Negative Positive Semantics, IV

Of course, my example of needing to know Shakespeare in order to love Shakespeare—and appreciate my own prior ignorance of Shakespeare—is not a morally inflected example.  The stakes get much higher when the blindness under discussion is not merely aesthetic or intellectual but also moral.  But by the same token, if someone has a moral blindness, the likelihood of their not lashing out when you confront them with may actually be heightened in proportion to the gravity of that blindness.

How many addicts like being told they have a problem?

I’m not, of course, suggesting that someone with prejudices or problems needs to “hit bottom” on their own, like an addict.  For one thing, they may never hit bottom; for another, their thoughts and words and what they have done and failed to do may, in the meantime, do damage to others.

But I am suggesting an indirect approach.

When one child hits another, there are a few things a parent can do.  Corporal punishment is an age-old option.  Time-outs are another ancient resort.  Verbal remonstrances may have effect on certain tender souls.  But one of my favorite solutions (which can of course be combined with the above) is to direct the offender to reverse their actions.  “You pushed your brother?  You have to do something nice for your brother—give him a hug.”  “You broke your sister’s toy?  Now you have to do something nice for her—build her another one.”

Obviously, you can’t make another adult act.  But you can encourage their good actions, by appealing to principles that they do accept.

And after a certain amount of good habits set in, maybe then you can have the hard conversations in negative positive semantics.  Or perhaps you will find that the conversations are no longer necessary.

Perhaps I should underscore that the point of all this is not to avoid conflict; conflict is unavoidable.  The point is rather to avoid useless conflict—and when it seems that conflict would be useless, then, needless to say, I’m all about avoiding it.