Pardon my musings but I’m sure all of us have heard the old adage that if you don’t like the conversation, just change it. I know that the tone of that aphorism is intended to be helpful and motivational, and I’m sure you have taken it in that way.
However, I think about it from a different standpoint and recognize that we don’t really need to change the conversation often times; it would be sufficient and very possibly even more productive to limit it, explore it, moderate it, mediate it, or even spend the time to evaluate it.
In other words, there is a richness to the conversation, which may sometimes be unpleasant or unnecessary in its own right, but allows opportunities for transformation or even birthing discussions which might even end up emanating from it.
I am wondering why that is not done more often. It occurs to me that it requires some level of self-efficacy where whoever the conversationalist is recognized that they have a valid contribution they can make to the conversation and, because of that, they feel willing and able to offer guidance in exploring the fullness of the conversation in its own right, or the future progression of how that conversation might unfold.
Exploring conversations with the mindset of contributing to it thoughtfully requires nothing more than a simple commitment to be part of that conversation, not an adversary of it. Being in the moment with self-esteem and self-efficacy is an important part of that process.
Image source: anothervoice-greenleaf.org