After listening to an excellent podcast from John Vervaeke, an interesting concept emerged. When we talk of ourselves, we often think of our narrative selves. Our narrative self is composed of factors such as what we like, where we have been, our beliefs, values, and image. If this sense of self is challenged, we may feel under threat. The response to a threat could be to defend our sense of self.
In some respects, defending our self can be positive. We have maintained our agency against the risk of feeling dismantled, confused and alone, which may have left us unsure where we fit. However, if we defend ourselves as though we are defending a cherished belief, we may also be reducing an opportunity to adapt and grow. To become better fitted to our environment (Valera et al, 2016).
This can be a question of mind set (Vervaeke et al, 2017). If we engage in constant battles to defend our self, we need to feel as though we have won against every threat. This can naturally lead to a closed mind set when we encounter disagreements. An argument with no clear winner could lead to days of rumination, as we seek to maintain our sense of self, constantly running simulations of the encounter (Watkins, 2008).
An open mindset may lead us to encounter disagreements as learning opportunities. If we can acknowledge that someone else has a point, and this point could modify our own knowledge, then we emerge from the disagreement as developed, and better fitted to the world around us (Valera et al, 2016).
We are always faced with a constant tension when it comes to the self. We wish to maintain stable, as that is an efficient way of dealing with the external environment (drawn from Trait Theory, see Jayawickreme et al, 2019). However, we also wish to develop and grow, to become something better. However, treating the self as a belief which must be maintained and defended at all costs puts any chance of development at serious risk.
Naturally, this is a balancing act. We do not want to always get washed away and absorbed by the perspective of others and we do not want to become so rigid we cannot grow. A potential first step is to ask yourself- how do I react to conflict? Do you always go with the flow of the other person and struggle to maintain a sense of self? Or do you always dig in and defend yourself? Perhaps you move from one extreme to another.
Placing a focus on the perspective of the other person can help reframe conflict. If we step back and think-what is going through this person’s mind? What are they hoping to get from this? The frame begins to change. Most often we tackle conflict based on how it is making us feel (Voss, 2016). If we move that focus to the other person, we can begin to get a grip on their motivations. This is a first step in assessing whether the position of the other is reasonable and there may be an opportunity to learn and grow the self.
Reading
Watkins, E. R. (2008). “Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought”. Psychological Bulletin. 134 (2): 163–206
Jayawickreme, E. Zachry, C.E. Fleeson, W. (2019) Whole Trait Theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 136
Voss, C. Tahl, R. (2016) Never Split the Difference. Negotiating As If Your Life Depended on It. Random House.
Vervaeke, J, Mastropeitro,C and Misevic, F. (2017) Zombies in Western Culture: A Twenty-first Century Crisis. Open Book Publishers.
F. J. Varela, Thompson, E. Rosch, E (2016) The Embodied Mind Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.
