We’ve all been there – a conversation that begins with good intentions but suddenly seems to backfire.
Perhaps it happens when someone mentions a difficult relational situation. We think we are showing appropriate interest, but the other person finds us pushy and intrusive.
Or perhaps we are in a position of leadership, and someone mentions something that has been troubling them. We begin to correct some obvious misunderstandings but the other person interrupts and tells us we are being defensive and dismissive.
Or someone mentions a difficult experience from their past which has been troubling them for years. We endeavour to talk it through with them by asking sensitive and thoughtful questions to help understand what they have been through. Three days later we get a message telling us that instead of finding the conversation helpful, they felt hurt and disturbed by it.
A neglected skill
There are many kinds of conversational skill. Most of us are familiar with the need to listen well and we know that we shouldn’t dominate a conversation by talking too much. We might also be aware of the danger of playing something like conversational top trumps where each person seems determined to outdo the other in recounting anecdotes! Someone mentions a holiday adventure and instead of showing interest by asking questions, the other person chooses to relate a holiday adventure of their own – which turns out to be so much more dramatic and exciting! This is one of the reasons conversations can seem more like ‘alternating monologues’ than two people really listening to one another.
But there is one conversational skill that, despite its importance, receives relatively little attention. It’s the skill of having ‘conversations about conversations’ – stepping back, as it were, to make sure agreement exists about the kind of conversation this conversation ought to be. It’s not a skill that is always needed. Indeed, constantly checking out what kind of conversation we were having would be really strange. Generally, the type and purpose of a conversation is abundantly clear. But not always.
Conversational misunderstandings
Sometimes a ‘conversation about the conversation’ is very badly needed. And that is particularly true in some of our most significant, and potentially problematic, conversations. It’s especially true where the conversation involves particularly sensitive or difficult topics. Take the examples above. The person who mentions a difficult relational situation may simply want you to know about the difficulty. Perhaps they are keen you might pray about it or perhaps it’s a way of letting you know that this isn’t the right time for them to be taking on new responsibilities that have been suggested to them. But if you read it as an invitation to probe the detail of what is going on so that you can solve their relational difficulty then the two of you are going to be on very different tracks. Since that’s not what they wanted or expected, your ‘interested enquiries’ feels to them like an interrogation.
Had you responded by saying: ‘I’m sorry that relationship is proving difficult, do you want to talk more about that?’ all could have become clear, and the misstep could have been avoided. It might, in fact, have opened the way for a future conversation where they were ready to have the deeper conversation because they sense that you are thoughtful and sensitive in the way you handle such things.
Or take the person with complaints. Suppose you had responded by saying: ‘I can see that these things are really troubling you and I’m glad you have raised them. How can I best help with all this?’ Such a question may reveal that there isn’t anything they want done. Simply knowing that you are aware of what has happened and how it has affected them is enough. But if, instead of receiving that information and showing understanding of the hardship they have experienced, you respond with justifications, then it all too easily backfires. They didn’t want explanations. They wanted you to understand the severity of the struggle some were experiencing but by rushing to explanations, you end up giving the impression that you hadn’t heard or understood or cared.
And what about that hard experience from the past. If we mistakenly think hard things always need talking about to ‘get it off our chest’, we may clumsily cause others to revisit difficult experiences in contexts where it doesn’t feel safe to do so. Again, it doesn’t take long to say: ‘I’m sorry you went through that. It sounds terrible. What would be helpful? Is this something you would like to say more about, or would that not be helpful?’ Such a question reassures the person that this conversation isn’t out of their control – they have a say in how you will talk about these things. One of the key features of trauma is that it involves a feeling of helplessness. That is why it is so important not to make people revisit traumatic experiences in contexts where they feel no control over what is happening.
Biblical wisdom about words
We are familiar with the Bible’s warnings about listening: be ‘quick to listen, slow to speak’, James tells us (James 1:19). Proverbs puts it even more strongly: ‘to answer before listening— that is folly and shame’ (Proverbs 18:13). This issue of having ‘conversations about conversations’ is slightly different. It’s closer to Proverbs 17:27 which tells us that: ‘The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered’. There is something here about a measured use of our words and not diving in without knowing what’s needed; not being led by my immediate emotional response to what I am hearing, but slowing down so that we know what is wise. That means taking the time to work out what kind of conversation this needs to be; what aim the other person has in engaging us in conversation and therefore what kind of words this person would experience as loving.
Of course, we will not always agree with another person’s aims. Sometimes we will want to suggest the conversation takes a different tack. That can be part of having ‘a conversation about the conversation’ as well. But what it will always do is alert us to those occasions when our idea of the conversation that is wanted is radically different to the expectations of the other person. That allows us to take stock and be wise with our words so that we speak in a way that loves the person in front of us.
