Difficult Dialogue with Dignity and Care (Jacob and Laban)

Photo from easy-peasy.ai

 A Jewish woman told me recently that her family was torn apart because of how they dealt with their differing opinions about current terrible events. Matters of life and death are certainly worth arguing about, passionately. If they can save a single human life – Palestinian or Israeli, it is more than worth it. However, many of the arguments that destroy relationships don’t advance justice, life, safety or peace. Instead, they inhibit thoughtful discussion that might otherwise achieve these very noble aims. This conundrum concerns me enough to leave my family for Shabbat to spend it with the Newtown Synagogue community to talk about difficult dialogue with dignity and care. In this blog post I share are few of the thoughts that I plan to speak about.

Care. The first element in having a challenging conversation while maintaining a relationship is to care deeply about and really see the other person, not just their opinion or argument. From care, respect flows naturally.

A stance of not knowing. One aspect of feeling affirmed in dignity, is to be understood in the way you understand yourself. For this to be work it is best that when we enter a conversation, we adopt a stance of not knowing (1). We put aside everything we think we know about what the other person is telling us and just listen deeply to exactly what they are telling us. We avoid filling in the gaps in what we are hearing with assumptions. When we ask clarifying questions, we use the exact words of the speaker. For example, if someone tells us they are reluctant to visit a place; we don’t ask if they are afraid. Instead, we ask, “What feelings or thoughts do you have about this place that make you reluctant to go there?”

Recognise the layers. Difficult conversations have three layers (2). There is the surface conversation about “what happened”. There is the emotional conversation about how we feel that is sometimes hidden. The most interesting layer is the identity conversation. This is the part where two people try to get each other to agree that they are the “good one” and the other party is the villain.  

Ensure you are ok. To manage an identity conversation, it helps not to be at war with oneself. If we are plagued by intense self-doubt, then just one harsh accusation from another person can trigger deep shame, as our inner critic finds an external ally, both giving us hell in unison. That shame might be subconscious and manifest as anger and animosity. ‘How dare you make me feel so bad’. However, if we have leaned into and thought through our dilemmas and are somewhat ok with our inner conflict, we will be less easily hurt or triggered. Being vulnerable and sharing vulnerability can be beautiful, and is quite different to being at war with oneself.    

Experience Close. On Sunday 16 November, groups of Christians, Jews and Muslims gathered in Sydney to participate in “listening circles” organised by the Abraham Conference with some assistance from Together For Humanity. We were invited to share our feelings about what has happened over the last two years. It was raw, honest, vulnerable and connecting.  Participants did not self-censor. Yet, there was no drama or hostility. Yishai Shalif (1) writes about the importance of speaking from what he calls an “experience close” perspective. If people care about each other they are interested in what the other person has experienced and it can bring them together.

Let us consider how principles of difficult dialogue play out in the story of Jacob and his uncle Laban.

Jacob was tortured by self-doubt about deceiving his dying father by impersonating his older brother Esau (3). The deception allowed Jacob to get blessings from his father that were intended for the first-born, but Jacob was not sure if he was blessed or cursed (4). Jacob had done it reluctantly, under duress – his mother insisted on it (5), “walking bent over (typical body language expressing shame) and crying” (6).  

With this inner conflict still unresolved, Jacob was an easy target of Laban. Laban had deceived Jacob into marrying his older daughter Leah, instead of her younger sister Rachel, who Jacob loved and who was promised to him (7).  When Jacob realised that he had been tricked, he complained to Laban, who then went on the offensive. Instead of acknowledging his own dishonesty, Laban attacked Jacob, stating that in “our place” (with our “superior values”), we don’t allow the younger sibling to usurp the rights of the first born (8). Laban highlighted Jacob’s own deception relating to siblings. Laban effectively turned Jacob into the villain (9). This is an easy move to use against people plagued by self-doubt.

After Jacob was chastised, his uncle Laban manipulated him into working for him, far from home, for 14 years.

One of the worst parts of the story for me is when Jacob, at his wits end after all this time, asked his father-in-law Laban for permission to go home. “Send me, and I will go to my place, and my land.” (10)  Jacob told his uncle, “You know my work, that I served you.” (11)  Jacob argued that his work ethic was so strong he would succeed anywhere (12).  If Laban cared about Jacob, he would have shown interest in Jacob’s desire to be in “his place”, and also validated his assumption that he knew how hard Jacob had worked. If he had a shred of humanity, this was the time to be gracious and wish Jacob well. Instead, Laban carried on about his own business interests and how Jacob was useful to him and failed to acknowledge Jacob’s hard work and his longing to be in his rightful place.

Laban failed to care or listen with heart. This led to his family disintegrating and his daughters turning away from him (13). Regrettably, there are some people too wrapped up in themselves to sustain family ties. When interacting with them, it is important to protect oneself from harm.

Jacob, too, eventually, leans into his usurpation of his brother’s place as the first born and his deception of his father and comes to terms with himself in a dramatic struggle with an angel (14). Not long after this “encounter with the angel”, he met his brother Esau from whom he had run away from two decades earlier and they embrace (15). How Jacob achieved a reconciliation with his brother is a longer story, but the fact that he did shows that there is hope for reconciliation in families after bitter disputes.  

 

References

1)    Shalif, Y, Liviatan, I, Paran, R, (2007) “Care-full Listening and Conversations. Creating Dialogue between Members of Conflicting Multi-Cultural Groups”, Israel Ministry of Education.

2)    Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most (Third edition, fully updated and revised). Penguin Books

3)    Genesis 27, Abarbanel commentary on Vayetze, Lamm, N, (2012), Derashot Ledorot, Maggid Books, New York, p. 148

4)    Abarbanel commentary on Vayetze,

5)    Genesis 27:6-13

6)    Midrash Rabba

7)    Genesis 29:18-25

8)    Genesis 29:26,

9)    Beis Halevi, (1990), Oliner Edition, Herczeg, p. 125

10) Genesis 30:25

11) Genesis 30:26

12) B’eer Mayim Chayim

13) Genesis 31:14-16

14) Genesis 32:25-29. Also, see commentary of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed.

15) Genesis 33:4