Another aspect of this divide is about articulability. In a nurturing context, it’s possible to bring something up before you can articulate it clearly, and even elicit help articulating it.
For example, “Something about <the proposal we’re discussing> strikes me as contradictory—like it’s somehow not taking into account <X>?”. And then the other person and I collaborate to figure out if and what exactly that contradiction is.
Or more informally, “There’s something about this that feels uncomfortable to me”. This can be very useful to express even when I can’t say exactly what it is that I’m uncomfortable with, IF my conversation partner respects that, and doesn’t dismiss what I’m saying because it’s not precise enough.
In a combative context, on the other hand, this seems like a kind of interaction you just can’t have (I may be wrong, I don’t have much experience in them). Because there, inarticulateness just reads as your arguments being weak. And you don’t want to run the risk of putting half-baked ideas out there and having them swatted down. So your only real choices are to figure out how to articulate things, by yourself, on the fly, or remain silent.
And that’s too bad, because the edge of what can be articulated is IME the most interesting place to be.
(Gendlin’s Focusing is an extreme example of being at the edge of what can be articulated, and in the paired version you have one person whose job is basically to be a nurturing & supportive presence.)
Great essay!
Another aspect of this divide is about articulability. In a nurturing context, it’s possible to bring something up before you can articulate it clearly, and even elicit help articulating it.
For example, “Something about <the proposal we’re discussing> strikes me as contradictory—like it’s somehow not taking into account <X>?”. And then the other person and I collaborate to figure out if and what exactly that contradiction is.
Or more informally, “There’s something about this that feels uncomfortable to me”. This can be very useful to express even when I can’t say exactly what it is that I’m uncomfortable with, IF my conversation partner respects that, and doesn’t dismiss what I’m saying because it’s not precise enough.
In a combative context, on the other hand, this seems like a kind of interaction you just can’t have (I may be wrong, I don’t have much experience in them). Because there, inarticulateness just reads as your arguments being weak. And you don’t want to run the risk of putting half-baked ideas out there and having them swatted down. So your only real choices are to figure out how to articulate things, by yourself, on the fly, or remain silent.
And that’s too bad, because the edge of what can be articulated is IME the most interesting place to be.
(Gendlin’s Focusing is an extreme example of being at the edge of what can be articulated, and in the paired version you have one person whose job is basically to be a nurturing & supportive presence.)