Reaching out

[klwilliams]

Last night at aikido, while I was doing randori (multiple people attack me, and I step past them and send them rolling on their way), the senseis watching pointed out that I was waiting for the attack, but not offering any energy to the attackers in advance. I've been thinking about this, and I think it's part of my basic personality. In emotional situations (which being attacked by several people at once certainly is) I tend to be contained, and wait for the other person to make the first move. I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but it's something to ponder.

Comments

[kathlaw.livejournal.com]

Sounds to me like you're doing precisely the correct thing, as far as martial arts go. And I imagine it's a good life method too; saves on the stomach lining. :-)

[seainni.livejournal.com]

It is an interesting thing to ponder. I've become increasingly aware of my own tendency to be more passive in confrontational situations than I like. Which sounds strange, given I have a propensity for biting people's heads off in same, but sometimes I tend to almost wait for someone to act to give me an "excuse" to do what I want to/need to do anyway. (Which may be why I snap--I wait too long, and so all manner of pent-up frustration builds.)

I'm sure it's possible to be too active, energy-wise, as well, and I'd rather err in this direction than the other, but as you say, it's an interesting thing to think about.

I first became aware of it when I took nonviolence training from American Friends Service Committee. Which really brought home the fact that nonviolence and passive behavior are two very different things.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. What does nonviolence training involve? Aikido is a rare martial art because it has no attacks, just responses to attacks, but it does include leading or inviting the attack (so it goes the way you want it to).

[larryhammer]

Reactive/proactive. Contra business buzzwords, the latter isn't always appropriate.

---L.

[seainni.livejournal.com]

It involves a lot of learning how to connect (emotionally, not physically :->) with other people--exercises in active listening and the like--and find common ground with them. It's startling to realize just how much conflict is diffused if you can find some point of connection, however small; and it's also startling how often those points of connection exist even in tense situations. (A corollary I picked up, which I'm still working on integrating into my life: don't assume you know what other people are thinking, because often you don't, and imagining what those thoughts might be only ups hostilities. It's easier to assume someone is going to be unreasonable if you haven't even spoken with them.)

Anyway, the workshop included a lot of role plays, and I found my responses often tended toward the passive: don't do anything, step away, call someone else to step in for me, instead of the active: talk to people, engage with them, work with them.

I think part of this comes from being female: we're often taught that interacting with the world is dangerous (and of course sometimes it is) and that we should let other people handle things. It came out in the workshop that men (or the men in our group) are more likely to take personal responsibility: if there's a situation, their instinct is to directly do something (violent or nonviolent) while the women in the group were more likely to step out of the way. This in spite of the fact that, in more situations than not, men really aren't any safer than women are, far as I can tell.

Of course, one thing also directly out of the training is that one should trust one's own instincts on when to engage and when to withdraw. And the training wasn't oriented to any one "right" answer, but to exploring possible solutions and getting to know one's own skills and abilities better.

But it gave me a lot to think about, in terms of when I like and am comfortable with my responses, and when I'm not.

And brought home the fact that passive and nonviolent are not equivalent terms, any more than active and violent are.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

That sounds like what my cop friend calls "verbal judo", which I've seen him use and have used myself with good result. The idea with verbal judo is to listen to the (usually upset or irate) person, let them know that you "unnerstand" what they're saying (and repeat it back to them) and that you "'preciate" their position, but your position is (that they need to go with you to the police station now, that they need to apologize to the person they were just rude to, etc.). It's actually a lot like aikido, because you get on the same side as the upset person, then steer them in the direction you want them to go.

[seainni.livejournal.com]

Sort of like this, only, when done right--more honest. You _don't_ go in intending to steer the other person in your direction. You go in to connect, figure out where both of you are coming from, and then try to find a solution that satisfies you both.

It's not verbal sparring, iow, but a finding of new ground on which you can both stand comfortably.

Which is I suppose why being either too active _or_ too reactive will keep it from working, which is a useful insight for me.

If you stay passive you let things happen too much on the other person's terms and not enough on yours; if you're too active you assert your terms but don't leave enough space for the other person's as well. Hmmm.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

Of course the police would go in intending to steer the other person in their direction -- jail --- but I find it interesting that I start from the idea of steering the other person in my direction. Hmm. Or maybe I just hung out around Michael too long.