So how did your Thanksgiving go? 8 Post-Election Tips for Holiday Gatherings
Just Checking: Thankful for your Thanksgiving gathering? Or just thankful it’s over? Photo credit: Klaus Nielsen on Pexels
One down, 12 to go. Holidays, that is. Now that my Thanksgiving leftovers have been transformed into enchiladas I wonder, are you thankful for your Thanksgiving gathering? Or just thankful that it’s over?
Like Elmo, I’m just checking in. If you hit some rough patches, or dodged that bullet but are anticipating a rough go at one of the dozen or so holidays we have left between now and Lunar New Year (Bodhi Day, Día de Guadalupe, Hanukkah, Yule, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Three Kings’ Day, Maidyarem, and many more) read on.
“Elmo is just sitting on this rock wondering how your holiday went.” Photo: Jason Moyer, Unsplash
I have an annual tradition of posting holiday gathering advice based on the embodied communication skills I teach. And this year finds us all in a more polarized post-election season than ever. Some of us are grieving, others gloating, and still others collapsed in fear. There’s a particular rawness I’m sensing all around me. What I’ll offer here is an overall mental frame followed by a quick summary of my 7 embodied tips. For those of you that want to nerd out on the deep structure of holiday conversations or their polyvagal implications, take a look at last year’s Dreading Your Kindred post.
A Frame for the whole Enchilada (or Terducken): Intent and Impact Revisited
“But I didn’t mean to. . . “ is often the retort of someone who has unintentionally harmed another. They’ve belatedly realized what they’ve done and feel bad about it, but can’t see how they could have avoided it. The aggrieved person often makes the point that the impact on them is the same whether or not any harm was intended. You may not have intended to step on my foot, but I’m still bruised. Or, you may not have intended to lose control of your car, but I still have a broken leg — or worse. Focusing on intent to the exclusion of impact can create a false equivalency between the person who’s been harmed and the one doing the harm. I’ve heard this sentiment generalized to “Intent doesn’t matter at all; we should ONLY be looking at impact.”
It is true that a person may willfully ignore their impact, or more likely, be so trained to see only those in their own circumstance that they filter out everyone else. If a person continues to speak or act in this unconscious way, it begins to feel as though they are avoiding their responsibility to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. Kai Cheng Thom’s Loving Justice Framework points out that repeat harm-doers may exploit the “I didn’t mean to” excuse to manipulate the system. Particularly for people at the margins who have heard this way too many times, there’s simply no more benefit of the doubt to be given. And for some, the level of harm becomes insurmountable. A glance at social media right now reveals a torrent of messages from queer and trans people, people of color, immigrants and their families spelling out the impact of Trump’s win, the bullying that’s already coming their way, and the legitimate fear they have for their safety. It’s an exhausting flood of pain that cannot be counterbalanced by any amount of positive intention.
For people in this position, any conversation with political opponents may feel futile at best, threatening at worst. And if this is the case, a “Call off” may be in order - that is, choosing not to engage in conversation with those whose votes put them in this situation. As Brené Brown defines it, civil dialogue is “claiming and caring for my identity, needs & beliefs while not degrading yours.” If your upcoming holiday gathering stands to be degrading, that means civil dialogue isn’t possible. Better to step back, spend your holidays with chosen family, care for each others’ identity, needs and beliefs, and let those of us with less to lose move up to a Calling In or Calling On conversation.
Calling Out/In/On/Off Decider Chart
Those of us that find ourselves moving up can benefit from a more nuanced analysis of intent. Election seasons aren’t known for their nuance - quite the opposite. We’ve all been subject to intense depictions of a world of stark and frightening opposites for the past six months or more. And this has trained our perceptions. “If you are repeatedly told that there are deadly snakes populating the local pathways, you are much more likely to mistake an ordinary rope, or a precious string of jewels, for a dangerous snake,” writes DM Gilsdorf, citing a Buddhist koan in What are you Looking at?.
Progressives as a group have had trouble distinguishing the MAGA snake from the rope since the rise of Trump. In their book on White identity development, Being White Today, Shelly Tochluk and Christine Saxman make the point that, during his first administration, “many antiracists looked at every person wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ hat and assumed the person to be a free-range bigot.” They go on to clarify that, while some MAGA hat wearers have retreated into racism, homophobia and other bigoted belief systems, many aren’t yet consciously invested in them. As the boundaries of our public discourse have widened, politicians, media figures and influencers routinely state all sorts of baldfaced intolerance that once would have been disguised as dog-whistles. Leo Ferguson, a Black Jewish man whose work at Jews for Racial and Economic Justice addresses both antisemitism and anti-blackness, put it this way. “This is a stew of confused ideas that have leaked out of right-wing chat rooms and into the public consciousness.” This stew of white nationalist talking points are now floating around to be reheated and served up by true believers and folks who simply haven’t stopped to consider their wider consequences alike.
“many antiracists looked at every person wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ hat and assumed the person to be a free-range bigot.” —Shelly Tochluk & Christine Saxman
As we consider the intent of those rehashing this confusion, Ferguson cautions us to consider both their underlying power and ideology. In a 2022 episode of On the Media entitled Donald Trump, Ye, and the New Old Antisemitism, he illustrated the two ends of this spectrum with two figures who had recently been in the news: basketball player Kyrie Irving, who had promoted an antisemitic film on social media, and far right activist Nick Fuentes, whose power had allowed him to have dinner with Donald Trump. Ferguson’s analysis was that Irving's ill-informed posts espouse antisemitism along with flat-earth and other conspiracy theories, pointing to a shallow, unexamined ideology; whereas Fuentes was working on the well-connected political project of a White Christian ethnostate. Fuentes demonstrated both access to the highest levels of power, and a “deep-seated and well considered ideology.” Note that he has continued to work on this “project" during Trump’s re-election campaign, and afterwards when he coined the viral phrase, “Your body, my choice” in response to pro-choice activism.
The important point for holiday gatherings is that we can distinguish between the intent of the Trump voter who understands that they are working on a white nationalist political project that matches their deeply held beliefs, and those whose beliefs aren’t yet solidified, who may be a single issue voter that hasn’t looked at the full ramifications that they are aligning with. For those of us who are aligned with people likely to get a raw deal in the new administration, or at least aware of them, it can be difficult to understand how people can be so ensconced in their social bubbles that they ignore these situations.
The Chief and Maxwell Smart converse in the Cone of Silence circa 1965. NBC Stock Photo
In fact, “bubble” feels like a misnomer to me as it conjures up a fragile thing made of soap film and surface tension. In actuality, the social “bubble” is quite durable, made of something more like bullet proof glass that functions like the “Cone of Silence” from the old Get Smart spy sitcom. You believe no one outside can hear you, and you pay no attention to them, either. Particularly when a person is both worried about their own future possibilities and inside the echo chamber of the Cone with members of their own “team,” there’s little incentive to look out.
However they got that way, there are in fact a chunk of Trump voters who don’t have a deep-seated and carefully considered ideology, and a smaller chunk who do. Put another way, there’s a group that intends to assert dominance over anyone not conforming to their world view, and a group that doesn't. The first group sees the harm that they will cause and doesn’t care; the second doesn’t see it yet. This distinction matters. I have no reason to believe that a conversation with the Nick Fuenteses of this world would do anything other than raise my blood pressure. But also, I have no verification that my neighbors or relatives who voted the same way as Fuentes share his full belief system. And as Tochluk and Saxman make clear, there’s a decent chance that people whose consciousness isn’t fully developed can mature into a broader understanding of their impact. So I owe it to myself to be curious enough to ask a few questions about intent and listen before sharing my own well-considered beliefs.
I have no verification that my neighbors or relatives who voted the same way as Fuentes share his full belief system
Of course, these folks don’t just array themselves at two ends of the intent spectrum. Human Rights activist Loretta J. Ross suggests in her Calling In the Callout Culture courses that there are three kinds of allies: perfect, potential, and problematic. Her strategy for finding common ground while preserving her own energy and wellbeing is to think of them as three distinct spheres of influence.
Spheres of Influence
The outer circle shares 90% of your beliefs & goals; The next circle shares 75%; The smallest shares 50%
In the 90% sphere are “perfect” allies whose beliefs and goals significantly overlap with yours. There’s no strategic value in spending time trying to convert them to 100% agreement, they’re already on your team! Then, the “potential” allies are the ones with 75% overlap. These folks likely share some common values such as democracy, fairness, or community that form a common intent with you. If you listen for the values in their stories, you’ll be able to highlight how you share an intent to act them out. The 50% folks are the “problematic allies,” and you likely need to have an existing relationship with them to understand how to connect. You may need to choose words carefully to avoid loaded language or jargon that makes them feel like an outsider. To my eyes, another strategic piece of this understanding is discerning how much energy you want to spend in conversation with each. With a 75%-er, it could be worthwhile to stick with the conversation for an extended period; with a 50%-er you may want to highlight a few common values and then ask for a second helping of stuffing. Slow and steady benefits you both.
So, if you’re ready to bring a more nuanced balance of intent and impact to your next holiday gathering, read on for some actionable tips.
The Quick-Start List
If you’re really expecting a dreadful gathering, copy and paste this list somewhere that you can quickly glance at it for a reminder. You’ve got this!
Body Awareness
Deep Listening
Dialogue, not Debate
Compass Navigation
Calling In or On
Notice Defensiveness, Without Judgment
Laugh, Smile & Connect Where you Can
What to Bring to the Gathering
Body Awareness
At the simplest this can be feeling your breath as it passes through your nostrils, or feeling your feet on the floor or legs and back supported by your chair. Then do a body scan. Attuned author Thomas Hübl recommends a “3-Synch” process of scanning your body first for sensations, second for emotions and third for thoughts that are arising. Start doing this throughout your day well before everyone gathers, so that it’s fresh in your mind once you do.
Benefits:
• Counterbalancing the over-mentalization that is so prevalent in our culture allows you to stay present instead of checking out
• Pausing to connect to your body will ground and settle you. And, as Resmaa Menakem says, “Settled bodies settle other bodies.”
• Sensing into your own body makes space for you to attune to the person you’re talking with. It allows you to get an intuitive sense of their feelings so that you can pause and inquire about them.
"Empathy is not an endorsement" — Dylan Marron TED Talk
Deep Listening
Don’t worry about what you’re going to say next, don’t marshall your arguments as the other person is speaking. Instead, listen closely. Notice their body language, facial expressions and energetic ebbs and flows. Ask clarifying questions: “What do you mean?” and “Can you tell me more about that?” Then go beyond that to seek context. Find out why they believe as they do, or why it is so important to them. Notice what emotions arise and clarify those, too: “What made that so upsetting for you?”
Benefits:
• Your common ground isn’t the sticking place, the disparate experiences are. Find out more about them.
• Listening deeply and empathetically makes the speaker feel heard and validated, even when you haven’t agreed with them. Remember, “Empathy is not an endorsement” as Dylan Marron says. Once a person feels heard, they are much more likely to listen to you.
• Hearing all the nuances humanizes the other person. This allows you to realize, in the words of Loretta Ross, “Other peoples’ interior lives are as complicated as yours.”
“Other peoples’ interior lives are as complicated as yours.” — Loretta J. Ross
Dialogue, not Debate
You don’t need to win, simply to exchange ideas. Remember Brené Brown’s definition of Civil Dialogue: “Claiming and caring for my identity, needs and beliefs while not degrading yours.” If any degrading is going on, state that that’s how it feels and you won’t stick around for it — even if you’re a bystander to this conversation.
Benefits:
You haven’t let the moment slide, and your stepping up will show others, including those in your dialogue and any onlookers, that this is possible.
No matter how they react, you have pushed the pause button on their internal monologue. They’ll think about it later, on the way home, or in the shower.
By some estimates, people need to hear a new idea at least six times before they adopt it. Whether your conversation is time number one or number 5, you’ve continued the process.
Compass Navigation
The Compass, from Glenn Singleton’s Courageous Conversations About Race, Corwin, 2021
Use the Compass from Glenn Singleton’s Courageous Conversations About Race to consider where everyone is coming from, yourself included. It’s no use standing in your feelings and lobbing them at someone who is squarely in the opposite corner and firing factoids back at you. Instead, try speaking to them in their own “language” by talking about your thoughts. The same applies to any two quadrants.
Benefits:
• Each of us has thoughts, actions, feelings and beliefs, but we tend to have one or two strong suits that are more comfortable for us. Using the compass helps you understand your own point of view more thoroughly.
• Your point of view is more likely to be heard by others when you say it from their home quadrant.
• Examining your responses all the way around the compass will bring you to a more centered or settled feeling. You don’t lose your strong feelings, beliefs, thoughts or plans, but they don’t have as much charge on your nervous system.
Calling In or On
Loretta J. Ross has used
Call-Ins & Call-Ons with
KKK members.
How tough is your gathering?
I’ve written an entire post on these ideas, so I’ll summarize here: Not everything that deserves to be said is best said in public. Calling someone out in front of the family is a recipe for defensiveness on their part, virtually guaranteeing that they won’t hear the point of what you’re saying — just the accusation. Calling In means that you arrange to speak sometime after the event, in person or by phone. At that point you can explain what was harmful about what they said, or why you disagree, etc. It’s a chance to help the person grow, and it may require multiple conversations.
Calling On can happen during the gathering. You first establish that you care for the person; mention a value they typically live into that you respect; and then point out the gap between that and what they just said or did. You then leave it up to them to do any growing on their own. Loretta J. Ross demonstrates both techniques beautifully in her TED Talk.
Benefits:
• Avoids the immediate defensiveness, grandstanding and performative allyship of a public Call Out.
• Diminishes the likelihood of family factioning by keeping it between two or a few people.
• The cooling off period before a Call In allows a more centered dialogue.
• A Call On reminds the person of their best self, which can be a strong motivator.
Notice Defensiveness — Without Judgment
You may find those physiological defenses coming up in them or yourself. Remember, that’s just the inner tuning fork resonating. It’s not on purpose, and it’s not entirely under anyone’s control. Beating yourself up for your resonance won’t help you move forward, and pointing out their defenses in a judgmental, “There you go again. . . ” way won’t help either. Simply noticing defenses in yourself is the first step to moving past them. Noticing defenses in the other person doesn’t mean you have to pick their baggage up and carry it for them, nor unpack it with them. But, understanding what they are carrying can help you to communicate in a way that won’t further derail the conversation. In fact, the arrival of their physiological defenses means they are approaching their limit, and can be a cue to take a pause and try again later—perhaps with a Call In.
Benefits:
• Taking a nonjudgmental stance with ourselves gets us out of a conflict mindset and makes it easier for us to extend non-judgment towards others.
• Noticing our responses and resonances is the first step to metabolizing and moving past them.
Glimmers of Safety
Along with scanning for signals of danger, our bodies are also constantly on the lookout for signals of safety and belonging. Because our media environment amplifies and monetizes signals of danger, we have no trouble sensing those. By comparison, the signals of safety may be mere glimmers. The good news is that we can learn to sense into them as well. Noticing these glimmers expands our zone of social engagement, meaning that we can tolerate more stress before our fight, flight, fawn or freeze reactions kick in. And this is what has always allowed kindred to weather the disagreeable times. Not by coincidence, the very things we long for when we gather can translate to glimmers of safety: sharing a meal, smiling through the eyes, speaking in a lilting voice, hugs, familiarity and tradition, and of course, laughter.
Go Ahead and laugh.
It’s a Glimmer of Safety for you, and for everyone else. Photo: ViewApart at iStock
So go ahead, have another helping of grandma’s traditional recipe, get a hug from that aunt that believes in you, pick up a baby and babble some lilting nonsense, and find that cousin that makes you laugh. And remember, their intentions may not be as bad as it seems at first glance.
Feeling the need for some coaching to get ready for the next gathering or patch up the last one? I’d love to check in, for real. Click below to schedule.