Respectful Relating
Mick Cooper, Professor of Counselling Psychology, University of Roehampton
v1.3, 13th May 2023
Do we Need Principles for Relating?
How do we relate to each other? What kind of communication and interchanges could, and should, we have? These are questions that, in the formation of any relationship or group, often come to take centre stage. Is it ‘OK’, for instance, to express anger? What about criticising each other? If one person says to another person that they are ‘being childish’, is that acceptable to the group, or is it the kind of communication that the group wants to try and avoid?
Sometimes, there are no agreed principles. Everyone relates in the way that they want, or thinks is correct. Sometimes, implicit principles emerge: principles that may never be explicitly named, but come to be powerful forces in shaping and policing the interactions between people.
‘Ground rules’ for relating can also be set out ahead of time: a pre-defined set of principles for how individuals should relate. In terms of equitable and democratic functioning, adopting such principles means that everyone is ‘abiding’ by the same set of rules; and, by making the principles explicit and transparent, it means that individuals are on a more equal footing in being able to understand, agree to—and, if desired, challenge—the principles for interacting. Ground rules are also a way of drawing on previous knowledge and understanding about how interactions may function best. However, if ground rules are imposed from a position of authority—rather than being agreed on consensually—then they can serve to silence or marginalise people. The same may happen if ground rules are very rigid and inflexible. Without time for proper learning and internalisation, people may also fail to really understand the principles for relating; such that how people think they are—or should—relate is very different from what they actually do.
In the development of relationships between individuals, then, the optimal approach may be one in which a loose and evolving set of ground rules are established and made explicit. This supports equity and transparency in how people relate, and creates a common language around which people can build community. At the same time, by being flexible and open to challenge, the principles can evolve to suit the particular context and reduced the risk of being oppressive.
What is Respect?
Respectful relating, as defined and described here, is a set of preliminary ground rules for interacting based on: (1) Clinical and practical knowledge about problem solving in relationships, (2) Empirical evidence on resolving conflict, (3) An ethical standpoint of valuing and regarding others, (4) Systemic thinking about how to optimise benefit within any set of interactions. With regard to this latter foundation, respect can be seen as a means of drawing out the best in everyone: creating the safety in which all individuals can thrive while still allowing for challenge and growth.
Respect means having regard for another’s feeling, wishes, or rights. It means accepting that other as they are, even if they are different or there is disagreement. Respect is similar to ‘unconditional acceptance’ and ‘prizing’, as described by the American psychologist Carl Rogers. In the terms of my recent book, Psychology at the heart of social change, respect is about relating to the other in a spirit of psychological equality. This is ‘a willingness to view the other—every other—as a human being like ourselves, with needs, wants, and experiences that are “intelligible” and legitimate’ (p. 13).
This perspective on respectful relating draws on, and is similar to, other systems for effective interpersonal relating (e.g., non-violent communication, assertiveness training) but tries to distil down the essence of these systems and make these principles applicable across contexts. As such, respectful relating can be adopted as a basic ‘ground rule’ for communicating across a variety of settings: for instance, in relationships, training groups, or organisations.
Inevitably, there will be times when we deviate from respectful ways of relating. Sometimes, we may blame or try and manipulate; and principles of respectful relating shouldn’t be a stick to beat others with (that, in itself, wouldn’t be respectful relating). But respectful relating, as defined here, sets out a clear, transparent, and mutually agreed ‘benchmark’ for how, ideally, we should relate; and for the kind of relating we are striving for. We can also use such principles to assess whether or not our communications—or those of others—are within the bounds of what has been defined as constructive.
Respectful relating is not an alternative to risk management strategies where there is a threat of violence. If you or another are in danger of being harmed, exiting the situation may be the first priority. Relating respectfully also doesn’t mean that you should always engage or communicate with another. Sometimes, particularly for marginalised groups, being expected to dialogue or communicate can be a form of oppression in itself.
Principle 1: ‘Own’ how you feel, think, or see things
The key to respectful relating seems to be to recognise that how we feel, think, or see things is our perspective or experience (or that of our culture), and not a definitive truth on how things are. Pluralistic philosophy teaches us that there are many different way of seeing things. Owning our perspective is respectful because it communicates to the other that (1) they, like us, are intelligible beings with a legitimate way of seeing the world, and (2) that they have the right to see the world in their own particular way. Saying ‘Béla Tarr was the greatest film director of modern time,’ may not seem very different from saying, ‘I think Béla Tarr was the greatest film director of modern time.’ But the latter, offered tentatively and invitingly, opens up so much more potential for dialogue than a rigid proclamation of the former.
When it comes to interpersonal conflicts, recognising that others may have a very different experience of a similar situation is often a first step towards resolving things in a respectful way. This means recognising, for instance, that while I may think my girlfriend started an argument by criticising me, it is quite legitimate for her to feel that, actually, it was me who started the argument by criticising her. Who is right and who is wrong? Generally, in situations like this, it is much more useful to recognise that two different legitimate perspectives exist than trying to decide who is correct.
This is not to say, however, that everyone knows exactly the same amounts about everything. In fact, one of the keys to resolving conflicts in respectful relating is to recognise that there is a certain domain that each of us generally knows a lot more about than others: our own, ‘inner worlds’. We live in ourselves, close to ourselves, with ourselves all the time: so—if we assume that each of us are intelligent and intelligible beings—then each person is likely to know a lot more about what they are feeling, experiencing, perceiving, and needing than others do. This means that, from attempts at resolving conflict should begin with what we are feeling and and experiencing, rather than what the other has done. Examples might be:
‘I feel angry when you don’t do the washing up’, rather than ‘Why are you always so lazy!’
‘It really hurt me that you didn’t message me to say goodnight’, rather than ‘You were so insensitive not to message’.
‘I’d like us to spend more time together’, rather than ‘You never want to spend time with me’.
In respectful relating, we don’t assume we know why the other behaved as they did; we don’t attribute to them some psychological or moral failings; and we don’t label them or demonise them. We don’t do all that because we know our assumptions are our assumptions, and probably a long way off what the other was actually feeling or experiencing. Instead, we trust that the other—who is closest to their own inner world—is able to articulate, for themselves, what they are feeling, needing, perceiving, or experiencing. We don’t take an expert stance here: that we are the ones with psychological insight, such that we can see from a mile what the other can’t see close up. Perhaps we see something in the other that they cannot see—just as they may see something in us that we are not aware of—but a respectful starting point is to trust their own expertise on themselves.
Principle 2: Listen to how the other feels, thinks, or sees things
The second movement on respectful relating, may be to listen, with an open mind, to how the other describes their feelings, experiences, thoughts, and needs. Just as we have expressed how we feel, we need to give space to the other to express how they feel. And we need to try to receive what they say without judgment, cynicism, or defensiveness.
Others’ experiencing of a situation may be very different from your own—it may be diametrically opposed. But before any dialogue or interchange, just give space for the different experiences to emerge: both yours and the others. And if they are opposed or contradictory, just let that ‘sit there’ for a while, contrary, unresolved, and frustrating—a knot to be slowly untied rather than pulled into a ever-tighter tangle.
If you’re not sure or don’t know how the other felt, ask questions. But ask questions that genuinely help you to understand more of what the other is feeling, experiences, and thinking—not veiled attempts to criticise them or prove them wrong. That’s as much in your tone of voice as it is in the words that you use. ‘I don’t understand… Why couldn’t you get to your phone?’ It can be spat out with vitriol; or it can be posed, gently and warmly, with a genuine attempt to piece together the other’s experiences.
If the other blames, criticises, or infers characteristics or motivations about you—that is, speaks as an expert on your own experiencing—gently encourage them back to what they can talk about with confidence: how they feel. Don’t take on board their judgements or inferences about you: bring them back to what they are feeling and experiences.
Principle 3: Dialogue
Through an ongoing, iterative process of expressing your feelings, experiences, and thoughts—and listening to the feelings, experiences, and thoughts of the other—understandings can be deepened, and potential solutions (if sought) found.
Dialogue is a process that has two components: being expressive about what is going on for us, and being receptive to what is going on for the other. These components start separate; but as they emerge they can start to intermingle in a beautiful, multifaceted alchemy. For instance:
‘Wow, so you’re saying you actually want to spend time together too?’
‘Yes, but it made me really scared to say it.’
‘Why?’
‘Because I thought you’d feel pressurised, and that I was being needy.’
‘It would have made me feel so much safer to know it.’
‘But I didn’t realise that. I thought it would drive you away.’
‘Yes, I guess if I am really honest there’s part of me that would be scared. I do want some space at times, but only some times.’
‘Me too, I guess, I’ve never been able to say that…’.
Principle 4: Recognise power
Not everyone’s view gets listened to to the same extent. There are unconscious biases. A white older man may be taken more seriously than a younger black woman, even if they are making very similar points. That doesn’t mean that people from marginalised communities are more ‘right’ than people from dominant groups, but it does mean that particular attention needs to be paid in ensuring that those marginalised voices are heard and taken seriously.
Another way of putting this is to say that we don’t start off with a level playing field: some people are kicking the ball up the hill, and others have a much easier time of it kicking the ball downwards. If we want to make things truly even, then—to ensure that everyone gets to express themselves, and receive, equally—we have to act to make things fair. Simply ‘going with the flow’, too often, means that the existing power structures in society get reproduced.
Principle 5: Be welcoming, warm, and caring (if you can)
Most of us, at heart, have a need to be liked. We want others to feel good about us, to want to be with us, to not exclude us or criticise us. So listening and responding empathically to an other is not just about attuning to their thoughts and perceptions, but also to their deeper need for relatedness.
Throughout my life, I have seen that communities work best when there is warmth, welcome, and compassion amongst its members. Warmth and welcome brings out their best, it meets a deep need that makes people want to contribute to the community and be part of it. Coldness alienates, it pushes people away, it makes people not care. Criticism does something worse: it makes people shrivel up, protect themselves, focus inwards rather than on giving outwards.
Appreciation also seems to be a catalyst for positive working in relationships and groups: recognising, explicitly, what another has done, and particularly the work that they have put into something. Most of us, these days, are crazy busy: when someone has done something, it’s because they have carved out the time to do so. To not recognise or express appreciation for that is to take their time for granted.
We are all, I think, tender beings. We get hurt—when we’re not welcomed, when we’re not appreciated—and when we get hurt by others we tend to shut down. Fostering positive and effective relationships in a community requires careful nurturing, like holding a flower: grip it and grab it and you risk destroying the best of what is there.
Welcome and care doesn’t mean not being angry. People can express rage and fury to others, but if ‘owned’ and delivered without demonisation—recognising that the other is still a human other—then it can still align to a relationship of care. This is particularly important for marginalised groups, who may not have the resources or energy to relate to the other in welcoming or warm ways.
Why respectful relating?
It’s understandable that we often want to blame others or to see them as the source of our problems. But respectful relating tends to be most constructive because, fundamentally, the other is a human being like ourselves: who has reason for doing the things they do, who has a perception and an experience that is equal to ours. So if we talk to them as something other—as a ‘bad person’ or as someone inherently misguided—we’re not engaging with the actual person in front of us, and therefore we’re not going to stimulate much change.
The great thing about a dialogue based around feelings and experiences is that you can’t get into an argument about who’s right and who’s wrong. Experiences are experiences: two people can have completely contradictory experiences and both can be right. And each of us knows our experiences best: no one can claim to know better than us what we’re really thinking or feelings.
Notes
To repeat: respectful relating doesn’t mean you have to be nice. It doesn’t mean putting up with harmful or oppressive behaviours from others. Principles of respectful relating mean that you can really share your anger, hurt, or vulnerability with others. Very powerfully. And it also means that you can withdraw from dialogue if, just by entering into it, you are hurt or dim
What if the other doesn’t relate respectfully back? Respectful relating is a set of principles to agree up front—if another person doesn’t agree to them, you can’t impose them. But, then, how are you going to talk together? Is it going to be ‘I’m-right-or-you’re right’? Is it going to be ‘blame-each-other-until-you-fall’? At the very least, raising the possibility of respectful relating makes explicit—and, perhaps, consensual—the principles that a conversation is going to run by. And if you do agree to abide by the principles outlined here, you both have the opportunity to bring the other back to it when someone move away. For instance:
‘You said I was being a ‘twat’, and that’s not Respectful Relating, is it. That’s your perspective, but what were you feeling, and let me tell you what was going on for me….’
‘I’m sorry I was assuming you did it to hurt me, let me listen to what was actually going on for you.’
In compiling these benchmarks, it is important to emphasise that they are aspirational, and responding to non-respectful relating in non-respectful ways is only likely to compound problems. It is important to note that not everyone may be able to adhere to these principles, and the ability to articulate and moderate ourselves in relating can be seen as an unconscious ‘privilege’ which not everyone has. It is therefore with a spirit of kindness that we aim to approach others and seek to accept others regardless of their challenges in relating respectfully.
Of course, it would be the utmost hypocrisy to say that the principles of respectful relating, described here, are what respectful relating is all about. No doubt, others would see this in very different ways, and may feel that the principles here are disrespectful to certain communities or to all. This is an evolving attempt, therefore, to define and describe what it means to relate respectfully and positively to others. Please do send my comments, suggestions, or criticisms: mick.cooper@roehampton.ac.uk
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Andrew Jackson, Alec Grant, and Sally-Anne Armitage.
Image by LinkedIn Sales Solutions on Unsplash
