 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | |
Copyright 2002 Wilderness Peacemaking Verbal Aggression Increasing intensity in a developing stress reaction manifests first verbally and then physically. Distasio (1994) defines violence as any physically or verbally assaultive behavior; by this definition, both verbal and physical aggresion can constitute violence, and must be treated with great seriousness. Indeed, verbal aggression signifies the beginning stages of the loss of rationality and control. The person provokes you, tests your limits, begins a power struggle, abuses you, calls you names, questions your motives and competence, insults you, and solicits the support of bystanders against you. Such verbal aggression is a definite challenge to your own self-control and peacemaking skills. There are any number of ways a person can be verbally aggressive, which vary in their intensity and the degree to which they manifest loss of rationality and self-control – for example, what we will here call questioning, refusing, venting, inciting, and intimidating. A stressed-out person who has engaged in intense verbal aggression may then undergo collapse. Note, however, that, although these types of verbal aggression may vary in terms of their intensity and potential threat of assaultive behavior, their sequence is not fixed; it is possible that a stressed-out person will jump from one form of verbal aggression to another before the situation is resolved or deteriorates into a physical attack. Questioning Low-level verbal aggression often takes the form of questions. These questions can, in fact, be perfectly rational information-seeking behavior, however provocatively phrased. When an at-risk youth is told that it is her turn to dig the latrine, the question “Where’s the shovel?” is an information-seeking question, as is “Okay, where’s the fucking shovel?” The appropriate response is to give the requested information – for example, “It’s over there by my tent.” There can also be challenging questions, which are evasive or seek to subvert authority – for example, “Why don’t you dig the latrine?” or “Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?” An inappropriate response is to respond to the challenge and thus get led away from the topic; the appropriate response is to redirect the person to the topic, stay focused, and set limits if necessary – for example, “We can talk about the chore schedule tonight at council. Right now, it’s your turn to dig the latrine.” Refusing More intense verbal aggression can take the form of noncompliance, a refusal that indicates the person is beginning to lose rationality and self-control – “I ain’t digging no fucking latrine.” It is obvious that a peacemaker cannot force the person to dig the latrine; I suppose you could beat the person with a shovel until she gives in, but that is not productive in the long run, and certainly not consistent with a peacemaking respect for the other person’s welfare and safety. Rather, an appropriate response here is to set limits, to make clear what choices the person has and what the consequences are for each choice. Setting limits, as every parent knows, is an art in itself, but a general rule is that consequences must be clear, reasonable, and enforceable: a person who is losing rationality is not about to process complex or multiple choices. If a person is getting too loud, sometimes it is enough to point out that the noise is disturbing others. Giving the disruptive person clear and simple choices is a way of respecting that person’s autonomy, of affirming the person’s ability to choose the consequences of his or her behavior. One advantage of the wilderness as a teacher is that consequences are often the immediate, tangible, and natural result of the refusal. If you don’t put up your tarp in the rain, you get wet. If you don’t cook dinner, you don’t eat. If you don’t carry your share of the load, you lose the respect of the group. There is no one you can blame. Venting With the further loss of rationality and control; the stressed-out person vents – screams, curses, shouts, and generally provides a lot of high-energy output. The appropriate response is to allow the venting to continue; it may run out of steam fairly quickly, and, in any event, the more energy the stressed-out person uses up in venting, the less energy is left for a physical attack. During lulls in the venting, the peacemaker can set clear nonthreatening limits – for example, “If you want to talk to me about this, you’ll have to speak more slowly.”9 Most important, the peacemaker can listen for messages that may come out while the person lets down his or her guard in order to vent. A stressed-out person who shouts “You idiot! You’re just like my father! You think you know everything!” is giving a pretty useful clue as to what is really going on. Inciting In some situations, the person will seek to enlist the support of other members of the group – for example, “I can’t believe this shit! This guy doesn’t know what the fuck he’s doing! He’s going to get us all killed! Are you going to put up with this shit?” Thus, an appropriate response begins by isolating the person in crisis from others in the group. This may take some doing. One of the other group leaders may gather the audience together and walk them away. Sometimes the same result can be achieved just by walking slowly backwards; the person venting may be so eager to stay in your face that he or she simply follows you away from the group. Without an audience, the person may switch to another form of verbal aggression, or just start running out of steam. Without an audience, too, the stressed-out person may feel less need to remain combative in order to save face. Intimidating The most intense level of out-of-control verbal behavior is intimidation, which can pass readily into a physical attack – not even necessarily from its intensity, but because, after threats, the stressed-out person may think that anything short of a physical attack would be peceived as backing down. Intimidation consists of threats that are either personal, such as “I’m going to kill you. I know where your family lives,” or professional, such as “I’m going to get you fired, you creep. I’m going to tell everyone you touched me.” Intimidation must be taken very seriously. It is important to ask for help; a second peacemaker can help defuse the situation, allow the threatened intervenor to maintain some professional distance, be ready to assist with nonviolent physical intervention if the verbal intimidation passes into a physical attack, and be a witness later on as to what was said and what took place. The threatened peacemaker can pass command of the situation to the second peacemaker – “John seems really mad at me right now. Would you like to talk with him?” Finally, it is important that any incident of verbally threatening or intimidating behavior be fully documented. Collapse When the verbal aggression ends, the stressed-out person may experience a sudden and drastic drop in physical and emotional energy. The person returns to rationality. As we briefly discussed above, the person who has passed through crisis may be exhausted, remorseful, embarrassed, or fearful of consequences. This is the opportunity to reestablish communication with the person; this is where the real peacemaking can occur. This stage of tension reduction after verbal aggression is the same as the collapse after a physical attack, and we will discuss it further in the next section. Notes 9 You should be alert to the fact that a response such as “Well, fuck it, then, I ain’t talking to you” may in fact represent a reduction in verbal intensity and indicates some return of rationality and self-control that you can work with. | ||
Back to the top
      
| ||
