Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	Sounds like it could be a good topic.

	So how come no one has replied ??

	

    OK, here's a thought.
    
    The pain comes from not valuing the * differences *.
    
    We already do a lot of valuing the * similarities * 
    and there isn't much pain from the situations when
    we don't value the similarities.  Doing some work on
    valuing the similarities would seem like trying to 
    fix something that ain't broke bad enough to be fixed.
    
    BILL
    

I don't think that one can Value Differences without also Valuing Similarities.
I think a subtle intent of the Valuing Differences campaign is that while we are
Valuing these Differences, we would find many more Similarities with the net
result being that we are all NOT so different, after all...  

In life, I think we are all trying to achieve the same destination.  It would be
simple if there were only one route but there exist many different roads, some
toll and some of the better ones blocked to some people; this needs to be fixed.

>I think a subtle intent of the Valuing Differences campaign is that while we are
>Valuing these Differences, we would find many more Similarities with the net
>result being that we are all NOT so different, after all...  

Yes!  This has been my experience with Valuing Differences, too.  Once
the differences are fully understood and appreciated, the similarities
become crystal clear.  And it becomes obvious that there are many more 
similarities than there are differences.  However, Valuing Differences 
is a technique that clarifies similarities.

Here is a write-up from Barbara Walker, the founder of Valuing 
Differences here at Digital:

"Valuing Differences is the work of valuing people by paying attention 
to and taking into account their differences...Since the differences 
among people often create tension and conflict, people are usually 
encouraged to ignore their differences and focus on ways in which we 
are alike.

"But when people regard their differences as highly divergent, they 
find it hard to recognize their sameness.  Some even see their 
sameness differently.  As a result, staying focused on our 
similarities often means that people who regard themselves as most 
different feel discounted and devalued.

"The Valuing Differences approach is based on the recognition of a 
fundamental reality--in important ways, we are all different from one 
another--not only as unique individuals but, equally important, as 
members of one group or another which share a perspective on the world 
unlike that of any other group.  Valuing people means valuing these 
differences."

And from another write-up:

"By definition we can bond around our sameness--that is if we can get 
past our differences to see our sameness."

======================================================================

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the Valuing Differences 
program does address sameness and does see it as an important bonding 
agent.  However, the philosophy comes at it from the point of view 
that we can't be sure of our sameness until we are sure of our 
differences.  So, the program gets people to recognize, understand, 
accept, and value differences with the understanding that clarity on 
sameness and bonding will be a result of this process.

Back to the discussion on sameness...


							--Gerry

    After 24 years of marriage, my brother and his wife are on the verge of
    divorce. They are both 99th percentile people, outstanding folk, who
    unfortunately have become blind to each others virtues. Both are highly
    responsible, loving, competent, warm, loyal, true to their marriage
    vows, concerned with their children's welfare, a boon to their
    families, etc. If you asked them, each would acknowledge this about the
    other.
    
    They don't see these similarities anymore. They've known each other too
    long, and known too few other people. They take all these virtues for
    granted. I suggested that they take the intermediary step of
    separation, and use that time to meet other people and form impressions
    of them. I'm convinced that if they do so, they'll find out that it's
    nigh impossible to find someone new who approaches the quality of the
    someone old.
    
    I try to keep this in mind, when my wife and I are bickering over one
    of our generally minor differences. We're arguing about this relatively
    trivial topic, hon, because we agree on the important ones.
    
    Tracking similarities keeps me happily married.
    
    FWIW - Hoyt

    Do we really need any more emphasis on Valuing Simularities?  Here are
    some outcomes/examples of what emphasis on "likeness" can produce:
    
    Fraternities
    Exclusive Country Clubs 
    Secret Societies
    (Choose your ethnic adjective)-American Clubs
    Restricted neighborhoods/towns
    Social Darwinism
    Jihaad (spelling?)
    The Holocaust (and any other genocide that has been committed)
    Klu Klux Klan
    Special INterest Groups
    
    My point is that valuing sameness can range from the harmless (such as
    the Corvette Owners Club) to the dangerous (such as Hitler's Super Race
    concept).  IMHO, human history is filled with too much valuing
    sameness, and not enough of valuing difference.  The former is easy to
    do; the latter requires effort.
    
    Just my opinion
    

>    Do we really need any more emphasis on Valuing Simularities?  Here are
>    some outcomes/examples of what emphasis on "likeness" can 
>    produce:...

Well, let's not be too rash, here.  Allow me to flip/flop on this 
issue for a minute. 

It seems like the people who say "Value Differences" and the others 
who say "Value Similarities" are after the same goal: bringing people 
together.  I think that people can choose from the two methods 
depending on the context of what is happening.

For example, I think that Hoyt had a great example of a time when it 
would be very valuable to refocus on the similarities and to put the 
differences aside for the moment.  

It reminds me of a series of workshops that I'm taking with my
counselor.  He defines relationships as a relative position in the
world; it automatically exists without us having to do anything. 
However, to activate a relationship, we need to talk to one another.  
And the thing that facilitates this communication is the finding of 
rapport (sameness).

Think about it.  If you are at a party, and you strike up 
conversations with people you don't know, you will probably have the 
best time with people with whom you feel a rapport.  This doesn't 
necessarily mean that the two of you are identical, but that 
connections have been made around sameness.

My counselor defines an activated relationship according to the number 
of agreements that are made.  So, a marriage is just a relationship 
with a lot of agreements.  ("I agree to spend the rest of my life with 
you," "I agree that we should have children," and so forth.)  He says 
that conflict arises when the current level of agreements do not match 
a situation that arises.  The way around it is to focus on the 
previous agreements (similarities, if you will), and then add 
agreements to cover the new situation.  In other words, focus on your 
similarities, and handle the differences in proper perspective to your 
previous working relationship.  Don't view the differences way out of 
perspective.

So, I think that problems occur when something is taken way out of 
perspective.  For example, I get pissed when heterosexuals take the 
"we're all just the same view" so out of perspective that my 
differences are ignored.  In this case, Valuing Differences can help.  
In the marriage situation that Hoyt described, viewing their 
differences so out of perspective can cause them to forget the similar 
goals and the life they shared up to that point.  In that case, 
Valuing Similarities sounds like a good move.

I think that balance is the key.  Any time that viewing differences or 
similarities starts to obscure the other perspective, it's time to 
refocus until we get things back in balance again.

No?


							--Gerry

.0>    Why don't we try to look at things (needs, want, etc) that we have in
.0>    common.  Something to bring people together as opposed to seperating
.0>    them.
    
I tried to take a stab at listing some base needs/wants but didn't like my
effort.  After reading Gerry's reply on rapport, I wonder if the task at hand
should be to identify those areas where all humans find they have some type of
rapport...  Also, identify areas where there can be NO rapport, etc.  What is
the one thing that everyone has in common?  What is the one thing that everyone
SHOULD have in common?  Why or why not?

    
>I tried to take a stab at listing some base needs/wants but didn't like my
>effort.  After reading Gerry's reply on rapport, I wonder if the task at hand
>should be to identify those areas where all humans find they have some type of
>rapport...  Also, identify areas where there can be NO rapport, etc.  What is
>the one thing that everyone has in common?  What is the one thing that everyone
>SHOULD have in common?  Why or why not?

Interesting that you should ask...

My therapist would say that, underneath all the bull, all people want 
the following things:

	o  To love and be loved.

	o  To know and be known.

	o  To contribute and be contributed to.


It isn't a perfect model, but it covers an awful lot.  If you want to 
establish instant rapport, then listen carefully, ask questions, and 
understand.  That will make the other person feel as if they are being 
known.  (Greater rapport needs more in common than that, but that's a 
good start.)

For example, Saddam Hussein, I believe, really, really wants to 
contribute to the world and have the world contribute to him.  I'll 
bet that there is also a lot of love/be-loved going on with him.  How 
he is going ABOUT it is pretty destructive and aggressive, but I think 
that, at the deepest level in him, these are the intentions that are
playing themselves out.  And he certainly won't be the first person
who made a jerk out of him/herself because the person was incredibly
lonely and desperate to be loved, desperate to contribute, and 
desperate to be contributed to.  I've done stupid things to satisfy 
those needs.  It's just that they usually play themselves out at such 
deep levels in ourselves that we don't see them in operation.

(If you live in the Boston area, if this stuff sounds interesting to
you, and if you'd like to explore it more, feel free to send me
personal mail.  I'll let you know how you can get involved in low-cost
group work that my counselor does.  He's really good.  Of course these
are only my own opinions and not the opinions of Digital Equipment
Corporation.) 

							--Ger

     
    I've read the line of "focussing on similarities" a couple of times in
    the replies, and my impression was that "focussing on similarites" was
    handled a bit as a mechanism to avoid changes in people.
    The danger in over-valuing similarities lies in the attitude of saying
    "you're fine as you are - don't change", of viewing persons as
    something static you can always rely on.
    My opinion is that the attitude that goes with "valuing differences"
    tends more to respect the other person for what he/she is, and not
    for being a mirror of our own views. More than that, this attitude
    seems to be more tolerant with the fact that people are not rocks
    standing tall in life, but an ongoing process of learning, of changing.
    Accepting differences implies saying "I accept you and will support 
    you in "finding youself", and, more than that, want to learn and 
    change with you". Focussing on similarities is more like "we fit very
    well the way we are, so let's keep the troubles of an ever-changing 
    world out of here".
    Partnerships should be built around the respect for the other
    individual, and around the fact that someone with different views and
    different interests can be more enriching for your own development than
    someone you are always agreeing with on everything.
    Trying to nail the other persons focussing on the things you like in
    him is like hinting you're not going to like changes, it can be
    dangerous. Relationships must give you the room to evolve without being
    afraid of not being accepted anymore.
    ...Paul