A host of harried travelers were rushing on to the subway train while on pause between terminals A and B at the Atlanta airport when a mother pushing a baby stroller, with baby seated, pushed the cart between the closing doors to stop them. The doors banged the sides of the baby stroller and reopened with some fan fare about standing away from the door. In my horror and outrage I sounded off to the approaching mother with, “What were you thinking!! How dare you to use your baby as a door stop!.”
She told me to mind my own business.
And such has been the journey of reflecting on whether this incident is my (and your) business, and “what” are we thinking and can we “think” differently about how we treat each other and co-create richer, fuller relationships. What the mother did was merely symbolic of what people seem to do in numerous ways: do whatever is expedient to get our way.
It seems that everywhere we look individuals feel the rising tide of pressure of do more and get more with less, and the numing saturation of stimuli from televisions, radios, computers, electronic devices galore which has done little to enhance our knowledge and produced barriers to our judgment.
The longer I have explored this question the deeper has been the insight that at the core of want is needed to move us forward as individuals, communities, and global village isn’t more analytical, methodological problem-solving methods, but a recovery of something more basic and profound about being human: discernment that comes from the center of our being when our intentions and behaviors are aligned with the values that are the grounding of sound judgment.
How can we "move" deeper into understanding our mutual responsibilities for and with each other? What are your reactions to the above illustration?
We (Danielle and Roger) have started a journey of exploration to examine the dance of opposites and the constructive energy this dance engenders. We find the pattern repeated that the response to difference is to demonize and destroy; we believe it can ennoble and inspire. The common force in this dance is trust--trusting oneself and others. This blog is an invitation for you to join us.
Danielle Poirier
Roger Pearman
Well, you can probably guess my INTP response. My assumption is that the mother had purchased a strong and reliable stroller that should be quite protective, even in the case of train doors. (And, having been though these same doors myself on numerous occasions, I know them to be user friendly. I have been "bumped" by them before and was quite ok.) So, given your experience, why were you horrified and outraged?
ReplyDeleteHorror and rage are some of the most extreme emotional reactions one might have to a situation. Are you sure there wasn't some kind of projection going on at the moment?
Had you encountered the mother with a voice of concern and willingness to help, do you think she would have told you to mind your own business?
As for "a recovery of something more basic and profound about being human..." is this not the capacity for unconditional love? To trust that the mother knew what she was doing?
bob
Unconditional love does not negate acting justly. Unconditional love places your foot in the door not the baby buggy. Unconditional love is not blind to error. Acting justly and loving mercy, while being humble, is a tough trio to keep in view.
ReplyDeletemark
Hi, I doubt that I would have said anything out loud to the person with the baby in the stroller, although I know the experience of the spontaneous critical outburst but I would have seen the activity as inappropriate and full of lack of concern for others in general.
ReplyDeleteAs an INTP myself, I can't really identify with the approach claimed as such by "bob" and i would not have been able to guess it.
The presumption that people act logically or start from a logical perspective has never been evident to me, and walking down the street being in a supermarket or shopping centre (mall) or getting on a train are good places to see what people actually do. I like to think I'm logical and I probably start from that perspective, but I know it isn't general, nor appropriate at times.
So there may be a cultural or educational difference at play here, apart from a technical issue of what might constitute the attributes of a type code that doesn't prescribe or predict specific behaviours and actions.
I have no idea about the unconditional love comment, whether that's considered a natural attribute of people with their babies in strollers or whether it's something they should have.
Essentially, though, I suspect that these comments are distractors from what Roger was trying to present.
Cheers
Peter Geyer
Thanks to all three for the comments above. No doubt some projection was going on...as I suspect all communication is projection. And the words "outrage" and "horror" are a bit strong but it did hit me that it is hard to imagine any situation in which a thinking/caring individual would put an innocent at risk.
ReplyDeleteBy perspective is tained in that I've seen so many accidents given the assumptions people make about machinery; I try not to make any when it comes to impersonal machines which can make no judgments.
While it is true that I've never seen the doors fail to open at the airport, I did see the horror on the kid's face as the doors closed on each side of the stroller and the mother did not.
So for sure, the suggested way to handle this as noted above are both instructive and useful. And the comments above expose how powerful and complex type processes are in our individual responses....including the watermark of values implied with the comments.
The behavior on both ends of the situation was still part of a larger dynamic that prompts reflection. It still "feel" that the mother's action was not good judgment and Mark's suggestion is closer to my own sense of what she should have done.
And this is precisely the point isn't it: how do we create a space for dialog that taps into the wisdom of diverse perspectives?
The last point that Roger made "how do we create a space for dialog that taps into the wisdom of diverse perspectives?" has a few challanges associated with it. When is it wisdom and not? Second, can we hear the diversity? The first challange has at its base the question of universality verses relativity of wisdom. Is there "a" wisdom. The second challange is solved by relentless doing.... in my perspective.
ReplyDelete