Being Assertive Without Being Aggressive or Avoidive is the Best of the American Way
"OK, there you are,
waiting in line to get into the football game, and some guy from much farther
back in line charges up to the man near you, demanding to know if he's "a
refugee." How do you (safely) tell the
aggressive so-and-so to get back in line and let the (embarrassed, frightened,
native-born) man know that you're on his side? I'd like some suggestions
because I'm likely to step forward and respond w/o thinking...."
This is an interesting scenario in a recent FB thread. I may
use this in class, but even if I do not…I have learned a lot reading it,
because the thread is filled with insight.
Here is an incomplete culling from the thread…in search of the core
guiding principles we might use. I
apologize for typos or incomplete thoughts; I have a stack of papers to grade
today, but still wanted to reflect on this anyway.
Certainly everyone deserves dignity and respect, so we want
to be the change and enact our vision for a better world (and resolution to
this conflict) in our response. As
Tucker put it, whatever we say or do we need to ‘be kind’ to everyone involved. As Sherry put it, one key part of being kind
and effective here is to ‘remain calm.’
And the audience often determines the outcome of a conflict. In this case, a productive response would
include expanding the scope of the conflict to include the audience.
But expanding the scope with escalating the hostility is a
challenge.
I like Maura’s idea (for anyone with language skills, as a
fellow Irish) with one modification informed by Keith. Perhaps stand next to the victim and look another
spectator in the eye and say something firmly but gently like Carl’s
suggestion: “leave us alone.” Janet’s
Target story hits on this: stand between them, let the victim take your place
in line.
Because Maura’s is a bit less inciting and we want to avoid
Rene’s scenario where the intervener is now seen by the audience as the problem. On the other hand, it is important to be
fully present in the moment, and it is possible that a stronger statement like
Maura’s would be needed to bring the audience in against the attacker.
In this sense, Nick’s post is (like others who agreed or shared
similar regrets over staying silent in the past) on point: we cannot know for sure what we might or
should say ahead of time, but we do need to be prepared to say and do
something.
The preparation we can do is think through the dynamics as
we are doing here, and work on language that feels like our own voice, and
prepare to be both assertive and respectful, to both step in (in between) to
protect victims and invite the attacker to see his words/actions as outside the
crowd/community without feeling attacked himself.
This is where expanding the scope can help in other ways,
because once one person intervenes it is more likely for others to do the same
and this creates a dynamic where the attacker might see the value in claiming
he was joking or just walking away.
Or, one of those from the crowd now on the intervention team
might bring the most valuable tool—a good sense of humor—to the conflict and deflate
the entire situation with a comment that makes everyone laugh and allows the
attacker to escape with a bit of dignity by laughing and moving on.
Teresa’s comment (depending again on reading the specific
situation) might fit the bill here, if said with a tone that encourages all to
laugh: “Unless you and I are Native
Americans, we are all refugees here!” Or
Kevin’s (and Karen’s) “I am also a refugee!
Is there a prize?”
Or Alternate
Julie’s “Excuse me sir, can I see your ID?”
Or Terry’s approach using humor and distraction (yell O-H…). Or Cindy’s “I'm sorry, dearie, did your poor mother not teach
you manners? Because in the United States of America, the land of the free and
the home of the brave, we don't make accusations to strangers. We welcome them.
So, where are you from, anyway?”
Or as Kimberly suggests: “In a calm voice I'd say, ‘Now,
let's all take deep breaths and get to the real heart of the matter.’ I'd turn
to the newcomer and ask, ‘Sir, are you a Browns fan (or whoever the home team
is) or Steelers fan (whoever the visiting team is)?’ Hopefully, that would get
a couple chuckles to defuse the situation. ‘Come on, we're all just football
fans right now. Right?’
Another good ‘template’ type of response to keep in mind and
practice in less stressful situations so you can get better at it, is the one
suggested by Barb: Ask a question. (But be careful you do not ask a question that invites the attacker to explain or justify or expand his attack. Tone matters here.)
Barb suggests asking “What is the problem?” This is a good generic question to have in
your template box, but in this case a slightly modified version might work
better: “How can we tell that this person is not an American? And no one has to be an American to like
watching soccer. What is the problem
here?” Cindy’s suggestion to ask a
question kindly is important.
Asking a question in a situation like this is best combined
with Keith’s point above: Without pause,
continue to ask 1-2 others in the crowd, making eye contact, “What is the
problem here?
Or we might imagine a dialogue:
“What
is the problem here?
She
is the problem; she is a refugee.
In
America, do we prevent guests from going to soccer games?”
(Making eye contact with 1-2 in the
crowd) “Do we?”
At this point, it is worth repeating: we cannot know for sure ahead of time and in
the abstract what would work, because we need to be present in the moment and
read the situation to balance assertiveness with non-escalation, challenging the
words/actions without challenging the attacker’s identity.
We can (as we are here) prepare to do that well, but we
cannot (in my view) find one universally applicable statement that will always
work, even that will always work in this one scenario, because even this one
set of facts can vary dramatically depending on the circumstances.
And even a perfect question/intervention is not likely the
end; we need to see these as conversations, as unfolding over time, and not
look for a silver bullet to end the situation in one fell swoop.
Amy’s point is worth reflecting on as well, reinforcing the
importance of being present in the moment.
Much of what we have said already is based on the assumption,
highlighted by Kelly, that getting the crowd involved will mean that they will
join our side.
As Amy indicates, however, with leadership fanning the
flames of racial and religious hatred we have to be less than entirely
confident in that outcome—reinforcing the importance of balancing the tension
between intervening and still respecting the attacker (and others in the crowd
who might ‘agree’ with him).
Assuming what must be achieved (in this case, agreement that
attacking a random stranger on the dubious presumption that she is a refugee
and even more dubious presumption that being a refugee justifies the attack)
will derail efforts to de-escalate and resolve.
Creativity, like humor already noted, is a powerful skill
here. Maureen (and Tina) has a good idea
(if it fits your read of the situation):
greet the attacker as if he were an old friend and walk him away from
the situation. I am sure I do not need
to note that caution needed in taking this approach, but I will add this—doing this
might reduce the chance that the crowd comes to your aid and single you out in
the attacker’s mind.
If your read of the situation is imminent danger of
violence, then Mary’s idea emerges as worth considering: stand next to the
person while dialing 911. Or Patti’s
idea: to stand with the person and invite others to join and surround her.
Brenda’s idea of starting with a gentle and kind but
assertive “excuse me?” could also work.
Kevin’s point about no point trying to reason with a moron
warrants consideration.
Not because calling out moronishness will help us here, but
because whatever approach we take might get an incoherent response, returning
us to the importance of bringing in the crowd (expanding the scope) and
respecting the attacker—if his response indicates low intelligence or Fox News
Disease than simply separating him and the victim is likely the best possible
outcome short of calling 911.
Lou’s idea could work:
“Whoa, whoa. Let’s turn it down a notch here. Let it go and everyone get back in line.” (Edy hits on a similar note.) And then hope that ‘the sane guys in the gym’
or in the crowd here, react as expected and outnumber the attacker.
Bill’s idea has merit: “Sir, please calm down. This person does not need to prove anything
to you.” And as he adds: ‘hopefully
others would join me.
Ruth adds a good idea—moving to
stand next to the victim and not addressing the attacker at all, only speaking
with the victim. Add Keith’s point about
bringing in other bystanders with eye contact and this is likely to be a strong
and safe response.
Jenn’s “How dare you?” is to the
point and accomplishes the goal of asking a question—to put the burden of
explanation on the attacker. I like this
one for its simplicity as well, as long as we are prepared for next steps—stand
next to victim (ala Ruth) and/or bring in additional bystanders (ala Keith).
Cyd’s “Stop it!” And/or “Get back
in line; you’re embarrassing yourself!” while seeking to expand the scope and
saying to the victim “I am sorry this happened” both have merit. (Maxine hits
on this idea as well.)
Jeannie has a creative idea: “This
person is my guest, so please get back in line.” Rebecca makes a similar point.
Brian’s “Pardon me, but who are
you to question this person? Have you
seen some official status?” has merit.
Pat’s “In America we do not treat
people this way” could be an effective response.
Singing Tom Petty, like yelling ‘O-H!’ could be brilliant.
I also like Peter’s idea, speaking
to both attacker and victim but with the point of bringing in anyone within
ear-shot: “What in the hell are either of you doing in line for a Browns
game? Don’t you have something better to
do with your time?”
Or as Pamela put it with more
humor: “This is a Brown’s game. We’re all
refugees in this line. The team might
win one of the last few games, or maybe they can unload Johnny Football to
another team.”
Cy’s “Excuse me but what business
is it to you?” might work.
Reviewing these ideas is a great
way to prepare. Then practice using one
or more of the ideas here in low-tension situations, so you make it your voice
and learn how to use it. Then, keep in
mind that no one statement will always work, but trust your instincts because
you are prepared: speak up with kindness
to all, humor if you can, to de-escalate.
Usually a question is a good start, as long as it is not an accusation
and that is helps you expand the scope of the conflict.
As Bruce Lee says “master the
principles without being bound by them.”
We prepare by considering scenarios like this and imagining how we might
respond. Talking with others as we are
here, to clarify the core principles to keep in mind and sharpen our awareness
of what is more likely to actually work.
Then remember that the principles only guide us, we still have to be
fully present and humble and assertive.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
and experiences on this important question.
