No. 48 -- Fear and Respect
November 30th 2009 22:29
Sharp curve
As a youngster, I recall hearing tales of people climbing onto their roofs to avoid rising waters, only to be greeted by large numbers of irritable snakes. If they were lucky enough, they had axes or shovels to deal with the creatures. If not, then it was back into the house or scream for bloody murder!
Eighty years ago, Walter Cannon was correct when he surmised that upon encountering stressful situations, animals will choose to stay and fight or will flee the situation. The stress can be caused by hate, anger, greed, envy, work, confusion and other things, but fear is often a prominent trigger for choosing one of the two responses.
Dictionary.com defines fear as: “A distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.” It also says that it is holding “awe and reverence as to God.” (With the exception of ministers referring to the fear of God--in the “awe and reverence” way, most people appear to feel fear by the first definition.)
I submit that in addition to Cannon’s “fight or flight,” we should add negotiation. When a parent, or other authority figure, admonishes a child, often the child will try negotiating the way out of punishment. He or she will hold the turf until the last second--attempting to avoid a physical altercation, acquiescence, or the shame of running away. Looking at life in general--from the office, the production line, or any interaction-- the negotiation option runs swiftly through our minds. Experience has taught us to appraise a situation before taking action. In a millisecond, we determine if we can “talk back” to the parent, the boss, teacher, or other authority figure, such as a policeperson or judge.
In that millisecond, racing through our thoughts (usually at the subconscious level) we consider power, wealth, status, and possible-future-consequences for choosing our options. If we negotiate, it is hoped the other will see our position and back down from perceived aggressive options, and understand the reason(s) for our choices and the course(s) taken. If we fight, we had better hold the bigger stick, as Teddy Roosevelt described it. The stick should be power perceived or power proven through our words and actions--both current and past. If we run, we should realize the other most often will define it as a weakness and crank up the aggression meter.
Negotiation has its place, but it cannot always be the option of choice. Many a school child learned firsthand that even negotiating can be taken as a weakness. The school bully was not interested in ideas, and reasons for choices, etc. He or she was interested in elevating the status at others expense. The secondary gain was in the reputation, which the bully wanted to clear the way for his or her own choices and paths.
National leaders throughout the planet could learn much if they would just take the time reflecting on their personal earlier formative years. There are times when fear and respect must be altered. Respect the abilities and fear the consequences. If it takes the bigger stick, then create it by learning, and making it mightier. Looking at Sparta, Rome, Germany, Iran, North Korea, we should be careful always choosing negotiation. History teaches us it is often taken as a weakness and the aggression meter only rises. This is why detente worked during the cold war.
Please keep it between the lines.
| 66 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief