Posts
Last January I had an interesting experience at work. The small company I worked for was having trouble with a system that was being set up by two vendors. Predictably, when things got screwed up the two vendors pointed at each other. The mess fell into my area of responsibility, so I called the vendors in separately to work things out.
When the first vendor arrived our CEO and our Comptroller joined the meeting. I began the meeting by telling the vendor that we were not there to beat people up, that we were fundamentally happy with the service, but that there were problems that absolutely had to be fixed. Our Comptroller cut me off, said we were most definitely NOT happy and immediately began attacking the vendor, accusing them of overbilling and screwing up their part of the system. It took about 10 minutes to get her to understand that she was yelling at the wrong company, that the bills and services she was referring to were the responsibility of the other company, the one that was coming in the next day. My guess is that she had read the meeting preparation memo, but hadn't understood it since she didn't understand the systems and issues involved at all. (She's a classic technophobe).
Things got straightened out and I got the information and agreements I needed, all of which was in fact preparation for the meeting with the second vendor, who was the source of most of the problems. When the vendor left the CEO and Comptroller insisted I stay for a little 'come to Jesus' meeting. They told me that in the future I should leave all negotiation to the Comptroller, since I was clearly too non-confrontational. I defended myself by saying that I did indeed try to avoid confrontation, that whenever possible I wanted to find a position where both parties benefited, the old 'win-win' solution. They explained to me that business is not win-win. That there are winners and losers and that vendors will always cheat you if you let them. I got the impression that win-win scenarios are a pretty idea -- like unicorns.
I've thought about that incident over the past months. I think this is just one example of the conflict we experience between the principles we learn in the program and those espoused in large parts of our society. When we take the First Step we acknowledge that we are powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable. It doesn't take a lot of time for us to extend that insight and to see that we are not in control of our lives in general. Our actions matter, we have responsibilities, we influence events and people, but that does not translate into control. We are not gods. This leads us to the Second and Third Steps.
I think the attitude expressed by the CEO and the Comptroller is not just wrong, it is fundamentally immoral. It views life as a territory to be conquered and the people we encounter as potential subjects to be subdued. It views life as a prize to be won, not as a gift to be cherished, and it views people as either masters or slaves. It creates its own misery, since attack invokes a fight or flight response and, to say the least, neither response generates a lot of happiness.
The conquistador 'conquer and subdue' view of life excludes gratitude. Nothing in our life is truly 'earned' or 'won'. Certainly we have to exert ourselves, but we have to remember how small our efforts are in the big picture.
Once again, it all comes down to humility, and the conquistador approach to life is a classic concrete expression of pride.
Humility, and the gratitude that comes with it, are essential bases of happiness, the joy of living. The conquistador lives in fear – there is always a bigger predator out there. If we can live the humility and gratitude we learn in the program we can experience joy. Life is a gift and it's always nice to get a gift.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I see this from a different perspective. While I heartily agree with your perspective and point of view about our attitudes toward life, I have gotten a different message about what AA teaches me about how to handle this kind of situation.
ReplyDeleteI have learned that at best AA teaches us that the highest level we will ever reach is "basic human". That if we work hard at it and do the steps to the best of our ability, we can at most join the human race. That being said, the human race is full of a wide range of people with varied experiences, points of view and perceptions. I have also learned that just because I have and experience my own perception of the world, it doesn't mean it's right.
I once had another member of AA ask me point blank "Dave, why can't you allow others the right to be wrong?" A question I did not have an answer to at that time. I can say with some satisfaction that I am closer to an answer now than I was, but I still have work to do.
In order for me to experience some level of acceptance in life I have had to learn to allow others to make their mistakes (I have gotten way better at this), but also to then refrain from judging them and their outcomes (I do less well at this), and finally to avoid commentary on it (my success in this area is directly tied to my level of judgment).
The better I am at this stuff the less I experience mental, emotional and spiritual disturbances. When I am less disturbed I am more at peace inside. And when I am more at peace inside the better use I am to others. The better use I am to others, the more joy I feel in this world... regardless what others say or do.
The hardest part is separating myself from my dissatisfaction with other people's actions. It's about as easy for me to "just don't drink" as it is for me to "just don't judge". I need outside help when I am feeling bent out of shape. I usually find a good place to start is with the 'angry man prayers' on page 67 of the Big Book:
"Though we did not like their symptoms and the way these disturbed us, they, like ourselves, were sick too. We asked God to help us show them the same tolerance, pity, and patience that we would cheerfully grant a sick friend. When a person offended we said to ourselves, "This is a sick man. How can I be helpful to him? God save me from being angry. Thy will be done."
Dave brings up a very interesting and important point. We talk a lot about tolerance in the program, but I think that attitude often crosses the line between tolerating the person and tolerating the behavior. Some, indeed many, behaviors should be condemned while all people should be loved (an ideal I, for one, am very, very far from).
ReplyDeleteIn my post I said “I think the attitude expressed by the CEO and the Comptroller is not just wrong, it is fundamentally immoral.” I did not say the people involved were evil and yet, if I understand Dave's reply, he read it that way and I'm sure he is not alone. We have trouble distinguishing between the sinner and the sin.
It is not easy to love the sinner and hate the sin, but that is what we must do. I worry that in AA we tend to shy from taking firm positions on questions of morality out of a false humility, out of a fear of somehow seeming to be setting ourselves up as superior.
Now, this is, of course, where things get very gnarly. Any time we discuss ethics we have to do so from a position of humility, realizing just how flawed we are. We acknowledge that we are sick just as the people whose behavior we criticize are sick. Dave correctly points to the 'angry man prayers' on page 67 of the Big Book. As Kurz and Ketcham say in The Spirituality of Imperfection, “I'm not OK and you're not OK and that's OK” is a fundamental attitude for AAs.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that sickness is not OK. We cannot give way to moral relativism in the name of tolerating others. Moral principles do exist and by asserting them with humility (which in part means being open to correction) we are helping advance the humanity's moral progress. In doing so we are performing one of our spiritual tasks. That is sacred.