Reflections on Recent Events

With sensitive, unpredictable, and high-stake interactions still brewing between Iran, Israel, and the USA, I cannot help but carry a headful of thoughts and a heartful of feelings, just like everyone else.

So, what to say? Being neither a politician nor a political commentator, I do not process cross-national crises like either. But as a former professor of language and culture who grew up fascinated with the magic and power of words, I am a sociolinguist at heart—ever exploring the impact of words on our communication and interactions, and ever wondering how much the well-known statement, “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it,” applies in a given situation.
Since I am a lover of words, one way I like to process cross-national and cross-cultural conflicts like this one is to ponder them vis-à-vis my collection of wonderfully worded proverbs. Sayings that may have something relevant to say about ways to improve relations among all parties and move toward a win/win resolution.

Below are four of my favorite verses. Do any of them resonate with you? I invite you to consider how extracting and applying the wisdom of one or more of them may lead to improved relations and more mutually beneficial solutions in cross-national and cross-cultural crises like this one:

1. “The secret of improved relations between our countries is to truly want it.”
2. “We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are.”
3. “No message, however eloquent or true, will have its desired effect if it is not delivered in a way that it can be received.”
4. “Before you deliver any message, consider what you want the outcome of the interaction to be.”

And once you’ve considered their potential relevance, I’d be happy to share some of my thoughts on each of them:

“The secret of improved relations between our countries is to truly want it.”                            — Firooz Ahmadi, my beloved late Iranian father-in-law, responding to my earnest                                  question on how to achieve improved relations between the USA and Iran.
My comment: Without this goodwill component (of “truly wanting it”) to lay the foundation for a win/win solution, the notion of attaining “improved relations” is futile. (But that’s not to say that one party “truly wanting it” can’t be a catalyst for moving another party in the same direction.)

“We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are.”
— Anaïs Nin, French American writer
My comment: to a greater or lesser extent, we have all been shaped by the values, systems, and behaviors of the cultures we grew up in. These are the factors that influence how we see the world, others, and “the way things should be.”
A first step toward getting along with “the other” is to take time to see the issue in question from their point of view.  That step would call for not only (1) seriously listening to what the other party is requesting and why, but also (2) accessing the cross-cultural training and research that shed further insight into their values, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. These will be the factors that tend to inform their thinking, decision making, and responses—so we can anticipate and adapt our approach as needed. Like knowing, for example, that an act of hospitality may make more inroads into a positive agreement than any number of impressive charts or graphs.

“No message, however eloquent or true, will have its desired effect if it is not delivered in a way that it can be received.”
—Exact origin unknown
My comment: Here we return to the notion of “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it,” along with “communication style matters.” If when negotiating, we talk in straightforward or assertive terms to someone from a culture where indirect communication is the norm, they may well perceive us as being “blunt,” “rude,” even “aggressive,”—not to mention “offensive.” On the flip side, if we talk in less direct or more deferential terms (out of respect) to someone from a culture where direct communication is the norm, they may perceive us as “indecisive,” “evasive,” “dishonest,” or “weak.” Even worse, both parties will have left the negotiating table with a negative and inaccurate impression of the other—and less motivated to engage than when negotiations started.

“Before you deliver any message, consider what you want the outcome to be.”
 —Exact origin unknown
My comment: At first glance, such a step may appear to be intuitively obvious, but in my experience, it is remarkably easy to forget. Failing to pinpoint a specific goal for each negotiation is to miss the opportunity to consider potential pitfalls or which goal could bring the greatest return. For example: should the goal be to get the other party to agree to a concession, or should it be to move toward a relationship of greater trust, improved relations, and mutually beneficial agreements?

And if through cross-cultural training and research, we have taken the time to better understand the values, customs, and preferences of the other party, we are more likely to meet them where they are, not interpret them wrongly or use language that offends them, not default to our own ways of doing things , and realize more of a “win/win” outcome in the process.
Each of the above adages merits more discussion, and each one calls for a skill set requiring much practice—regardless of which side of a conflict a party is on. But as I have heard from both my doctor and personal trainer about getting into shape: “Practicing just one exercise daily is definitely better than practicing none!”

My avid wish is that each of the powers involved in the ongoing crisis between Israel, Iran, and the USA would absorb even one of the four messages listed above and put it into practice instead of resorting to more bombings, threats, death, and destruction. If there’s one thing that was confirmed for me while I was living in Iran, it was that the people of Iran cannot be equated with its government or the political decisions it makes, and I believe the same to be true of America and Israel. I would hate to see any of these countries or their people maimed and pockmarked over issues that could be resolved through culturally sensitive diplomacy—so long as, in the words of my beloved father-in-law, “they (the governments) truly want it.”

I earnestly pray for peace, a mutually beneficial resolution, and protection over all the people affected.
                                                   ********************
But the ruling powers of a country aren't the only party with a role to play in improving relations with a country in conflict with theirs. I believe that everyday people like you and I have our own part to play when our countries are embroiled in such conflict. But without sufficient power, information, or resources to make the decisions, what can we possibly do to make a difference? We might throw up our hands, concluding that we can do nothing to improve relations, that the problems are bigger than we are. And perhaps that would be true. 

 And yet ... there's one final proverb whose meaning I would invite us all to consider:

"When discomfort is served, remain at the table."

What does that phrase suggest in terms of how we can respond? Do any of the following responses resonate with you?
—Stay engaged re: your concern about the conflict. (If you stop caring, how will that impact the
  ones left behind?)
—Be or become educated on the history of the topic.
—Stay informed and updated via reliable news sources.
—Stay in conversation with people who know more about the conflict and issues than you.
—Cultivate relationships and have discussions with individuals who are willing to listen but have a contrasting position to yours.
—Cultivate relationships and have discussions with members of the country in conflict with yours.
—Stay engaged, stay in relationship, and be willing to "stick it through" during the difficult moments and discussions related to the conflict (or, as my husband sometimes says, "Let the fever pass before you say or do anything.”
—Be willing and able to respectfully and accurately articulate the conflict from an opposing point of view.
—Where possible, keep your perception of the opposing view(s) separate from your perception of the person who espouses them.
—Do not assume that the ideologies and policies of the government largely reflect the beliefs and wishes of the everyday people.
—Be open to modifying or changing your point of view as a result of your discussions, if you believe it is warranted.

Now pause and ask yourself how else you might translate "remain at the table" into action.

Perhaps by emulating these principles on a person-to-person level, we can spread the "wanting to" spirit both among ourselves and in our governments.