Guantanamo Bay Strategies in Parenting and Other Relationships

I have mentioned him frequently before in talks and blogs, Reinhard Mey, possibly the foremost German folk-singer and song-writer. In one of his more recent songs "Es ist alles okay in Guantanamo Bay" Mey criticizes a particularly resilient strain of infectious American politics and culture: this is the endless use of the good/evil dichotomy. It is no less American than is McDonald's and, I would argue, it is about as dangerous for your health. Some lines from the song will help illustrate my point:

Wir sagen schwarz ist schwarz und weiss ist weiss
Und wenn wir das so sagen, dann genuegt das als Beweis.

(We say black is black and white is white
And when we say it that way,  that's enough proof)


Another line:

Wir sind die Guten und die anderen sind die Schlechten
So einfach ist das mit den Menschenrechten

(We are the good ones and the others are the bad ones
That's how easy it is with human rights)

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above already this theme is rampant not only in politics but also in American culture in general. Think about how America continues to support capital punishment for example. Or think about the use of oil and gas as primary sources of energy. America widely believes in its natural-given right to do these things. America feels entitled.

One particular area in which I have noticed this paradigm is the area of parenting. Somehow, no matter how much parents in this country swear up and down that they're for democracy and equal rights, when it comes to parenting and child-rearing they will say "this is not a democracy." And they will act the part. When children open their mouths to voice their discontent, adults get impatient, condescending and often outright disrespectful of their children's human rights. Interestingly, these dynamics are often euphemized and excused as necessary parental reactions to transgressions of the child. By labeling the child as "talking back," "disobedient," "out of line," etc., the child is blamed for the conflict. The parent was only "reacting." Parents often forget to ask themselves and their children these very important questions:

How did I contribute to the beginning and escalation of this conflict?

Am I aware of my tone of voice, my body posture, my facial expressions and my use of condescension, sarcasm and irony when I speak to my child?

Have I modelled for my child how it is possible to get underneath aggression without shaming him/her?

Have I asked my child about their need(s) for trust, reassurance, love, etc.?

Am I willing to admit that I don't have all the answers either?


This list is not comprehensive. There are more questions, but all of them carry the same characteristic of humility, empathy and a passion to relate to the child eye-to-eye with a sense of parity and equality. This is precisely the point where Reinhard Mey comes in with his observations about American politics in Guantanamo Bay. Equality between adults and children when it comes to the respectful treatment of children is less than a fiction: it is virtually non-existent. And it is so easy to hide behind phrases like "as a parent it is my task to 'protect' my child." And in the name of protection we talk down to him/her and we make sure that they are simply less than we are.

I remember one particular situation in which a father during a family session treated his 15 year old son disrespectfully with sullenness, angry glances and exaggerations of the son's behavior. When the son finally was able to respond he said: Dude, you're making this really hard! . . .

Can you imagine the father's response? Yes, he flew off the handle. He did not want to be called "dude." In his mind, the father-son script just doesn't allow for such a way to relate to a father. Worse even, however, he could not (and, more importantly, would not) see how his behavior and actions contributed to his son's choice of words. He yelled at his son, put him down and humiliated him and thereby, in my mind, made 100% sure that his son would soon ignore him completely. Why try, right? Parents then often expect me to work with the child, to teach him/her to be more respectful. This is an impossible task, unless I can begin with the insight that parents can be wrong, that their anger and aggression is no more justifiable than their children's and that they, too, need to continually work on their ability to think and speak respectfully to and about others.

The problem with this dichotomous attitude is that it is intent on shaming and hurting: I am good and you're bad. It is never that clear. In fact, in my experience good and bad are almost always evenly distributed in every relationship I have come to know.

This principle also applies to marital relationships, friendships, etc. Unfortunately, very few counselors and similarly few couples have the verbal and communicative skills to uphold this principle and make it work for the relationship. In my own practice, when I sense that one person is shaming another, I stop them and ask them to rephrase what they're going to say (with a keen eye on not accusing, labeling or shaming the other person). But I, too, fail at this and fall back into a dichotomous attitude. It is very easy to side with the angry female (no matter how debasing and aggressive she gets) and to go against the angry male (male anger continues to be seen as worse and more destructive than female anger). We continue to expect males to be stoic in the face of female anger and females to fall apart in the face of male anger.

Right and wrong are by nature ambiguous and deeply intertwined states. This ambiguity and entwinedness holds true within the individual as well as between people. And it is why we must refrain from forcing others into statements that only state one side. We disallow "yeah, but . . . phrases", call them defensive when, in fact, they are more comprehensive and true to a picture of reality (an impossible picture, one that we must reiterate all the time, because our ears and eyes are only trained to see dichotomies). To be sure, such a yea-but-phrase needs to contain the meaning and thrust of the other person. But once a person has done that he/she should be able to continue on to the "but" part.

All speaking while clarifying some things also obscures others. So, in the process of unveiling truth we continually veil it elsewhere. In other words, speaking itself requires trust, from the get-go. Trust that the other means-well, that his/her intent is to understand and be understood. That his/her intent is to come closer to truth without, however, ever claiming that truth has been reached. Human discourse is asymptotic, it only approximates truth. Such is the human condition. Shaming is an intent to suppress this ambiguity in the name of a truth that does not exist. It needs to stop. For in light of a whole nation claiming it has found the truth and is now called to protect it, in light of a nation that has proclaimed its intent on suppressing the voice of the other and the voice of otherness in its own voice, in light of a nation that seeks to reinforce this position by continually dropping bombs and threatening violence and retribution against those who veer from the "truth" what is left? How should the other respond to such repression?

The two images in the front of this essay--dichotomy and the yin and yang--perfectly illustrate the difference between a comprehensive and a dichotomous view. The reason why the yin and yang is not a dichotomy is, of course, the presence of the opposite dots. Can we do this? Can we learn how to be aware of the dot of the other in our own sense of self?