“Let’s kill all the lawyers,” quipped Shakespeare through Dick in Henry The Sixth. But, it cannot be done, and I’ll tell you why. Lawyers are an embodiment—an outward implementation, if you will—of a part of you; that is, a part of your own human nature.
Even if you killed all the lawyers, we would be back, we would evolve back, because that component of human nature that is the cause to a fight requires a weapon. It would be the same for trying to kill all the soldiers, with perhaps some paradox, of course. Whether it is pen or sword, people attack and people defend. It just is. It may be a noble or ignoble cause, it might be a fight from hate, or a fight for love. Warriors will simply be or they will become, by natural human tendency.
But, irrespective of the fight itself, Shakespeare also says through Falstaff in Henry IV, Part I, “Discretion is the better part of valor.“
Picking which battles to fight is important. Just ask General Robert E. Lee, who got pulled into a fight at Gettysburg. We know what happened there.
After almost 30 years of practicing law, I’ve become pretty good at picking my fights, even excellent maybe, but certainly not perfect. I still get snagged. Just ask my wife… “Sweetie,” she says to me at the dinner table, “How is my lasagna, I worked really hard and tried something new?” Ah-oh. My children drop their spoons. Clank! They turn looking at her wide-eyed and agape, then they turn to me, then her again, then me again. “No, Dad, no…don’t do it…,” they mouth silently shaking their heads. “Hmm,” say I, “Well, ah, not so great tonight…” The children run screaming from the table unexcused flailing their arms. (I have to say my wife’s lasagna is usually outstanding, so I probably looked a bit “annoyed” that she played with it. But, in my own defense, shall I submit to rogue new ingredients that might perpetuate themselves into other meals, enslaving me with those flavors forevermore? And, worse yet, I might even start to like them!) Yeah, I still get snagged.
On a related topic, maybe—the board of directors table. Someone wrote a letter to the organization that was critical of a public position, by “philosophical difference,” and the board needed to form a response. The first question is whether to respond at all, but, in this case, we decided to respond.
I will change the names to protect the innocent, but I’ll provide a type of example to give you context. Let’s say you’re the leader of a faith-based organization. Then, let’s say you reverse your position on some topic of controversy. It could be a reversal of any former position, abortion, gay-rights, women’s rights, etc. Whatever. This change is grounded in love and good intentions, but (and I say this sort of tongue-in-cheek), it will generate some hate mail.
While the discussion was ongoing among the directors, I wrote down something like the following suggested response:
Dear Sir:
Thank you for taking your time to write to us about this important subject. The point raised is important and something we are continuing to consider deeply. In the meantime, let us be joined in other common principles. ~~~
Let’s say you’re the Chairperson of the iReallyLoveSocrates Foundation and you travel around the country speaking about your love of Socrates. Someone writes in, “Nietzche is way better than Socrates and everyone knows it. Socrates is too abstract. Nietzche understands the applied human dynamic.” You are offended. This person is picking a fight on core values. You’re getting pushed, and you want to push back. This person is wrong, so you think. You want to debate. This person is on a cause that is against your cause. But, this is not the time or place for this fight.
It could even be that someone sends the Chef a letter saying that there was too much salt in the soup, or a note to the musician that there are too many notes in the composition.
But, wisdom tends to tell us that, if we tell this person that this person is wrong, this person will get us back, somehow, someday. Maybe flaming us on social media, maybe telling 10 friends who tell 10 friends, etc. Tricky business, and it happens all the time. This is simply the wrong fight. It’s not to concede the point, it’s about choosing the right time for battle, and finding higher ground for our cannonade.
Dear Madam:
Thank you for raising the point about Nietzche, regarding whom we have great respect and admiration. Nietzche is a great thinker, and we are continuing to study Nietzche with great attention for the reason mentioned. In the meantime, let us be united that philosophy is a most noble exercise and that we philosophers will be ever considering such questions.
Back to the board room… After about 30 seconds, in an effort to support the purpose of my three-sentence suggested response, I pulled back the paper, and added a categorization of the purpose of each sentence, placing each sentence in brackets. I did not understand the response as a formula when I did it; discovery of the formula came later.
VALIDATION: >>Thank you for taking your time to write to us about this important subject.
DIFFUSION: >>The point raised is important and something we are continuing to consider deeply.
UNIFICATION: >>In the meantime, let us be joined in other common principles.
V.D.U. The Voodoo Response.
First, validation “judo-pulls” the submission, using the person’s own momentum against them. This is thanking the person for a submission that the person would otherwise expect to start a fight. It demonstrates coolness and non-reaction. We should thank those who are devoted to a cause against our own, because it makes us think, it makes us step up, and it helps us grow the sophistication of our endeavors.
Second, diffusion moves around the conflict. It is tough to argue with someone who is simply considering your position. This is not intended as disingenuous. If we are not continuing deeply to consider contrary positions, then we are no longer critical thinkers.
Third, unity finds the common ground between two potential enemies. We close by uniting ourselves where we can do so.
Although subtle, notice that the responses do not attribute the position itself to the other person, but only that the person brought forward the position. Otherwise, the person will retort something like, “It’s not my position, it’s the position of every other philosopher except you!“
It was considered by the board to add or respond with something like, “We hope you will go onto our website to learn more about us.” Again subtle, but even that little addition is really saying to the other person that the person needs to be further educated. It invites further retort, “No, come onto my website to learn more about us.“
Validate, Diffuse, Unify. Very simple. Restrain to fight another day.
I will add that, unfortunately, I discovered the Voodoo Response after the lasagna episode, much to my chagrin. And, my wife was not even picking a fight. Yeah, I still get snagged sometimes. “Yes, Sweetie, thank you for loving me enough to ask my opinion. I’m still chewing right now; your hair looks great. How nice to have us all at the dinner table at the same time!“
The voodoo that we (should) do. It works like magic.
Copyright © 2016 Gregg Zegarelli. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/vdu-voodoo-response-how-respond-someone-picking-fight-zegarelli-esq-