2008 by Kösel-Verlag, a division of Verlagsgruppe Random House GmbH, Munich, Germany

Transcription

1 2008 by Kösel-Verlag, a division of Verlagsgruppe Random House GmbH, Munich, Germany Barbara Berckhan Verbal Judo How to hit back with aplomb (Judo mit Worten) 224 pages World rights available Sample Translation by Jeb Hogan Table of Contents Foreword Beyond Hitting or Running Away: The Art of Not Fighting Communication Instead of Confrontation Countering Strategy: The Detoxifying Counter-Question Are you also so vulnerable? In Praise of Silence Countering Strategy: The Vivid Silence This number is not in service. Countering Strategy: The Two-Syllable Comment Spirited Ideas on the Subject of Men and Women Test yourself: Do you know the difference between men and women? Let the jesters come! The Deep Obeisance to Arrogance Countering Strategy: The Unexpected Compliment Winning with Distractions Countering Strategy: The Diversion When you can t fight them, then confuse them. Countering Strategy: The Inappropriate Saying Spirited Ideas on the Subject of Quick-Wittedness Test yourself: How familiar are you with your own quick-wittedness? The Dance with Dark Energy Concrete in the Head Countering Strategy: Clarifying Conflicts Spirited Ideas on the Subject of Revenge Test this yourself: How strong are your thoughts of vengeance? When Competing Hurts Countering Strategy: Seeing Through the Competitive Struggles The Controversy over Being Right Countering Strategy: Acknowledging and Agreeing Countering Strategy: Inquiry and Discovering the Opinions of Others Spirited Ideas on the Subject of Difficult People Test yourself: What do you say when someone yells at you? Summary Self-Test Answers Literature

2 The weak can overcome the strong, The supple can overcome the stiff. Lao Tsu: Tao Te Ching Foreword You have to break eggs to make an omelet. And when people talk to one another, they are sometimes aggressive in their tone. It happens quickly and without warning: out of the mouth of our speaking partner comes a foolish saying, and acidic commentary, a harsh remark. And then we stand there. How should we deal with this? Respond in kind, according to the motto I do to you what you do to me? Or freeze and be silent, only to ponder possible retorts over the next few hours? I have worked for a long time as a communications trainer. In my workshops and trainings, participants always bring along their favorite problems. Highest on the greatest-hits list is always this question: How can I deal with unprofessional or stupid remarks? Often added to this is: without becoming upset and getting into a quarrel? Good question. I have been collecting answers to this subject for over ten years. My answers must be sound, and not only in theory. Indeed they need to be useable, particularly in the everyday world of my participants. Thus I have looked for practical methods for dealing with verbal attacks in the most elegant and stress-free ways possible. In my search I have allowed myself to be inspired especially by the martial arts. An important experience was an aikido training a Japanese self-defense technique that I observed once. I sat off to the side and watched how a small, somewhat older woman put a much larger attacker on the mat. She did this with spinning motions that looked more like dancing than fighting. Finally she held her attacker so tight that he remained on the floor without being able to fight. This scene remained long in my mind. A thought kept coming to me: Can what happens in physical self-defense be translated into what happens in our conversations? Can we just as adeptly defend ourselves from verbal attacks? The core principle of judo and aikido is The soft can overcome the hard. Whoever learns these martial arts is also training a spiritual attitude, one that derives from the philosophies of Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen. Judo and aikido make use of artful holds in securing, leveraging, and throwing with which even a stronger adversary can be overcome. So I searched for verbal strategies for dissipating verbal attacks. And I found them: the best strategies for defending yourself are to be found in this book. I developed the various countering strategies according to strict qualitative criteria: All strategies involve only self-defense. They cannot be used for attacking. They are simple and easy to comprehend, and function without complicated formulations. Each strategy is generally applicable, a universal response to nearly every verbal attack. All counter-strategies are free of disparaging, insulting, and injurious words. The interpersonal level is not poisoned. After every strategy you can, if you desire, have a very normal conversation. Perhaps the most important function of my countering strategies exists on quite a different level. All of them have the power to change feelings your feelings. With these countering strategies you can get beyond the feeling of being insulted or hurt. Instead, you will be practicing the art of being unaffected, of being above it all. Using this verbal self-defense, you will not get entangled in the low level of stupid remarks, and you will be spared an unfruitful mudslinging contest with your attacker. If you ve ever wanted to be able to counter such things confidently and competently, and be able to smile while doing so, then you have come to the right place. I wish one thing above all while you re reading this book: enjoy yourself! [ ]

3 Communication Instead of Confrontation How can we deal with the spitefulness of other people without getting involved in a fight? Let s look closely at the type of meanness that most often happens to us in everyday life: the verbal assault, being attacked with words. Varieities of this include the stupid saying, the foolish comment, and the caustic innuendo. How does it all come to this? Is there always spite behind what one says? Here is an example from a very normal relationship. A harmless verbal lapse or underhanded maliciousness? Peter had been dressed and ready to go already for an hour. He was now sitting in the living room, rattling his car keys. His wife, Marita, was still in the bathroom making herself pretty. They were to have an evening out in style by going to the theater. Peter, however, was gradually losing his patience. He called out for the fourth time, Hurry up! We ve got to go! Finally Marita came out of the bathroom. She stood in front of Peter and asked uncertainly, Tell me, does this blue dress still look good on me? Isn t it just a bit tight? Peter was a little peeved. He was afraid that Marita would go and change into a new outfit. Without considering long, he answered, The dress looks good on you. You look like you were poured into it like a bratwurst. Marita stared at him with glaring eyes and sighed indignantly. Peter immediately recognized something in her reaction: what he said must have been off the mark. He didn t mean it in a nasty way. He liked it tight on her. And he liked bratwurst. But he just wanted her to be finally ready to go. That was why his words had a slight tone to them. For Marita, his response was downright mean. How could he say such a thing to her? A bratwurst? And now she s supposed to just passively take that? No, for her it was an insult. Marita stormed back into the bathroom and slammed the door. A moment later she reappeared and complained, I m too fat? That s unfair of you. You know exactly how much that hurts when you say that. But it seems your only intention is to hurt me. You want to humiliate me on purpose! I didn t say you were fat. I think the dress looks good on you. Really you Peter stuttered on, but there was no way to rescue the situation. Marita disappeared in the bedroom. The evening was over. Let s consider this argument and ask ourselves: Did it have to end up the way it did? Was there a possibility of averting this argument? The answer: yes. Launched into the orbit of being aggrieved Let s look at the mechanism of the argument up close. Someone says something that on first hearing sounds disparaging, something that reeks of a nasty remark or a stupid come-on. And without having to consider long, it happens: the rocket in our head ignites. We hear the words and presto, we re offended. This happens even faster than a rocket liftoff, because there is no countdown from ten in our heads before we explode. No, ignition is immediate, and instantly we are in the orbit of being grieved and insulted. Now here is my question for you: The next time someone says something peculiar to you, could you simply be silent and not immediately explode? Not immediately be insulted or fly off the handle or stomp out of the room in anger? During the next verbal attack, could you be silent for a moment in order to understand what is going on? Yes, that sounded like an attack. But was it really? What made the other person say exactly those words? Why did he or she make such a remark? There is a strategy that will help you with this. It comes directly from everyday life. I ve found it where people cultivate good relationships. I ve named this strategy the detoxifying counter-question. A second chance for big mouths The detoxifying counter-question is a countering strategy with which you can respond to an invidious remark without falling into an aggressive or militaristic attitude.

4 It works like this. You take the words out of the remark that you feel you have been struck by. And then you ask what those words mean. Or you take the whole remark and ask what that person meant by it. That s all there is to it at first: questioning, instead of blustering back in response or running away. How could such a detoxifying counter-question work with Marita and Peter? Marita felt hurt by the words You look like you were poured into it like a bratwurst. It is that formulation she now should question: What do you mean by bratwurst? That would have been a real chance for Peter then to come up with a few definitely friendly words. He could have answered: The dress fits perfectly. You look great. Marita s initial suspicion would likely have faded, and the situation would not have escalated. Or as a response to her detoxifying counter-question, he could have said: Dear, you look simply delicious. Good enough to bite. This answer as well could have defused the situation. It could also have been that, after the detoxifying counter-question, Peter talked about how irritated he was that he had to wait so long. With this he would have put his resentment into direct words. That is always more constructive than putting on a long face and making off-key comments. Clarify the situation by inquiring By inquiring what a remark means, we give the other person the opportunity to be precise. Perhaps we would then be presented with a reasonable criticism that could be useful to us. Or we would discover why the other person would make just such a remark. Through the detoxifying counter-question, we provide the other person with a second chance. We prompt him or her to explain any misunderstood words. By the way, it is not a detoxifying counter-question if you set yourself in front of the other person, with hands on hips, and snap back: Hey, just what do you mean by that? Are you out of your mind or do you just want to piss me off? That is merely a resentful tit-for-tat response. In order to pose a detoxifying counter-question, you need a certain amount of self-control. Put your wounded and insulted self in the background for a moment. Ask instead of immediately defending yourself or closing yourself off in a sulk. Here is the strategy in a summarized overview: Countering Strategy: The Detoxifying Counter-Question Repeat the word of the other person that you feel injured by, and then ask that person what he or she meant by it. Examples: The remark: Your report was a bit sloppy. The detoxifying counter-question: What do you mean here by the word sloppy? The remark: You really came out with some nonsensical ideas there. The detoxifying counter-question: I don t understand. What do you mean by nonsensical ideas? The remark: You owe me something! The detoxifying counter-question: How do you mean I owe you something? You can also formulate the counter-question somewhat differently. Here are some suggestions: How do you define [here the injurious or unclear words]? What do you understand by? What exactly does mean to you? Listen to what the other person answers. If the other person continues to use injurious words, you can once again react with detoxifying counterquestions. Or you can ask that person to express him- or herself more professionally.

5 The best scope of application for the detoxifying counter-question is good professional and private relationships relationships that you desire to continue. With this strategy you can intercept any off-key remarks and poorly considered criticism.