale. Those who engage in these behaviors tend to drain others socially and emotionally, fostering unsustainable social dynamics between people.

Below is a brief guide that seeks to address these behaviors and provide overviews of alternative ways of relating to others in communication.

02Guide

It could perhaps be argued that most (not all) people with a healthy relationship to self and others will extend some grace around interruptions in a conversation when speaking with someone new (whether they verbalize this directly or not). If you find yourself interrupting frequently, however, understand that you are heightening the odds that the person you are talking to will be less likely to want to try conversing with you again in the future, and may even bring up the fact that you continue to interrupt out of irritation or anger down the line.

Constant interruption for some is even akin to hostile behavior and aggression, so cutting people off persistently (intentionally or not) heightens social discomfort amongst people and creates social scenarios in which people are unnecessarily backed into a corner they must push themselves out of in order to be heard. This might mean asking you to stop talking outright, or pointing out your behavior in front of others, which could mean a number of things for you emotionally. This is why it is best to first give people the space to speak and, if you consistently struggle to do this, have accountability partners to help you out while also being emotionally prepared for boundary-setting and pushback. Be mindful that when others are speaking, you are waiting for appropriate openings or gaps in their expression to respond with your thoughts (explained in a moment), and remember that just because you had a thought that excites you or is related to what someone is saying does not mean that others will somehow be okay with you steamrolling over their speaking time to get it out.

Similarly, it is not wise to socially “hover” over or “nudge” someone as they’re speaking, in essence “filling in the space” left between the connected words or sentences of others with your own words or thoughts just because that space is there—pauses in speech are not automatic “doorways” for you to insert yourself into, and treating them this way can functionally turn what could be a regular, mutualistic conversation into a competition for speaking time. It is imperative that we do our best to first listen for when someone has completed a thought and feel out whether or not it is our opportunity to express more in response to this. This is especially true if you have a difficult time stopping once you “get going.”

This leads to the next point.

Most people really don’t like individuals who seem to suck up all of the air in the room for what seems like forever, nor do they like showing up somewhere only to be spoken to by someone who seems to have little care or concern for what anyone else has to say. Talking with one person or more—especially in relationships or social organization based upon cooperation—is a time to share thoughts and feelings together. Treat each conversation, whether it’s with one other person or a group, like you would a table covered with food: Are you going to rush to the table with your plate and scoop the majority of the food onto it before the others even get a chance to check things out? Just because you’re extra hungry (or “starving”)? Or are you going to be mindful of what others want from this social “table” too, so that everyone comes away from the table full?

We are all free to pursue what we want socially, but keep in mind that “hogging all of the food” for long enough might cause others to reconsider “dining” with you in the future. This is especially true if you move through society with certain powers and advantages.

People perceived as “white” and people perceived as “men” (respectively, and both together) take up the majority of institutional space within North America. That means, by default, they tend to get the most speaking time in most places (even social contexts considered “diverse”). People who are not perceived to belong to either of these social categories tend to understand this very well, but most who are perceived to belong to at least one of these categories do not and subsequently tend to be oblivious to how much space they take up.

In the interests of cooperation, it is imperative that, regardless of how you might relate to these social constructs yourself, you be mindful of the cultural context(s) in which you exist and when it might be overbearing and overwhelming for people of other backgrounds or experiences to listen to you. Think about and interrogate whether or not you really “need” to be speaking when sharing spaces with others who are more institutionally marginalized in the broader society and who have fewer opportunities to speak in group contexts that involve diverse groups of people.

This is also related to the concept of “fragility”—it is important to recognize that certain things that might be the “biggest deal in the world” to you are things others of less privileged experiences may have been dealing with their entire lives in more intense ways, and that they might not want to use limited energy to “coddle” you over either (nor are you entitled to this sort of response).

Remember that the world doesn’t revolve around you and your personal troubles, and that there are “levels” to what people go through in it.

The more perceptive and self-aware you are around these things, the more likely it is that people of other experiences and backgrounds will be comfortable around you and even feel safe talking to you about whatever it is that they’re going through in life. Additionally, people will be more likely to listen and engage with you when you are vocalizing things you are going through, because there is a mutual understanding and awareness around power and the reality that each individual’s personal experience is not the “be-all and end-all” of what is ultimately possible (“good” or “bad”).

For anyone concerned with anti-authoritarian values, recognizing certain powers and advantages (internally) when speaking is also deeply related to emotional regulation.

Highly impulsive and reactive social responses are destabilizing to both interpersonal and group relationships. They can oftentimes be markers of danger to people as well, and rightfully so—“How might this person ‘react’ when they finally ‘snap’ on me and/or others?”

This is why it is important that we all figure out how to recognize what is going on emotionally within ourselves when we are speaking to people (even in real time), and learn to pause before engaging with others on things we care deeply about (all of this is a part of “mindfulness” practice). This is not only with respect to ensuring that we do not say hurtful things to others, or things that we will end up regretting later, but also being mindful of the fact that, in an organizational context, our behavior and conduct will be interpreted as a reflection of the wider culture and conduct of the spaces we inhabit.

There is a certain truth to the idea that when we go out into our everyday lives and interactions, we are “ambassadors” for any cultural contexts we claim to nurture and steward (perhaps unwittingly in some cases). This makes it all the more important that we be meeting communication with patience and mindfulness, knowing that “mindfulness” extends to an awareness of our feelings and where they might be coming from internally.

03Conclusion

People can do whatever they want to do when it comes to communicating with others, but our communications (just like our actions in general) still have consequences.

The challenge for all those who claim the values of “acceptance,” “cooperation,” “community,” and/or “direct democracy” is to reflect these values in their everyday communications with everyone, and especially those who are afforded less in broader society based upon socially constructed advantages others might benefit from.

What we do with the power that we have (in tandem with our awareness of this power or lack thereof) signals to those around us the degree of intentionality, concern, and safety with which we are approaching our social organization with others.

It also fundamentally informs who does and does not build with us.

In concerning ourselves with meaningful service to others (in addition to ourselves), prioritizing those disproportionately harmed (and, furthermore, ignored) in the broader society means learning how to listen actively, not just for “show” or to “get it over,” but to actually do our best to understand as well, and in the genuine pursuit of a society based upon the “equality of unequals.”