Helping Our Sons Be Masculine - “The Hero’s Journey”

There are so many tales out there of bravery in all societies. In fact, one noted sociologist, discovered that there is a myriad of sophisticated and even primitive cultures that boast similar tales of what is referred to as “The Hero’s Journey”. He found matching elements conducive to each version of these legends. Namely, the masculine hero was typically unknown. He typically was deeply motivated to save someone that was under attack or facing execution in another enemy tribe. Always, his own safety was of least importance and always braving a tortuous journey to rescue another man or a damsel in distress. These victims were not a friend to him and thus personal reward was not part of the equation. 

In most of these societies this legend was their most precious as it was used by families over many generations by the community fathers to inspire their boys to thrive. They always included basic wise and mature principles. First, to put others ahead of themselves always and know that a selfless man was preeminent in the village. Second, to build in them the humble reality that they can brave whatever danger lurks for a higher purpose of helping others, but never for fame or reward. Third, that their masculine calling was venerable and thus respected by mature men around them just by being their sons! Lastly, that this calling could not be met just by personal achievement but by the encouragement and strength of their elders together all along the way.

Whether this sociologist fully realized how these stories closely resemble the Gospel call of Christ, and included Biblical elements of vaunted masculinity, I am not sure.  I am absolutely convinced he had no idea how significant this finding would be for us today. I believe most fathers truly want their sons to be at peace with who they naturally are: males. I believe we seek best practices for our sons to realize their potential to become men. And I believe we are typically motivated naturally to help and not hinder that process. However, the presence of a community of elders to enable this journey is hard to find. Let’s look at ways that we as fathers and fellow elders can build such a cohort to raise our sons as potential heroes in our culture.

— Jeff Bercaw

What is Speaking Life? - Part III: Through My Mate's Eyes

In my last blog, I mentioned 5 Clear Communication steps summarized as being quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. Focusing on the middle step is rare. It kind of dissolves between listening with haste and delaying ire. Most think it’s a nice way of saying put a clamp on it, which it does, but not just verbally but also cognitively. Stop your inner tapes while your partner is sharing, complaining, pleading, or pontificating. 

Most know it is folly to prejudge a matter, and that is what we are doing as we formulate a response before truly understanding their heart: we assume or read nonverbal cues. We focus more on us being right versus them being understood. While they expound we redound in our brains. So, I ask you how can one truly comprehend when there are two voices in our mind?

The concept of Clear Communication mitigates this process by helping the listener truly understand what they are hearing and seeing before they respond. They walk slowly into their perception of what the speaker is actually meaning versus what they are reading into their nonverbal speech (body language, tonality, countenance, movement, etc.). It helps me ask what the other person means and admits my own interpretation and feelings, versus allowing my prejudging theirs. There are 5 basic steps:

1. Give My Objective Observation: what I actually see, hear, smell, or experience: when I saw you walk out; when I heard your voice go up, or when I saw your eyebrows raise, etc.

2. Explain My Interpretation: “I understood that to mean…”, “I interpreted that to mean…”, “I believe you were saying…”, etc.

3. Confirm My Feeling: “And I felt”, “Then I had this emotion”, “And as a result, I experienced”, etc.

4. Explain My Want: “And I would like you to…”, “And my desire is for you to…”, “I would appreciate…”. etc.

5. Invite Them to Respond

I encourage the listener to repeat what they heard, then before explaining anything, own their regret for the other person’s negative experience. Why? Even if I accidentally caused hurt or confusion or frustration, do I care if they are feeling wronged? First express that regret (Note: I am not admitting that is what I just did, just that whatever occurred caused some discord and I desire to rectify it.)

Important to note: Steps 4 and 5 often are left us… a person responds with their feelings and what upsets them but never clarifies what they want or even stops to invite a response. These are significant steps. It will feel awkward but it’s better than arguing ad nauseam!

— Jeff Bercaw, MTF Intern

What is Speaking Life? - Part II

In my last blog, I suggested we ought to speak life into our spouses and delineated the why and when this is best done. Today I want to tackle the most recondite concept to understand in speaking life and that is the way or means in order to edify the other person. What method promotes growth?

The fact is we come from homes with diverse communication styles that build different filters in us that define visual, kinesthetic (motion), or even auditory stimuli subjectively. One person’s sigh of boredom is received as displeasure in my recent talk when in fact, they were not listening, to begin with. And we are off to a silly argument (well, you didn’t really ASK me to listen). This miscommunication can block speaking life and may have the opposite effect. 

So edifying communication style can be summarized as such: “be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to become angry” “a kind word turns away wrath”, and “let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth except that which is edifying for the other person”. WOW! A tall order, no doubt. What helps is for me to be conscious if I desire their honor or their sense of being cared for. 

I want to think in my mind that I am speaking with a person with a gentle or fragile heart, with honor (NOT PITY). I want to temper my volume (they are not deaf), sweeten my ardor, extend my patience, and open up my mind (think in their model of the world, not just mine). What do they hear in how I speak? Not what am I going to do to make them hear it in a different way (a rather arrogant attitude many of us apply)? I need to ask things like how am I coming across or how do you feel when I am speaking with you, or how are we doing. 

An effective method is Clear Communication Style. In a nutshell, I remove the demand that they read my mind, and I own that how I receive what they say is my choice or interpretation, not my mystical knowledge of their intent. I effectively want to know their model of the world of our talk, not demand they take on mine. There are five teachable steps, but alas, again, the dear reader, we are at the end of my blog space until we meet again (sort of). Adieu!

— Jeff Bercaw, MTF Intern

What is Speaking Life? - Part I

Recently I heard a friend of mine, Dr. Heather Clark, teach a great concept in a Sunday School class. She challenged us to “speak life into our spouses.” It struck me how simple yet profound this concept is and frankly how rare it is to describe the speech as life-giving.  It is a true idea if we also understand that communication is much bigger than a word’s meaning. It encompasses how the word is spoken (non-verbal) when the word is spoken (timing of circumstances), and why it is spoken (for what purpose or end). 

Let’s start with that last one: the purpose. The ancient encouragement is for us to “speak the truth in love”.  So, when I speak, it should be to convey love (even when we don’t agree). If my intent is to abjure or denigrate or correct, I need to re-think why I am speaking into her life if I want her to receive my words.

One way to address this purpose is to be sapient about the timing. If I want to be heard and understood, my heart must want her to be in a receptive space. I will choose a time that she is not distracted or under pressure. I do not want to force the discussion. A way to see this is if I find myself demanding or pushing rather than inviting or allowing the discussion to open up. If I am trying to pull something out of her, then I am forcing the discussion and it is not a wise time to engage. It is similar to poor purchase techniques. If I find myself thinking we can only talk about this now (much like I have to buy this now versus later), then I am likely forcing the issue and not honoring her circumstances.

Of the three aforementioned parameters, the most recondite to understand is speaking life in a way or means that promotes growth and actually edifies the other person. The question is: am I speaking in an honoring way to them? Or will I come across to THEM as callous, condescending, or odious? So, the idea is to affect my communication style in a way that honors THEM versus satisfies ME. Sadly, I do not have blog room to elucidate how to flesh out these ideas, so you will need to catch my next blog. Until then!

— Jeff Bercaw, MFT, Intern 

Silly Arguments May Mean More Than We Realize

In 30 years of meeting with couples, I have often heard the explanation “it was just a silly argument” in explaining why they came in. I believe we fall into these because of our lack of knowledge, the source of our suffering and confusion, according to Holy Scripture. This lack of knowledge saliently refers to not knowing our partner’s mind, but it also belies our own lack of self-awareness. 

In fact, all of us naturally bring into our relationships biases, visual encumbrances, and auditory filters. These stem from the everyday praxis of rules and styles of communication imprinted in our families of origin. These are not endemically good or bad, yet sometimes they are weighted down by rigidity and myopia, or undefined by permissiveness and inconsistency. However, one thing is consistent: the ways these are conveyed, and the ways these are perceived, are determined by the family styles that permeate our current language, in the form of non-verbal communication (NVC).  This aspect of talking creates more misunderstanding and confusion in our daily dialogue than just about anything that comprises it.

To the point, NVC is based on affectations that comprise any part of communication that is outside of basic verbal information (digital versus emotional). Things such as volume of speech, the temper of attitude, inflection of words or sounds, body language (arm placement, head movement, etc.), rhythm of words, facial gestures, and even body placement (sitting, standing, reclining, etc.), all play a part in this messaging miasma. In fact, it is believed by experts (and in some circles, demonstrated) that NVC makes up over 80% of the actual message that is conveyed and received (whether intended or not). These “accidental” communications may well hold the key to what is really happening inside the speaker. Sometimes, if ignored, they add up to other behaviors that betray deeper issues and can lead to passive-aggressive actions, which can be more destructive.

For instance, I can wake up and say “good morning” to a wonderful, caring, and smart spouse of 38 years, and if my inflection is bright or positive it will come across as encouraging. However, if it is said in a halting or distrustful way, with my arms crossed and eyebrow raised (like Spock), it will more likely be rebuffed with a query (such as “who diddled in your cornflakes this morning?” or “what did I do?”). Then, of course, I would further the “silly argument” by denying any ill feelings, even though I have just given her a double message (my verbal words do not match my NVC). This is called a dichotomy and typically leads to shutting down of communication, deeper frustration on the receiver’s side, or, at the very least, internal emotional confusion (is he upset, or is he just unaware?).  The person talking may feel misunderstood, and the person receiving may feel somehow manipulated. Typically, one or both start to realize this is a pointless discussion as we argue over what the hearer assumes the other person is feeling (the fallacy that I can read her mind), and the speaker deflects what is patently obvious to them as being an unintended result they defend (she may say “that is not what I meant”). This is called a circuitous or vicious cycle argument that just creates more ill feelings and fixes nothing. Any hurts that are left in either party tend to pile up over time.

At some point, these pointless arguments feel like they are silly and foolish. Most of us tend to dismiss them (although some will grab hold like a Pitbull and not release, that is a different issue for a different blog ☺) and thus leave the unseen wounds to fester like a burr under a saddle. It is quite unfortunate as these stupid arguments may very well belie a deeper, more insidious problem to address.  Am I really listening to my spouse, or do I tend to run tapes in my head (about NVC she is projecting at me) that are based on my family-colored perceptions of what she is actually meaning?

While growing up, for instance, when my mother spoke in a halting voice, or when dad gave me a raised eyebrow, I learned that it meant they were angry at what I was doing. Whereas, in my wife’s family, these NVC’s may have meant that her parents were confused or doubtful about what she was saying. These individual assessments of NVC happen in milliseconds, as if almost reflexive, but can develop while the other person is talking. Either way, my perception can easily be vitiated by assumptions I make when I see or hear NVC that I do not clarify with the speaker what they mean. Do I actually ask, “hey, when I heard your tone change, it seemed you were angry at me? Is that true?” This is a much better response than blurting out, “get off my back; I did not do anything wrong!”. Am I really listening, or do I just dismiss her as being short-sighted in her approach to me? I can easily start to feel like she really does not know me.

Clearly, not feeling known or understood can also feel like being devalued or even unloved if this is a common tendency in communication. We should take notice of this and pursue professional help so these irrational skirmishes do not create deep-seated prejudices against the other person. Of course, we also ought not to over-analyze each little fit of frustration that we all experience from time to time. I am more concerned about daily or even weekly dust-ups that stay unresolved. Even if they feel silly, they may be indicators of deeper past hurts that are creating these sensitized filters that could come from earlier family issues or earlier relational problems that were ignored. Frankly, it is better and easier to apply the Barney Fife therapy model: “Nip it in the bud? Bud nippin’, that’s what we need to do!”.

So, as we look at our silly arguments, instead of only focusing on what was assumed to have been said by the other person, maybe we should take an introspective gander at HOW I perceive what was said. Maybe the problem lies in the combination of my subjective NVC filters and my mindreading of the other person. These revealed NVC personal biases may help us better understand our spouse, and maybe even ourselves. I wonder if that is what our Heavenly Father meant in Ephesians Chapter 4 when He reminds us to be ‘Quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry”. He wants us to engage our ears, our mouths, and our minds in a tempered way. We should not let the tapes in our heads keep rolling while the other person is talking (slow to speak) but focus first on clarifying what they actually meant, instead of what we are reading into it. This will help us hear their message better, and not filter it through biases set by our past issues.  This refocusing may very well enable us to become more patient and understanding listeners. So, quite possibly, addressing those silly arguments isn’t so silly after all.

— Jeff Bercaw