Rules of Engagement
As a father I promised myself that I would not default to the common response “because I said so” that my father often gave me when I was a teenager trying to negotiate less stringent rules as I grew older. I can’t say I was 100 percent successful but the majority of the time as long as my children were respectful, we handled the teenage years with very little drama. On one occasion my son at around age 17 wanted to negotiate a less stringent weekend curfew from the 12:30am rule that was enforced. I learned from experience that little good happens after midnight in the life of a teenager so of course I was not to open minded when it came to his request to respectfully negotiate a new curfew. But since he was respectful and earnest about his desire we proceeded. As a businessman with a bachelor’s degree in Organization Management I had a slight grin on my face when we sat down. I stated that all negotiations have some type of rules of engagement; a list of ground rules. We agreed on 3 basic ground rules before we moved forward. Rule #1 I explained that when negotiating it was common that both parties have equal authority to negotiate. They also have the power to accept or reject proposals that were offered. Rule #2 I explained that it was important that each party had something each other wanted that could be offered during the negotiation process. The final rule was that each party needed to understand who was responsible for the final decision. With the rules in place my son with a well thought out process proceeded to explain why his curfew should be extended to 1:00am. I listened patiently to his reasoning. When he finished, I grinned and stated we needed to go back over the rules of engagement to make sure he truly understood the process. Again, I began with stating Rule #1: Both parties must have equal authority to negotiate. I then with a smile let him know that as the father and head of the home that the only person with authority in this negotiation was me. We then moved to Rule #2: each party must have something that each other wants and I respectfully told him that he had nothing I wanted and kindly reminded him that almost everything he owned was provided by his mother and me. By this time, he could read the handwriting on the wall but to complete the process we moved on to Rule #3. Both parties need to understand who was empowered to be the final decision maker and the final decision was my responsibility. I then with a smile I let him know why we went through the process and gave him my reasons for the existing curfew and why it would not be extended. Obviously, he did not find the process as humorous as I did but he did leave our time together with a better understanding of why things were the way they were.
Adler and Van Doren in their book How to Read a Book lay out a set of ground rules for the reader to utilize as they make their way through the reading process. As one who loves the printed word, as well as, having over 1000 books in my library many which are biblical studies and theologically oriented I found Adler and Van Doren’s approach liberating. The author of each book I own has done their best to convey their opinions and lay out the case for their positions. The responsibility now falls on me the reader to seek to discover and understand the authors purpose and positions. Only then can I adequately respond, either through agreeing with the author, disagreeing with the author or withholding my opinion all together. I realize that much like the ground rules needed in the negotiation process that put each party on an even playing field the rules expressed by Adler and Van Doren are intended to bring the reader on to an even playing field with the author. It is in this process that I find a sense of freedom knowing that the new tools in my toolbox enable me to maneuver through a broader range of books. There is freedom in knowing that I am not required to absorb all that a book has to offer the first time through. Much like the trip to London/Oxford that can only truly be savored and processed over a period of time so is it with some books. Much of reading can be like reading the many lined spaghetti diagram of the tube routes in London. It isn’t until you know the destination that you can gain understanding of the route required to get there. Even when you’re sure of your destination it’s possible to be wrong and arrive late to the actual destination after a lot of wandering around. Sometimes the reading process is a process of trial and error over a period of wanderings.
As I read I found myself wondering why is it that people will take the time to follow a set of ground rules when reading a book and offer up thoughtful criticism but seem to cast caution and respect to the wind when communicating a difference of opinion verbally with others? Why is it acceptable after seeking to understand an author’s argument that a reader can openly and acceptably disagree with the authors opinion when in much of our current political climate one is only believed to have understood if they agree with an individual’s stance on an issue but not if they disagree? Obviously, in most cases an author only gets one chance to lay out the case for their opinions and may never know if a reader disagrees, nor know if they truly understand what was written. Sadly, it appears that even when taking the time to listen and seeking to understand the the ability to agree, disagree or abstain ones opinion isn’t easily accepted by others on the opposite side of the process.
About the Author
Greg Reich
Entrepreneur, Visiting Adjunct Professor, Arm Chair Theologian, Leadership/Life Coach, husband, father and grandfather. Jesus follower, part time preacher! Handy man, wood carver, carpenter and master of none. Outdoor enthusiast, fly fisherman, hunter and all around gun nut.9 responses to “Rules of Engagement”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“I realize that much like the ground rules needed in the negotiation process that put each party on an even playing field the rules expressed by Adler and Van Doren are intended to bring the reader on to an even playing field with the author.”
Great observation with this, Greg. I hadn’t thought of the tools as creating an “even playing field” between author and reader, but you’re right. A lot of times we approach a book not knowing what we’re getting into. We haven’t done our recon so we step in blindly only to get blindsided as the book unfolds. We may be overzealous in our endeavors and bite off much more than we can chew.
Your application of it beyond the text into the oral sphere is also helpful. It may be that it’s easier to criticize something when the person you’re disagreeing with or criticizing isn’t directly in front of you. I think it’s easier to take criticism from a distance so to speak. But I agree with you that it can be hard to dialogue constructively in person at times.
Greg,
I love how you connected rules of the house to rules of reading a book. I never thought of rules or guideliens to reading a book. And, like you, I found the questions offered a wonderful tool for me to take away (#lorenkerns).
In answer to your first question in your last paragraph, I wonder if there needs to be some guidelines for that. I’m sure there are guidelines already written, but why aren’t they taught and adhered to. Is that a viable question?
Your second question seems to open up a whole can of worms, much of which goes back to freedom of speech. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Nancy
Nancy I am not sure the freedom of speech is an issue. People have right to their opinions, hopefully they are based on sound research and facts. Where things go wrong is when others seek to understand and end up still disagreeing due to reasons of their own. I have a library full of books of different theological persuasions. All of which use scripture for support their stance yet disagree with one another. The issue is that they disagree agreeably. We are currently in a social political environment that if one party disagrees with another they are classified as bigots, homophobes, chauvinist and whatever else. There has to be room to understand a persons stance without being forced to agree with them. A place where people treat each other with dignity and respect but can be on opposite poles of a position. I have several friends who are not Christians. They live lives I am opposed to for many reasons some biblical, some sociological, yet we are still friends. I honor their stance and they honor mine.
Greg,
I appreciated how you negotiated this text and found parallels within not only your life, but also in society. It sounds like you are advocating for people to engage with one another in a way that is similar to how Adler encourages people to engage with books. Different types of books have different purposes and engaging with them in different ways is necessary. Similarly, people vary. The way I engage with my very artistic, deep feeling daughter is very different than how I engage with my deeply analytical and logically thinking husband. Indeed, often times I have to get a “read” on where my daughter is in her head and heart space before I can interact with her. In that way, people are vastly different than books, as a book is a set text, and though we can never fully understand the full depths of it, it is safe to assume the words won’t change depending on the direction the wind blows. It seems the key to both engagements is listening to the voice of the author and the voices of those we enter act with. And after we listen, we get curious, make notes in the margins, ask the questions, dig deeper, seek understanding, and wait for answers to surface, being ever respectful to not force something to be said that was never meant to be said. Hopefully once we learn to do this well with books, we will also begin to do this well with individuals. Can you think of anyone in public spheres of influence who listens and interacts for understanding well?
Greg! You wrote, “I found Adler and Van Doren’s approach liberating.” Oh I did too! And, yet, there was a bit of regret. Why didn’t this help arrive a long time ago? And, my regret was that I was not ready to receive the aid. I did well in undergraduate and graduate work, but, the stress of analytical or synoptical reading was a bit trauma. Now I guess the student is ready to learn.
Somewhere along the way, it seems we have lost the ability to disagree and still maintain a relationship. Disagreement is now grounds for dissolution. Even the phrase, “let’s agree to disagree” comes off as dismissive and is the beginning of the end. It seems our world is desperate for models of healthy disagreement and conflict transformation. I wonder if that could begin with the ways we read and engage with authors? Then I wonder how we relearn and reprogram our culture?
I read a great correlation between the amount of unread books one has on their shelves and pride. (Simplifying the finding for time’s sake) If one has read all of the books on their shelf, it leads them to think, “I know just about everything. Look at all the books I’ve read.” If one hasn’t read all of them, they say, “I don’t know everything. Look at all of the books I haven’t read.”
Shawn out of all the volumes of books I have I them broken up into 4 categories. Reference: I feel no pressure to read these form cover to cover, they are just there to help guide my thought process. Read books: these are books I have read from cover to cover and made notes through out the book. They are permanent parts fo my library from many difference genres. Need to read: over a third of my books fall within this category. I buy books knowing I may not get them read for years but will eventually at least scan them. Lastly: trading stock. Books I have read or scanned found little insight of minimal value in them. I love old books stores so these books get recycled into other used books that I find. No matter how I use them, books are always a reminder of not how much I know but how much I need to learn. The reality is “we are all educated well beyond our obedience level.” In other words it is not due to a lack of knowledge that hinders our ability to walk in obedience to the word of God.
Greg, Am inspired. Reading is a habit that is developed. Rules operate in every area of our life, failure to observe them you miss a mark. Adler did a good job by reminding us of the rules, approaches towards reading. the book did challenge me too. Your story is great