To be honest, I shared some of my colleague’s reservations. I was keenly aware of Congressman Stauber’s legislative agenda and the ways in which his policy proposals diverged from my political preferences. Building a human connection with the Congressman across strong political aversions posed a significant challenge that required a mindful approach. In today’s highly-charged partisan environment, culturally-competent communication across significant boundaries demands self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional.
My journey to meeting with Congressman Stauber started with an internal examination of my identities and experiences. Filtered through my lens as a person of privilege whose professional training focuses on equity and inclusion for marginalized student populations, my stomach clenched as I first read the empathy walk activity description. From my vantage point on the ladder of inference, the empathy walk activity looked like a classic faux pas committed by well-intentioned people of privilege: assuming that “getting to know someone” who is “very different” is an objective and equal experience for both parties involved. As Carl Crawford (2016), Human Rights Officer for the City of Duluth, noted: “For a white person, learning about the experience of people of color is a choice. For me as a black man, learning about the experience of white people is a matter of my own survival.” A well-intentioned academic exercise from the privileged perspective may — at the same time — be a microaggression from the marginalized perspective. Since I am a person of extreme privilege — I currently hold 21 of the 22 privileged identity types identified by Obear (2017) — “very different” almost certainly aligns with marginalized identities and experiences. As I discerned this structural reality and its meanings, I concluded that meeting with an individual with equal or greater privilege was the most culturally-fluent way to carry out the empathy walk activity.
As I explored possible dialogue partners, it proved difficult to find a person of equal or greater privilege with whom I significantly differed. As logic dictates, cultural differences between me and other people of privilege are relatively small and superficial: education, economics, and lived experiences tend to be shared. For example, in my first attempt at the empathy walk activity, I met with a classmate who was forced into an exorcism and subsequently excommunicated from a monastery. At surface, her experiences seemed different than mine. However, as the conversation unfolded, it became apparent that there were few significant cultural boundaries between us. It was a delightful and easy conversation; it provided no challenge in building an empathetic relationship. So, in the spirit of the empathy walk activity, my search for a dialogue partner continued.
The person with greater privilege and power usually dictates the terms of engagement that structure a dialogue. Beyond my control, I was invited — passive voice intended — by a vice-president of my organization to meet with Congressman Stauber. The date, time, and location were set by others. The purpose of the conversation was provided to me. My limited power in this arrangement created a sense of unease. As I anticipated our meeting, my personal biases against the Congressman’s political party produced feelings of dread. In short, an opportunity to complete the empathy walk activity finally presented itself.
As I entered the meeting with Congressman Stauber, I carried my experiences and emotions related to our political differences, mindful of their impact on my perception, but unable to entirely escape their power. When we met, I smiled and shook his hand — because smiling was the savvy thing to do. When we sat down, I jumped right into my rehearsed opener. I had prepared talking points in advance, based on my assumptions around the language and frames that would fit within his political worldview. I smiled some more. Despite my intentions to enter into the dialogue focused on empathetic relationship-building, I retreated to a transactional facade — “impression management” in the business lexicon.
“I am excited to be here,” Congressman Stauber replied. “First let me show you something. Who do you think this is?” He displayed an old black and white picture on his phone. I recognized the photo source: the alumnae hall at the college where I work.
“A relative?” I conjectured.
“Yeah, this is my mom. She graduated from here. When I saw her picture on the wall, it nearly brought me to tears,” he responded.
Shaped by my preconceived notions of political behavior, my initial reaction to the Congressman’s opening exchange was skepticism — I see the political game you are playing, I thought. However, I noticed my knee-jerk response, and chose to internally reframe my approach to the dialogue. I paused, looked at the Congressman, and noticed the genuine expression on his face.
“Tell me more,” I replied.
From that point on, something closer to an empathetic dialogue unfolded. Given the context of our conversation, we still addressed transactional matters related to Federal funding for higher education. However, we also shared stories, listened to one another, and even found common ground around the misuse of statistics in educational policy. I noticed my level of trust slowly growing. My interpersonal energy shifted from a defensive stance to a more inquisitive posture. At times, different phrases that the Congressman used still irked me. However, I avoided the trap of reactive thinking and feeling patterns. Instead, I consciously stepped off the negative train of thought and emotion before it left the station. Eventually, Congressman Stauber’s handler announced that it was time for our meeting to conclude. We shook hands and expressed excitement for a future meeting. To be honest — and to my surprise — I was in fact excited by this prospect. No longer was the Congressman a partisan “boogeyman.” Now he was a fellow human being with whom I could respectfully engage across difference.
In closing, navigating the challenging terrain of authentic dialogue across significant boundaries requires self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional. Partners in the dialogue must be mindful of their default modes, biases, thought patterns, and feeling tones in order to engage in an authentic way. Through such an approach, I developed an empathetic relationship with Congressman Stauber. The dialogue softened my hard edges of distrust and opened up new heartspace to humanize the Congressman. Although political differences remain, such an approach created authentic and respectful communication across a significant boundary.
References
Crawford, C. (2016, January). Personal experience as a person of color in Duluth. Fostering the roots of cross-racial competence. Talk presented at Roots training, Duluth, Minnesota.
Obear, K. (2017). Exploring the dynamics of privilege: Our role and responsibility to create inclusive campus environments [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://drkathyobear.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/06/handouts-Dominican-2017-send-electronically-.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment