|Arguments & Arguers: interest based approach||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Hans Tilstra (hanstilstrarabbit.com.au)|
|Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:22:16 -0600 (MDT)|
OK, anger makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people feel uncomfortable by the thought that the anger is not expressed. If expressed, it's preferably channelled as a hurt. In my work I contrast three approaches to a conflict: 1. who's got the power (eg. rewarding, including, excluding) 2. who is right & who is wrong (eg. let's go to the minutes / contract, let's be reasonable) 3. paraphrasing each other's wants & needs, fears & concerns. (ie. physical needs, security, sense of belonging, need to be loved, control over one's life) Clearly, asking someone what they want or expressing whatever makes the angry person feel understood may lower defenses. What I find tricky about cohousing is that we're discussing one's shelter, one's territory. Does cohousing require a sharing of control over one's life relative to conventional housing? As the concept of community aims to battle isolation, is there a distinct requirement for confluence, for agreement which overrides a desire to differ? Hans
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.