Still Sorting It Out Sometimes

I've had one of those dismaying realizations about myself - the kind where the idea is not new, but the implications suddenly become much more clear. A friend of mine, who works in the same field as I do, was talking to me about a deep insult delivered to her in the workplace by the management. As she's telling the story and pauses for my comment, I latch onto the part that would insult me - that the perpetrator is making an error and is forcing a stupid and wrong business process on my friend for which she will then be responsible. "No," she shouts, "don't you see what an insult this is to me in my position? How could they do this to me? They don't respect me at all." It turns out she's much more upset about their treatment of her in forcing something on her at all, rather than the fact that it's a flawed process with damaging consequences.

I realize that the timbre of my response, and her reaction, is connected to a couple of other times when a (female) friend has been annoyed or angry with me. Situations where I've focused on the problem rather than on the emotional response of my friend. I did realize (slowly) after the incidents I remember in the past, that my friends had NOT wanted me to help solve the problem, but just to listen. Or so I thought. Apparently it's taken me another twenty years to realize that I have to also be sure to respond to the emotional content that drove them to need to talk in the first place. My husband does this very well. Why am I only figuring this out now, and what am I supposed to do about it? How the hell do I know when the emotional content is more important? And, more importantly for the relationship, how am I supposed to show this? I do feel for my friends when they're upset, but I guess I'm not showing it correctly.

In response to this, my husband pointed out: "There are two parts to a problem like that. (1) the thrown stone, the cause of the problem. and (2) the broken window, the emotional effect. The latter can be addressed by saying to your friend, "And you feel.... fill in the blank with the emotion she is describing. Or usually your friend will do it herself."

Ah, I see how he has better command of this. It's that he's more analytical in his approach. So maybe in the argument we had yesterday morning, where I told him, infuriated, that he sounded exactly like a psychology textbook, the accusation was (a) perfectly true and also (b) not a valid criticism since it obviously works well.

It's as I pointed out to my friend yesterday. I'm really, really good at analyzing a situation or interaction and seeing motivations and reactions and implications - behaviors. I am not so good at acting appropriately within one. Or, I suppose, it's what another friend told me, that I shouldn't be a field anthropologist because I analyze people like they're bugs, and nobody's going to like that. Well, thank god I never intended to do ethnography in the field, which always struck me as a damned uncomfortable position to put everyone into. I was always more interested in the biological basis of behavior and social network analysis.