Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I'm caught in the middle, and I can't get a complete story. One party says one thing, another party says another, but the stories don't add up.

I once heard a Zen Master, Darlene Cohen Roshi, describing mediating a dispute between a teacher and student at SF Zen Center. She said she'd gotten two different stories and both were true. How can this be? Both parties were describing the situation as they saw it to be true.

I'm not in possession of all the facts, and I probably don't deserve them. But I feel like I'm being pulled in both directions, each party wanting me to choose a side.

I trust both parties, or at least I think I used to. But now I'm hearing two very different sets of "facts" and both parties insist they're being truthful.

Whom can I trust? I can't even trust my own judgement in this case.

I can't address the particulars, but in almost every case when two friends or colleagues develop an intractible dispute, the following origins can be observed: one party did something in good faith that they believed was right. The other party experienced fear, when they observed an action that they did not expect from a friend or colleague which triggered memories of other hurts in their own past, followed by anger, when instead of going to their friend/colleague in openness and vulnerability to express their confusion and concern, they instead equated their friend with someone who they trusted who hurt them in the past, causing them to interpret that action as a betrayal and leading them to actually be the one taking the first actual act of betrayal and hostility, but to them it just feels in their gut and heart that they are protecting themselves and what they love from the enemy within. Of course the original party feels attacked and betrayed when the second party choses to make them an enemy instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Wars, divorces, and schisms usually occur this way, as the contagion of misunderstanding to prejudgement to hostility to reaction to escalation spreads.

The trick is at the start the first party could have been right or wrong and if approached as an ally instead of a perpetrator would probably have been able to work out a follow up action that would satisfy the needs and concerns of both parties.

A Zen negotiator helps each party get to an understanding of facts they know and separates it from the layer of assumptions and suppositions they are taking as fact. Then helps each own their own emotions, needs, and contributions to the problem, finally helping them both to see each other as basically good and trustworthy people who make mistakes and deserve the benefit of the doubt, so they can approach each other with humility and compassion, forswearing the urge to punish or marginalize.

Quote from: Constance on January 14, 2014, 08:37:44 PM
But I feel like I'm being pulled in both directions, each party wanting me to choose a side.

What do YOU want out of this?

Sounds like an easy question but there are lots of possible shades. E.g. do you want each side never to mention the dispute, is it ok for them to talk to you as long as you're not in them middle, etc.

You have no control over whether and for how long your friends decide to feud. You only have control over what you ask of them while they do.

Once you get YOUR needs met, then it's time to ask each of them what THEY want from you. Then you can decide whether that's something you want to give.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 15, 2014, 06:36:56 AM
What do YOU want out of this?

Sounds like an easy question but there are lots of possible shades. E.g. do you want each side never to mention the dispute, is it ok for them to talk to you as long as you're not in them middle, etc.

You have no control over whether and for how long your friends decide to feud. You only have control over what you ask of them while they do.

Once you get YOUR needs met, then it's time to ask each of them what THEY want from you. Then you can decide whether that's something you want to give.

What do I want? Peace, ultimately.

I want both parties to cease their fighting and if they can't do that to at least stop trying to garner my support at the expense of the other. I want to know what happened. If possible, I would act as a mediator. But that would require complete honesty (Perfect Love and Perfect Trust, as we say in the Pagan communities) on both parties' parts.

Quote from: Constance on January 15, 2014, 09:38:59 AM
I want both parties to cease their fighting and if they can't do that to at least stop trying to garner my support at the expense of the other.

Well, if they're not going to cease fighting for their own sakes, I would not expect them to cease fighting for your sake. So looks like getting them to stop trying to garner your support would be a more realistic target.

Suggestions on how to set boundaries:
* "May I ask you not to keep trying to garner support from me for your position? It's not something I'm able to give."
* If that works, great. If not, you can remind them politely the first time it happens. "We talked about this. I need you not to do that."
* As a last resort: "If you keep doing that, I'm going to have to end the conversation. I can't let myself be caught up in this dispute."

I hope this helps, Connie. Not a fixable situation, but at least you might get your own need for peace met. Good luck.

You're probably right. Thanks.