Sunday, December 20, 2009

Unresolvable New Years Resolutions


So here's the deal with kindness and me.

I don't enter into any exchange of a conditional nature with another from my species without asking what that person wants in return for whatever effort they're making. Sometimes this is a big deal. Most often it's just pocket change variety in the bartering of our daily giving and getting. But I do know that the sustenance of living is made out of something more porous and extended than self-preservation or a dollar earned for a day's labor. It's the energized form of gratitude that reigns whenever I've given something of myself to the betterment and acknowledgment of others. Is the life-giving held within the act or the recognition of it? And if the deal on kindness can't go through without some reciprocal outcome is it really kindness? Could it be a capital need to earn brownie points or accrue membership privileges for cashing in personal IOUs, political capital, or kindness quotas? Some production voucher or credit due reserve? Hey, I gave blood today!

Pure kindness always seemed like a more sincere, less cumbersome, and ultimately more life affirming way to go. It meant not keeping score even though you're in the right game playing for the better team (and for all the right reasons). Not expecting the quid pro quo to kick in is a liberation from the reflexive backscratching that poisons the sincerity of mutual admirations. Random is the roadmap for acts of true kindness. Pay it forward and you'll never look back.

The problem with altruism is that few of us are self-energizing enough to offer open-ended olive branches. When our efforts are spurned or stepped on or taken for granted with the slightest nod to our nobler spirits our quest for kindness can sour pretty quickly. I believe that this conflict was captured exquisitely by Adam Phillips, the author of On Kindness in my favorite 45 minutes of 2009 when he was the guest on the NPR call-in show On-Point. Phillips crashes through the familiar better-to-give-than-receive routine as if we can even agree on originators and receivers, let alone where the generosities lie. The unadorned question he asks is simple and instructive: "if it feels so great to express ourselves through kindness why don't we do it more often?"

On the one hand we all marvel at the beneficent grace and rapture of opening our hearts. On the other hand we're never as kind as we could be and others ... well they certainly clam up before releasing to us the kindness we deserve or imagine others can stroke against our expectant, raw, and receedingly thin skins.

Part of this tension is an inability to acknowledge the cost of kindness or the price of competition. Do we gain directly at the expense of others? If so do we lose some of our humility in the process of objectifying the evil or inferiority of those we intend to defeat, rectify, or ignore? Are all these options even on the table? Is cruelty the counter to kindness or is it neglect?

There are three main forms of creature discomforts that concern me about our species and I'm not sure what questions they raise or hopes they question but I'll give it a try:

1) Incapacity to praise -- I was in California before Thanksgiving and hooked up with an old college friend who gave me a good-natured grilling about the unrelenting encouragement I provided this historian/astrologer/writer/cum scientist of learning about his songs. That approval crashed his boundaries not only around defining his own artfulness but took root in a high-concept uneven-sounding band engineered by my friend's tentative grip on choreographing the movements of planets. The only chart we ever landed on was the composite chart he configured with his own raw inspirations. Was I too quick to praise? Was my appreciation undeveloped? Certainly my intent was for the talent I witnessed to develop as far as the spirit wills it. But years later no second guesses amount to a single moment of torment. Letting praise fester is no healthier than the unburied hatchets that eat us away.

I wondered about the collateral impact of praise, as heartfelt and deserving as it was. Was a wildfire ego trip the raging outcome of a single match stick? I've always been baffled by the scarcity of praise in the world. Positive feedback is no stranger to popular rhetoric. But putting one's finger on the distinguishing features of what makes for praiseworthy strokes is typically in short supply and never goes out of style no matter how un-chic paying a proper compliment can be. The criticism that underpins the achievement of my friend's songs is that they need to be recorded -- not for his sake or mine but posterity -- an objective that becomes less abstract the longer his tunes age.

Prognosis: Regardless of whether our band reunionizes over this man's awesome talents I will continue to praise my peers, students, and inspired works without reservation. I will specify the unique blending of skills, talents, and experience they have created and try to go them one better about where this could lead into new models and collaborations. And I will not bale if I give voice to a ship that takes on more water than passengers.

2) Inability to touch -- I didn't attend mass very often this year. In fact unless I'm with my exemplary Christian son I don't really think about it. About a month ago he was in town for a rare visit and we went to the local Catholic church. The mass was largely unremarkable except for one thing. The sign of peace handshake was cut loose to contain H1N1. All the runny noses, scratchy throats and handi-wipes could not turn the clock back on the welcoming of a stranger's outstretched hand. I'm not saying this as a gregarious flesh-pressing reveler or that one religious tradition is any more guarded than another. My own temperament is reserved, self-contained. But I know the consoling and restorative nature of touch is not present in words, logic, or any brain-heart connection I can access no matter how much I stretch my limbs or torture my own logic.

Prognosis: What would happen if the golden rule applied to handshakes, hugs, caresses, and even inadvertent brushes with the shopper pushing the next shopping cart? If we wished to be touched the way we hold ourselves many of us would never know the comfort of feeling, needing the someone close to us that puts things right. I don't know the answer. I only know that I need to reach out more than I do and that the quandary of intimacy or isolation is a false choice and a self-imposed one.

3) Unwillingness to give in -- I've been told by more than one close friend that I'm a poor negotiator. It's not from an insatiable want of material gains. I can walk away from bounties and winnings and discounts and coveted, shiny prizes. But I can't let go of the nagging feeling that I've negotiated away any mutual benefit an agreement could broker. Part of understanding the difference between what's negotiable and what's a deal-breaker is an appreciation not only of what we need from the other party but what we hold in scarce supply and how much that's appreciated on the other side. Conversely the most stoic of poker faces needs an accurate assessment of a fallback position which includes a supply line to the talents and assets we're incapable of providing to ourselves.

Prognosis: I believe the vogue political term for talking to our enemies is engagement. Well the same holds for the disagreements held between friends. The language of winners and losers is the currency used when pushed. Is that brinkmanship or is that simply the need of knowing where we stand. For most, it seems, uncertainty is a crueler fate than loss.

Listening to the grievances and demands when the negotiation tables are turned is a source of strength. Even if the other party's sole aspiration is to play the victim card there is a larger stage worth playing to. In the case of Iran that means showing their bad faith posturing to chip away at China and Russia's disengagement. Look at the softening of a U.S. hardline? Obama's overtures to Iran accentuate the political divide between all its internal factions. On a personal level what's the lesson? It's that the open hand absorbs the blows of the closed fist. Only then can any mutually beneficial bargaining begin.

12 comments:

sadalit said...

There's also the Wearing of the Mask, obscuring your true self behind a false face either in the name of professionalism or politeness etc. Not sure how to verbally fit it in to your triad but it bothers me constantly as I make my way among people.

Marc Solomon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marc Solomon said...

Thanks for your holiday CD, too! I completely agree with your observations on touch, praise -- and I'd love to read your soft copy, and save it.

I'm listening now to the NPR story on the Kindness.

One of the most rewarding things I've done during this confusing, challenging, identity-wrenching year is to reimagine facilitation as "helping people to prepare their hearts to listen." I think that is a prerequisite to having kindness within the conversation.

Gil said that the common models of collaboration are government, capitalism, and community. Mediated by Structure/Fear, Markets/Greed, and Conversation/Love (my words). He's even going to use "love" in his keynote at the CBI conference. I'm wondering if I set him up for something that could backfire...What do you think?

Kate

Marc Solomon said...

I am famous for never checking my mailbox here so only came across your CD and note yesterday. I finally got a moment and listened to your resolutions and the NPR On Point interview with Adam Phillips.

Thank you so much for sharing this and sharing what is on your mind. The On Point program, in particular, echoes a lot of my own thinking lately and I thank you for drawing my attention to it. Do you know this book called The Trap by Daniel Brook? I recently read it and it is another angle on capitalism’s impact on people’s lives (and emotions). It probably isn’t a definitive work, but I found it interesting stuff.

In the New-Year’s-Resolution-Spirit, I hope you are able this year to minimize what you need to do for money (“Work”) and maximize what gives you joy (your work with the online class).

Regards,
Glynys

Marc Solomon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marc Solomon said...

Glynys – I found it inspiring to answer competition with kindness (as opposed to ‘collaboration’ -- its weaker KM step cousin). King Capitalism is a chameleon that will transform itself into whatever we need it to be (preferably steady work that pays well!)

Marc Solomon said...

Kate -- Yeah, love is like truth. It stands apart (along with all the attraction/isolation impulses a word can trigger)!

Marc Solomon said...

Shucks,

In law school, I learned that assault is the threat - creating apprehension; battery is the touching. I suspect that Big Fan assaulted P. Phil in the men's room (will Big Fan now have to register as a sex offender just from the sound of that crime?). Big Fan may also have committed battery by contacting P. Phil with paint. Many of these crimes likely get probation, but I suspect that jail time is within sentencing guidelines.

My kind movie of the week. I watched The Lives of Others (2006)(Allison could not handle the tension involving artists monitored by the Stasi in early 1980s East Germany). The movie/writing/plot got progressively better and culminates in moving acts of kindness, despite some horrible circumstances.

I detect ambivalence in applying the kindness doctrine to sport contests. Where rules are constructed, it should not be unkind to follow them. Nonetheless, I found the homerun assistance appropriately kind (she had earned the run, the base rounding was perfunctory, and everyone might have been there all day while she used her hands to claw her body home) and the UConn thing inappropriate (individual scoring records should not take precedence over the competitive team event).

As for other teams sucking, my lifelong hatred of the Yankees has made certain options unavailable to me. I would like to say that the Yankees suck, but in fact they currently do not and generally have not during my lifetime. I just stick to hatred. And frankly, I need the Yankees to be kind of good to provide an outlet for hatred, otherwise the hatred would be either unnecessarily and pathetically directed at sucky Yankees or dangerously directed elsewhere.

'Nuck

Marc Solomon said...

CNK -- I thought the revisionist take on sports by A. Phillips as a collaborative undertaking to produce a competition was a new carom off some old glass. What is a more enobling gesture than the handshake reception at the end of momentous hockey matches? It defies penalty minutes, criminal charges, and H1N1.

Alas we have seen the end of this form in our political arena where all re-election chances carry over into conference committees, betting parlors, and who one chooses for dining partners after fillibuster-proof majorities become the sole collaboration.

Sol

Mike said...

Marc,
Got the CD yesterday, and I listened this morning to the resolutions. I re-examined them here on your blog, where I had more time to consider your musings.

Best of luck in propagating praise and touch in 2010, and resolving the uncertainty vs loss question, one with which I've wrestled as well.

On Point is queued up, and anything involving the musical Finn brothers gets my attention.

Best regards, mg

Marc Solomon said...

Hey Marc,

I've just spent the quality time giving your CD a proper listen. I loved it! Very thought provoking.

One thing that I continually think about is that human kindness is part of the fabric of human life. I just don't think most of us can help it because it's in our DNA, and holding it back in the age we live in is exactly antithetical to the fabric that makes us feel most natural. Or something like that.

Anyway - thanks very much. It was great.

Stacey

Marc Solomon said...

Stace – The compulsory versus voluntary piece in Phillips’ argument has really stuck with me. I practiced unsentimental kindness last night when I tore through three pounds of 4th class fundraiser pleas from the ACLU to the Environmental Defense Fund (Doctors without borders, indeed!)

Bookmark and Share

About attentionSpin

My photo
attentionSpin is a consulting practice formed in 1990 to create, automate and apply a universal scoring system (“The Biggest Picture”) to brands, celebrities, events and policy issues in the public eye. In the Biggest Picture, attentionSpin applies the principles of market research to the process of media analytics to score the volume and nature of media coverage. The explanatory power of this research model: 1. Allows practitioners to understand the requirements for managing the quality of attention they receive 2. Shows influencers the level of authority they hold in forums where companies, office-seekers, celebrities and experts sell their visions, opinions and skills 3. Creates meaningful standards for measuring the success and failure of campaigns and their connection to marketable assets.