A person is defined by what s/he does, not by what s/he says.
The essence of I Positions is in the actions one takes. This seemingly simple idea presents subtle challenges. An I Position is not simply knowing what I will do or what I will not do. In fact, I personally find simply knowing what I will not do to be insufficient for truly knowing my path forward. While knowing that I will not do something is a starting point for a solid position, I am still left unclear regarding what I WILL do. For example, I could know that I am not going to solve another person’s problem when that person can and should be taking responsibility for oneself. But I still need to respond. So if I am not going to tell someone what to do, what do I do?
This liminal point between doing and not doing begs for discernment about how far back stage to let others. Do I tell people what I am and am not going to do? Do I provide context and rationale for my decisions? How do I provide context and rationale without going down the rabbit hole of defending and justifying? How do I talk about my rationale with self-responsibility?
As much as I believe I am defined by my actions over words, I think there are times when talking to others about my path forward is important; before I take an action. One clear “test” for whether a discussion is warranted or not is: does my path forward (my position) represent a change to an established relationship pattern? In other words, am I disrupting a pattern in which I have played a part?
If yes, I think talking about my intended change could be useful. I can recognize and acknowledge the pattern. I can acknowledge the part I have played in the pattern. I can articulate how my thinking about the pattern is evolving and finally, what shifts I intend to make in my part. It is important to stay self-responsible and focus on what I will do without suggesting how the other person could or should respond. I positions are about clarity for self and latitude for others. It is important in this conversation to realize that when I change my part in an established pattern, it will create some level of disruption for the other(s) involved. I simply talk about my part, my shift and then respect the autonomy of the others involved.
It is highly likely that others respond with some type of message designed to get me to bail on my path forward and revert back to the pattern. The intensity of the push back, or “change back” message as Dr. Bowen called it, will be roughly commensurate with the intensity of the emotional process that underscores the pattern. If I can calmly stand my ground without getting into an emotional debate, and without defending, justifying or blaming, it becomes more possible for the others to calm down in the process.
One caveat is that I think it is reasonable to consider the possibility that there is wisdom in a push back. The push, for me, represents a prompt to reconsider my position. Is the push back message primarily grounded in emotional reactivity? If so, I would move forward with my position. But it is possible the push back is grounded in a more objective perspective that includes variables I did not consider. In this case, taking a second “look” at my own thought process could turn out to result in a modification to my position.
While I do believe that action is the essence of a clear I position, there are times to talk about it first, and times when rethinking and modifying my position is warranted. Getting clear for self is a marker of growth. The capacity to observe and examine my own positions and modify them in the face of new information is, in my opinion, an even more important marker of adaptive functioning.
Leave a Reply