I had a number of “ah ha” moments.  I clarified my own ideas and moved beyond my emotional reaction to the tweet.  In the process, I became aware of things about my family member’s values that had been completely unknown to me.

This is a statement from an individual who analyzed her outraged disagreement with President Trump’s tweet about protesters.   As a result, she concluded that it was valuable to view a political disagreement as a culture bump – not only because she felt relief from her anger but it also allowed her to have a different kind of conversation with family members with different political views.

Below is her step by step process.   Her words are italicized and in red while the instructions for each of the eight steps are in black.  Notice how her initial fury with President Trump shifts with each culture bump step into a deeper understanding of herself and into a clarification of her own mindset – leading to a new freedom from her initial shock.

          An Analysis of a Culture Bump with President Donald Trump

 The first step is to pinpoint the culture bump– in other words something that catches my attention because it is different from what I would do or say.

  • I thought Trump’s tweeting about people protesting is horrifying for anybody but for the President of the USA to deny the right for people to protest!!!  it is outrageous.

  • Step two is to describe what the other person(s) did or said. 

    Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!  

    Step three is to describe what I did. 

    I read the tweet

    Step four is to list my emotions that I felt at that moment

    Upon reading the tweet, I felt shocked, betrayed, angry, fearful, stupid, confused, and hopeless.  I realized that I had been hopeful based on the meeting between Obama and Trump and this felt like a destruction of that hope.   

    Step five was to find the universal situation. 

    This was really difficult for me for several reasons (1) I am not in the role of leader  – but finally I defined the universal as how a “Leader” responds to people who overtly act out disagreeing with him/her and how that response impacts me.  

    Step six was to describe what I would do or would expect others to do in that universal situation.

    Again, this was a little difficult since I am not the leader but I looked for the same situation with leaders in the past  – and what came to mind immediately was a recollection of  how I felt when George Bush had responded to 9/11 – I felt secure and a part of something bigger than myself.  When I tried to analyze what he had done – he had stood firm and constantly defined the situation in terms of us – we – our.  He also gave a bigger picture – He provided a context for understanding – Again, the focus on we – us – our and that we had ONE response together.  He was very strong in standing up to wrong doing but did not sacrifice clarity.  In short, Bush seemed to me to be bigger than I would be in the situation – his calm and resolve were enormously comforting.   I realized that what really bothered me was the emphasis on blaming  other Americans (in this case the media) rather than focusing on how to resolve the issue.  I really expect my leaders to be “Bigger” than me in responding to problems.  Very interesting!

    Step seven is to list the qualities that I feel that action demonstrates.

    As I think about my ideas listed above regarding George Bush, they mean real leadership skills for me. And when these things are present, I feel secure.  

    Step eight is to ask or think about how those qualities are demonstrated by other people. 

    How do other folks feel secure with a leader?  Do other people expect their leaders to be “Bigger” than themselves?  If so, how would that look?  What kinds of things specifically would be an example?

    Perhaps if those of us (the majority of the American people) have these types of conversations, we would find our common ground again.  Culture Bump is simply an approach for beginning the conversation, providing a way to find our own blind spots rather than pointing them out to one another.

    UPDATE

    I had a conversation with a family member who voted differently than I did.  l didn’t talk about the tweet, but about what I felt were leadership qualities that I want in my leader.   I had a number of “ah ha” moments.  I clarified my own ideas and moved beyond my emotional reaction to the tweet.  In the process, I became aware of things about my family member’s values that had been completely unknown to me. I became aware that we share much of the same basic values while still disagreeing about who we would vote for.  And my family member felt the conversation was empowering and nurturing to our relationship as did I.  Neither of us changed our mind about who we support, but we certainly felt more connected to one another.

Leave A Comment

Please enter your name. Please enter an valid email address. Please enter message.