Leading Through Difficult Conversations

“It’s Complicated!”

It used to be easy to follow the advice, “Don’t talk about religion or politics at the dinner table.” These are subjects that may provoke intensely different points of view about issues that affect the quality of life.  The polite remedy was to skirt around them.  It was better to center conversations on pop culture, fashion, entertainment, or sports, than to confront a complicated subject with often diametrically opposed perspectives. Guests would evaluate the perfect dinner party if nothing said elevated the temperature of the room.

Navigating difficult conversations poorly can melt the perfect souffle

Perhaps one of the reasons this came to be was because the host did not want people to feel uncomfortable. One contentious opinion expressed with certainty could shrivel a chocolate souffle fresh out of the oven. Moreover, the belief that big ideas were only reserved for academics and experts could shut down curiosity among friends. Where else, other than classrooms and seminar halls, can people who care about each other share a mutual interest for the world around them? 

*****

We are living in a generation where the fear of offending others and being “canceled” has left us bereft of models for respectful difference. Our children reflexively accept gender varieties, learning differences, and social awkwardness, yet they are living in the era of “YDY” “You Do You” and hold their breaths the moment someone seemingly expresses a contentious perspective. Raised on a steady diet of YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, our youth form their opinions after countless hours of influence by the most entertaining voices that algorithmically appear following the last video they’ve watched. 

One has to intentionally search for differing points of view in these areas. And where there can be models of dissent reflected in the classroom, the absence of respectful disagreement in the public space is sanitizing our children’s perspective on the world, killing good ideas along with bad ideas with equal potency. 

We now possess unlimited knowledge at our fingertips, while the interpretation of that knowledge, what we may call religious literacy and political literacy, is increasingly polarized. This challenge goes even further. Artificial intelligence platforms now enable us to use powerful technologies to synthesize millions of documents and form reasonably sound points of view with digital acuity.  In an era where forming our own opinions is so easily left to the influence of others, we don’t know who we’re talking to at any given time.

The willful avoidance of values-based conversations is a dilution of authentic social connection. The frustration and resentment simmering beneath the surface has now created a coarsened exterior shell. People are uncomfortable talking with people who may disagree with them about the ongoing conflicts in Israel and the Middle East, the democratic process in this country, the myriad of conflicts throughout the world, the scourge of social degradation around opposing views on gun violence, reproductive rights, systemic bias, religious intolerance, etc. We prefer silence in the public space until we find virtual anonymity in the retreat to social media platforms to scream and shout. The discomfort avoided around the dining room table has bled into the discomfort of the public space. 

*****

Difficult conversations are not a threat to living comfortably. Difficult conversations affirm our commitment to comfortably live. Our purpose is to live, “B’tzelem Elo-him,” “In the Image of God.” When opposing views on complicated subjects, like freedom and autonomy, public health and safety, or civil discourse and the limits of tolerable behavior, are avoided or relegated to anonymous posts on social media feeds, we effectively circumscribe our values to be inferred by our tastes for food choices, movie stars, sports teams, and music groups. The image of divinity was never intended to be discovered this way.

Respect and dignity should be situated at the center of our relationships with families, communities, and those whom we encounter in the world. In this moment, we’ve tolerated anger, mendacity, histrionics and coercive forces in our efforts to keep our public conversations polite. The need to lead through difficult conversations is more important than ever before. 

The academic world is beginning to reflect this growing need to rediscover human dignity and respect and lead through difficult conversations. Centers for civil discourse, laboratories for promoting tolerance and combating hate, and movements for peaceful conflict resolution are found at top universities. Choosing which organization to support and deepen one’s involvement in the competition of ideas may become a difficult conversation as well, albeit an unavoidable one. 

The diagnosis of this social disease continues to unfold with each succeeding conflict. As our public frustration escalates without models of leading through conflict and challenging conversations, resentment festers and breeds contempt.

Navigating this moment requires more than the embrace of difficult subjects in a manner that satisfies everyone. The ultimate goal is to restore respect and dignity for every person and celebrate the rich tapestry and colorful varieties of Divine Presence. As Jews, we have known worlds where the dignity of others has been blasphemed and dehumanized. Our unflinching commitment, despite the horrors of our own past, is to rediscover the potential dignity in every person with whom we connect. This ambitious goal is the central tenet of Jewish values systems. We should expect nothing less.

“Let’s Talk”

PATIENCE AND PERSISTENCE

Hillel and Shammai received the oral tradition from [Shemaiah and Abtalion]. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving humankind and drawing them close to the Torah. (Avot 1:12) 

When we look into the Jewish text tradition for clues toward meaningful conflict resolution and leading through difficult conversations, Hillel and Shammai are the proto-rabbinic pair who outline respectful disagreement. It is poignant that the first teaching of Hillel is to embody tolerance and the pursuit of peace, as if to say this value should be known first before any other.

How Aaron became the model for tolerant behavior and restoring dignity where conflict has arisen is worthy of deeper study. However, the commentary of the book of Pirkei Avot, Avot d’Rebbe Natan (dated between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era), expands Hillel’s statement with the following observations:

Love peace. How so? This is to teach you to be a person who loves peace among all the people of Israel, just as Aaron loved peace between everyone, as it says (Malachi 2:6), “A Torah of Truth was on his mouth, and no crooked thing was on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and righteousness, and he pulled back many from sin.”

When two people were fighting with one another, Aaron would go and sit next to one of them and say: My child, look at the anguish your friend is going through! His heart is ripped apart and he is tearing at his clothes. He is saying, How can I face my old friend? I am so ashamed, I betrayed his trust. Aaron would sit with him until his rage subsided. Then Aaron would go to the other person in the fight and say: My child, look at the anguish your friend is going through! His heart is ripped apart and he is tearing at his clothes. He is saying, How can I face my old friend? I am so ashamed, I betrayed his trust. Aaron would sit with him until his rage subsided. When the two people saw each other, they would embrace and kiss one another. (ADRN 3:12)

Of all the qualities this text reveals, the virtue of patience is prevalent. Aaron’s persistence by the sides of the aggrieved parties is what ultimately softens their positions and inspires their openness to forgive. We may also observe that the statement outlining the anguish of the other is precisely what compels their rage to subside and their hope to rekindle. This is not a ploy to manipulate the wounded parties. Indeed they are in anguish!  Perhaps the clue in this teaching about Aaron’s heroic behavior is that leading through conflict is to acknowledge the anguish individuals, families and communities, states and societies are feeling.  Such pain left unrecognized is often the motivation for dissent, defensiveness, strident opposition, even violent retaliation. 

Ultimately, mediating differences requires a patience to listen carefully and speak in a manner in which each person can feel heard.

A patient and enduring mindset will not always prevail in the face of intractable disagreement. More often than not, there isn’t sufficient time to wait for the others’ anger to subside before a sharp tongue inflicts moral injury.  There are also sides of conflict in which the truth resonates in harmony more than others. We hold the complex wisdom of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, who proclaims there is, “A time for silence and a time for speech.” (3:7) Here, we can read another dimension of Aaron’s model for conflict resolution:

Love peace. How so? This is to teach you to be a person who loves peace among all the people of Israel, just as Aaron loved peace between everyone, as it says (Malachi 2:6), “A Torah of Truth was on his mouth, and no crooked thing was on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and righteousness, and he pulled back many from sin.”

(Rabbi Meir would say: What do we learn from “he pulled back many from sin”?) When Aaron was walking down the road, and he came upon a wicked person, he would wish him Shalom. The next day, when that man wanted to sin, he would say: Alas! How will I be able to look Aaron in the face; I will be so embarrassed when he wishes me Shalom. And so this man would stop himself from sinning. (ADRN 3:12)  

A first read might interpret Aaron’s approach to conflict is to simplify the message. By reducing the encounter to a fundamental expression Shalom - here implying peace - is to say that conflict, deftly avoided, is the path to peace. There is some value in this reading, in that there are times when disagreements cannot easily be reached. Whether the pressure to resolve conflict is time bound or consequential, simply expressing Shalom can bridge the divide with a binding recognition that there are truths we all share. Shalom here is the currency of patience, so that disagreements can be resolved in good time.

Another and perhaps more complicated reading of this text highlights Aaron’s capacity to share words of kindness where the impulse is, at best, to ignore the person with whom we disagree. At its worst, Shalom can be read here to verbally express shame and shine some moral light upon another, compelling one to rethink their words the next time a conflict emerges.  Here Shalom is expressed with the currency of deflection, where expressing a statement that neither agitates nor instigates can potentially soften an opposing point of view by sanitizing the conflict of any value. 

We can also read this text in a different way, this time with the expression Shalom emphasizing the concept of wholeness, or completion. An act of wickedness here, or a poorly formed opinion can have devastating effects, particularly when opinions are expressed with persuasive measures that coerce or force agreement. Shalom here is the currency of truth, where a disagreement can persist but the confident, yet kind, position of pursuing Shalom is an intentional reminder that the ultimate goal of disagreement is to restore a sense of tolerance and understanding, if not total consensus. This reading inspires the conflicted individuals with an inner voice of conscience, a vital prerequisite to confronting and resolving conflict. 

The sage wisdom of our ancestors, and their creative interpretation of our biblical heroes twists and unfolds powerful models for leading through difficult conversations. Patience and persistence are essential values in every generation and are sorely needed in a time of strife and uncertainty like ours.

CURIOSITY and DETERMINATION

The attempt to define the conditions for a covenantal relationship between humanity and divinity serves as a cornerstone of Jewish identity and our responsibility in difficult situations. We learn that covenants are borne from human curiosity. For example, the Sages imagined:

“The Lord said to Abram: Go you, from your land…” ... Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is analogous to one who was passing from place to place, and saw a building aflame. He said: ‘Is it possible that this building has no one in charge of it?’ The owner of the building looked out at him and said: ‘I am the owner of the building.’ So, because Abraham our patriarch was saying: ‘Is it possible that this world is without someone in charge?’ The Holy One blessed be He looked at him and said to him: ‘I am the owner of the world.’ (Bereishit Rabbah 39:1)

The episode is animated by the spirit of curiosity, which then becomes the catalyst of divine relationship. Avram’s interest is indicative of a modern observation. The need for a “voracious appetite for learning,” in the words of UC Berkeley professor Maura O’Neill, enables us to expand our understanding of other perspectives as well as our own. Through the experience of learning, one naturally develops a curiosity for both information that is extraordinary, but also allows us to observe the small changes that we might easily overlook. Curiosity is a prerequisite for navigating difficult conversations too.

We also see this in another covenantal moment from the Torah, when Moshe discovers the bush:

A messenger of ‘ה appeared to him in a blazing fire out of a bush. He gazed, and there was a bush all aflame, yet the bush was not consumed. Moses said, “I must turn aside to look at this marvelous sight; why doesn’t the bush burn up?” When ‘ה saw that he had turned aside to look, ‘ה called to him out of the bush: “Moses! Moses!” He answered, “Here I am.” (Ex. 3:2-4)

The spirit of curiosity here is similar to the appetite for learning, yet goes one step further. The hint to this is in the words, הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה, “this marvelous sight.” Placing a value on what one sees with curious wonder is a positive acknowledgment and appraisal of difference. To illustrate this in contemporary terms, Harvard Business Review published an article on the five dimensions of curiosity (https://hbr.org/2018/09/the-five-dimensions-of-curiosity). Among them they outline that joyous exploration and stress tolerance are vital characteristics of curiosity. In other words, the approach to difficult conversations need not be from a place of consternation or strategic defense. Curiosity rooted in joy and wonder leads to the openness to embrace stressful differences that can expand our thinking and bridge divides.

While these two approaches, wonder and tolerance of difference in the divine encounter, are unique to Judaism, this sense of wonder and deeper understanding are also found in so many other faith traditions. From the Buddha’s awareness of noble truths by the river, to Jesus’ asking questions among the teachers in Jerusalem and discovering his own divine power, to Muhammad’s revelation from the prophet Gabriel, the act of discovering deeper truths is essential to discovering human purpose.  The spirit of curiosity can lead to the revelation of divine presence and indeed becomes the building block of navigating difficult conversations as well.

DIGNITY and RESPECT

Perhaps the most essential value in leading through difficult conversations is the quality of respect. In another rabbinic image we see Hillel and Shammai, struggling with the wisdom they spoke of in Pirkei Avot and becoming a model for patience, curiosity, and ultimately respect. 

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. (Eruvin 13b)

We often look to Hillel as the heroic figure in this teaching, especially because this episode outlines the halakha (legal behavior) as the exclusive mediator between right and wrong.  More than the final decision falling on one side or the other, the virtues of restraint and deference typify the embodiment of dignity. Hillel and Shammai disagreed. But how Hillel treats Shammai makes the difference.

We can easily overlook the extensive period of time that these two schools argued over Jewish law in favor of a final answer. Neither position had an advantage over the other for years. Even before divine intervention is beseeched, we can infer the range of emotional responses they must have also expressed which could have easily derailed the conversations or caused resentment to build between the two.  The pairing of these two as schools of thought (House of Shammai and House of Hillel) suggests that their disagreements were public and multi-faceted too. 

Sustaining a challenging conversation for years takes a tremendous amount of respect between the two parties, even if it is underscored with contentious words.  As a model for leading through difficult conversations, this text highlights the impact of patient restraint, curious deference and ultimately reverential dignity as Hillel preceded Shammai before offering his own perspective.

Using a teaching like this to model leading through difficult conversations underscores that the  prerequisite of respect is not simply for an advantageous outcome, but that even when difficult conversations happen, we must be committed to respectful communication every step along the way. 

Ultimately, when respect is at the core of navigating difficult conversations, the potential to truly learn from one another is at its best.

“What’s Next?”

While navigating conflicts in the family are natural, the purpose of family conflict is to test and model the kind of behavior we want to see reflected in the world around us. The individual models exemplified by Aaron are instructive, even inspiring. Resolving conflict in our families by first recognizing pain, an intensely personal experience, is among the most admirable human qualities we possess. It is to see the image of dignity in the other, “B’Tzelem Elo-him.” Knowing what to say next, “Shalom,” in the manner in which it is most likely going to be heard, is also an essential tool for navigating through conflicts on an individual level.

The public space, where our lives intersect with the lives of other families, of colleagues and friends, will become a space where differences can be heard and respectfully addressed. Political parties, religious denominations, factions, and political action organizations can learn well from the houses of Hillel and Shammai. In public spaces of disagreement, time and consequence can never be diminished. With a determined and respectful commitment to embracing the challenge, consensus will be achieved, maybe even appearing divinely inspired. 

There is a lot of effort in the public sphere to begin shifting the potential systemic challenges toward greater understanding and consensus building. The willful and determined attempt to bring individuals and communities together in the hopes of creating respectful dialogue to the public space is laudable; to make headways into industries, like entertainment and higher education, to shift the narrative of how conflict is perceived and resolved, will continue to have positive and lasting impact. We need to do more of this.