I’ve been meditating on some guidance that is given to mediators, which is to separate the person from the problem and the process. While this seems like a platitude, let’s explore.
A person comes from lots of experiences, and from those experiences develops a series of truths. I’ve discussed this in other blogs. They then adapt their behaviours to coincide with these truths, which is quite logical, however the underlying truth is usually not. It is often coming from fear, and results in some very suboptimal adaptations. These adaptations become behaviours, and behaviours are the basis of living and relating to others, and if you’re following the logic, the behaviours are suboptimal and tend to play out self-fulfilling prophecies.
When a person shows up cautious, jealous, accusatory, or whatever other choice is unloving or uncaring, they are creating a problem. We can go so far as to say they are being a problem, as the expression is real and lived by others. This is where we split hairs, but importantly so.
The choice to behave in a certain way is a choice and represents one’s free will. Yes there are actions that are not choices, but adaptations are eventually understood as choices because we have the wisdom to see their outcomes, and the power to change them.
A prudent therapeutic and relational approach is to separate the person from the problem. The individual expressing or being a problem can be detached from the problem if they so choose and are provided support. The ADKAR method has been very successful in helping people to change, however a permanent change is not necessary in all instances; often to achieve a common goal, parties need only a temporary lift past an adaptive or emotional hurdle. This approach is very much like the Pygmalion effect, where if you treat someone in a particular way, they will respond as that thing.
Am I blabbing about a revolutionary thing? No. But the cognitive shift to see people as potentially distinct from the problem they are creating helps one to support a positive outcome that exceeds the adaptive limitation expressed.
This next blog section is slightly different, as it comments on relational dynamics where a personal problem is masqueraded as a relational issue. This can be in personal or professional dynamics. If someone is framing their personal issue as a relational issue, they must be told. A problem cannot be tackled if the origin is obscure as any joint approach to correct it will be misguided. In these instances, one must disown any ‘blame’ for or involvement in the problem and guide the offender to forms of support where the problem is theirs to address. If they refuse to regard their problem as their own and consequently refuse to address it, that dynamic must shift to reflect that refusal. This shift can sustain recognition of that person’s humanity and goodness, as detached from the problem, but you yourself must recede to a place where you are not wrongly identified as a combatant, trigger, or co-cause of that person’s problem.
A person ought to be cognitively detached from their problem and seen more holistically and compassionately. This is not for the purpose of acquiescence or sacrifice, but merely to keep your head about you while you attempt to support them in their own issue from a position of wisdom and safety. There is no reason to ever act without love and care for another person. There is a prudent reason to starve a problem of your time and energy. The magic is in seeing each separately and acting accordingly.
