As a father I promised myself that I would not default to the common response \u201cbecause I said so\u201d that my father often gave me when I was a teenager trying to negotiate less stringent rules as I grew older. I can\u2019t 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Adler and Van Doren in their book How to Read a Book<\/em> 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\u2019s 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\u2019t until you know the destination that you can gain understanding of the route required to get there. Even when you\u2019re sure of your destination it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t easily accepted by others on the opposite side of the process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a father I promised myself that I would not default to the common response \u201cbecause I said so\u201d that my father often gave me when I was a teenager trying to negotiate less stringent rules as I grew older. I can\u2019t say I was 100 percent successful but the majority of the time as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":135,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1033,1635],"class_list":["post-24180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-adler-and-van-doren","tag-negotiation","cohort-lgp10"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24180"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24180\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24181,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24180\/revisions\/24181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}