|
One of the discoveries of modern physics is that everything is composed of energy. But what does this mean for our relationships with others? What happens when we view our relationships with others in terms of energy? Perhaps we can get some insights by looking at a martial art known as Aikido.
Aikido is a Japanese martial art that was developed in the 20th century. The basic objective of this art can sound kind of odd to those unfamiliar with it. The goal in Aikido is to take the disparate energies in a conflict and weave them into a harmonious resolution.
What this means is that if I am attacked,
 Aikido teaches that I should not only protect myself; I should also protect my attacker, and guide him back to a place where we are no longer opponents. Instead of being a pacifist and just giving in (bad for me, because I wind up beaten or robbed of at least my dignity), or being a militarist and beating my attacker to a pulp (bad for me as well, as he or his friends will want to get even), Aikido says there is a middle ground of harmony. In this middle ground each opponent reaches a point where he or she acknowledges the dignity of the other, and does not attempt to infringe upon it.
There are a few basic principles that guide an aikidoist to this middle ground. Maybe we could find a use for them in other facets of life as well. I’ll illustrate the following points with examples from the traffic safety field, since most of us have experience to one degree or another with that area.
Respect the dignity of your opponent. Focus on the action, rather than the actor.
There is a strong tendency by those whose job it is to promote traffic safety to write off people who violate traffic laws as "irresponsible idiots," or worse. While this may give traffic safety advocates a sense of moral superiority, it creates a barrier that makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to connect with such violators and lead them to safer driving habits.
On the other hand, many motorists view people involved in promoting highway safety as control freaks, who only have some  malicious desire to encroach on the freedoms of red-blooded Americans. While this may give such motorists a sense of justification for possibly irresponsible behavior, it ignores a human reality. Many people working in traffic safety have been personally touched by highway tragedies. And whether its a relative of a drunk-driving victim, or a trooper who is the first on the scene of a grisly accident, it is very natural for them to want to do something to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
Regardless of which side of this matter we find ourselves on, we will be more effective in our dealings with those we disagree with if we recognize their basic human dignity and resist the inclination to demonize them.
Focus your energy on the problem and its resolution.
While many say they are working to improve society, the facts sometimes appear otherwise. Let me illustrate with an example.
While the interstate highway system has probably the lowest rate of accidents and fatalities per miles driven, they tend to have the most visible enforcement. Invariably, this enforcement seems focused on preventing people from going the speeds interstates were designed for. Meanwhile, many motorists run red lights, speed through city streets and country lanes, duel with each other in rush hour traffic, and generally act as if they’re above the laws of man and physics.
If we have a goal of really improving traffic safety, then the first thing we should do is review our priorities. We should ask two key questions: 1) What are the real (not just politically correct) causes of most crashes or fatalities? and, 2) How can these causes be addressed without infringing on the dignity and rights of motorists? While it may be true that “speed was a factor” in a salesman losing control of his car while talking on a car phone, might not driver inattention (talking on the car phone) be a more significant cause of the accident? If that’s the case, and we want to minimize the probabilities for such accidents, which would it be more effective to focus on - the speeding or the driver inattention?
The true opponent is within.
Sometimes we can get caught up in trying to control the behavior of others, even if we have good intentions of improving or preserving their lives. In striving to control their behavior, we lose track of the good we are trying to accomplish. Instead, we become preoccupied with just trying to control behavior. This is sensed by those we are trying to control, and they will naturally be inclined to resist our efforts. Thus, we become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
At such times, we have to focus our attention on ourselves and our intentions, and strive to control our urge to control others. This will enable us to make use of the next principle.
Take what your opponent gives you.
Often, the solution to a perceived problem is not to resist it, but to use its inherent properties to redirect its purpose.  For example, some motorists drive with radar detectors to get an advance warning about where speed traps are. A common reaction to this by many traffic safety proponents is to charge that these detectors are being used to break the law, and to propose to regain control over detector users by outlawing radar detectors. Thus the focus shifts from improving highway safety to controlling users of radar detectors.
But if we keep our focus on highway safety, then we might want to consider respecting these motorists’ dignity and letting them keep their detectors. Then we could look for ways to use those detectors to enhance highway safety. For example, we could take advantage of their advance warning capabilities to turn them into a device to warn drivers of unseen hazards (accidents, etc.), or to slow down traffic in a hazardous area like a construction zone. By reducing the risk of accidents in such situations, we would be improving highway safety without getting sidetracked into a power struggle with radar detector users.
Lead rather than direct.
Just telling somebody they might wind up in jail if they break the law, or be in an accident if they drive irresponsibly,  often doesn’t accomplish anything. They’re likely to respond that you’re all wet, and that the odds are good that nothing bad will happen to them. Likewise, if somebody does get caught breaking the law or does have an accident, and they find it doesn’t appreciably alter their life, they may become less concerned about breaking laws or having accidents in the future. The end result is that our ability to discourage their inappropriate behavior is diminished.
Rather than telling people how to behave, we should strive to inspire them to behave appropriately. This inspiration must, of course, be concrete and tangible enough for people to really want to alter or reinforce their behavior. But if they are sufficiently inspired, their motivations will be in synch with the rest of society, and there will be less need for law enforcement and courts.
At the heart of each of these principles is a heightened sensitivity to the energies inherent in the relationships in a situation. The more we are attuned to these energies, the more we are able to successfully redirect and focus them in a way that provides a satisfactory resolution for all involved. And if this resolution is truly satisfactory for all, there will be a minimal need for any additional energy to preserve it. For we will not have to reassert our dignity (we never lost it), and our opponents will not have to “get even” for slights to their dignity (it was never slighted).
 This “energy savings” applies on a social as well as individual level. Just as the course of a river reflects the flow of its inherent energy, people will tend to synchronize themselves with the flow of energy in a group or society, as long as they feel their individual dignity has not been violated. And if people are "in harmony" with society, there is less need for laws and police to tell them how to behave.
© Dave Higgins, November 1996. All rights reserved.
Back to “My Thoughts”
|
