From a Higher Elevation
Manipulation or Facilitation - Some folks over the years have expressed questions about their newfound skills in communication, even wondering if these abilities crossed ethical boundaries. Those who’ve studied Neuro-Linguistic Programming or Hypnotherapy have probably heard similar concerns. Being able to move someone with communication; whether that’s moving them in their “position,” or moving them emotionally, is powerful. When we’re moved by a poem or film, we rarely think of that as being manipulated, even though in the strictest definition that’s exactly what happened. In fact, depending upon your dictionary, only the second or third definitions carry any negative connotations.
The word manipulation actually comes from the Latin: manipulus, which is to operate with the hands or by mechanical means. To “turn something over in your hands” is actually a precise definition of the word manipulation. We’ve only added the “devious” implications relatively recently, and it seems to have really stuck.
When a technique proves extremely effective, it can obviously become an advantage. Conscious communication gives you an ability to move others through your words. In and of itself, this kind of advantage is no more malevolent than having great tools vs. cheap tools for any job. Using better tools?doesn’t take away from anyone. When looking at the ethics, it all comes down to intention. How you use them becomes the real question. What’s your desired outcome? This is where Non-Zero Sum game theory comes into play.
If this isn’t a familiar term, Zero-Sum describes the outcome where one must lose for the other to win. There’s no option for cooperation, compromise, or a win-win scenario. Tennis, boxing, and many sports are prime examples of this adversarial positioning. Unfortunately, this also shows up in dialogues and negotiations. “I’m right!” “no, I’m right!” is the gist of these highly evolved dialogues. Again, one person must lose for the other to win.
领英推荐
Non-Zero-Sum in communication allows for both sides to win, or at least for nobody to lose, but requires extra consciousness to achieve. That extra consciousness helps us not step on toes. It helps us catch important cues and influence the harmonious nature of the conversation.
Conscious communication isn’t used to beat the other person. It aims for an outcome that’s about the good of the “we” rather than the good of the “me.” It aims for a higher purpose than one side or the other winning; it’s about finding the best for both. That perspective comes from a higher elevation of consciousness. From that elevation, your motivation is perfectly ethical and above board; seeking the best for everyone.
Doing no Harm - Conscious communication is really about using non-incendiary language, non-judgmental language, and being open to possibilities language. This can be as simple as asking a question in place of making an assumptive statement (always a smart choice.) Another place where we can easily access what we might call more diplomatic language is when we put ourselves in the other person’s position. How would we want to be spoken to, treated, or listened to from their place?
In each case, looping back to the “good of the we” rather than the “good of the me,” yields superior results. Using more artful, strategic language is really just operating from a higher place of consciousness; a place where you “know better,” about all the petty little things that people get caught up in, and there’s no reason to go down that road. You can believe something different than I believe, and we won’t obliterate the Universe like matter and anti-matter. It’s just good old pluralism at work. Artful, strategic language leaves the opening for pluralism, and the opening for solutions that are larger, more creative and mutually beneficial than your way or my way.