"Evidence is strong that direct, forceful, aggressive approaches are perhaps the least effective way to help people consider new information and change their perceptions. Such confrontation increases the very phenomenon it is supposed to overcome -- defensiveness -- and decreases the client's likelihood of change."
William R. Miller, quoted in TIP 35, p.10
This quote was given in the context of counseling people with substance abuse issues. But if we change the word client to organization, culture, or nation it would still remain a research-based truism of human dynamics.
In this light, wouldn't it be prudent to expect business, religious, and political leaders to comply with researched-based evidence to decrease the amount of resistance, frustration, rebelliousness, and defensiveness that humankind has struggled with throughout its history? Why would we not want this to happen?
For example, terrorism could fairly be understood as oppressed people lashing back at the oppressors. The current prescription is to beat them back into submission or, failing that, to kill them. But according to the research, this is precisely the wrong action to take as the forceful nature of the cure breeds further resentment and resistance, and escalates the problem. If, instead, we were to take a more effective approach -- empathy, careful direction of motivation and decision-making, every person or entity taking responsibility for its actions and resulting consequences, consideration of a wide range of options, and engendering a sense of self-efficacy in every person and entity -- we could cultivate conditions that work toward positive change and decrease negative schisms.
To be clear, every person or entity taking responsibility means the aggressors as well. In current America the use of preemptive war is seen as a rightous action that does not cause a negative reaction in those it is directed against. At what point do we finally admit that this belief is struck down by the research and strive to replace it with something that is proven effective?
It's understood that making a change like this would take decades to put in place. We are in an age of power politics, and the use of confrontation and aggression is worshipped by the people. But there have been ages that have been less aggressive, and there is no requirement that aggressive people be allowed into positions of power. It's also understood that those who see aggression as a solution, if we parallel this with spiritual development, are at a lower stage of development with an unfortunate inability to see that there are people and methods more mature than their own. They believe that people must be made to comply with the vision that they hold as right. If we are to get past people in this stage holding power we must recognize as a culture that it's not the highest step on the ladder, and that if the culture is to progress and stand as a shining example then people more highly developed must be entrusted with power.
And just imagine: aggression decreases, cooperation increases, there is less tension in the world, money and industry are less concerned with hurting and killing people and instead are concerned with promoting the well-being of all, and with the ensuing calm we are able to focus on moving the human race to heights that we never had the time or energy to pursue when we were so caught up in squabbling and fighting and killing. Fears would decrease and fascinations would increase. It's true that the ruling class would get watered down and become more like common folk, but the loss of the abuse of power would be a welcome compensation for this. There would be far less reason for anger individually and collectively. And above all, we as a race could experience an increase in our understanding and practice of loving like we've never accomplished before. Wouldn't that be something?
