In Good Hands

 

Having recently had experience of the health system myself, I was interested to see a conversation on social media in which an articulate commenter responded to complaints about long delays in patient waiting time and frustrations regarding channelling, with some realism: 

‘Man everyone hates our doctors. All your arguments are very superficial. It’s not the doctors’ fault - it’s the system. We have a ratio of 1800 patients to 1 doctor in this country. While in developed countries it’s about 400 patients for 1 doctor and in those countries the wait is still about 30 minutes. [By that reckoning] the ratios and the wait time here should be 2.25 hrs per patient. 

So if a patient needs to see a doctor, our doctors need to see more patients per day than in the more 'developed' countries.

Simple maths here. The doctors' time is more valuable than the patients’ time. Hence you have no option but to wait. If you don't want to wait, go to Cuba: 166 patients per doctor.

Our doctors and nurses are working in a broken system, in which our healthcare system only works because of their dedication.

Therefore I think you should practise some patience next time’. 

The commenter here makes a pun on the quality of ‘patience’ being a requirement of ‘patients’ in the health care system, in this country. It is also clear that, in the context of the current Corona Virus scare, with countries shutting down to protect themselves from immigrants who might place their own citizens at risk, and the stronger enforcement of visa restrictions generally, in the past 18 months, it is simply not realistic for most people to ‘move to Cuba’ or any other country where the odds are more greatly in their own favour. 

We can’t move, so we have to fix it. Are we in fact dealing with a totally broken system? 

I checked these statements with some practising doctors and was told: 

‘It’s true [so-called developed countries]  have lots of facilities. 

But the crowd clearance done by our team here is unimaginable to western doctors.’

To this statement was added: 

‘This comes with a lack of some quality of care and pleasantries.’

One of the striking contrasts between an experience of seeking medical assistance in this country and others is that there are no regulations on how many patients a doctor can see within each day. Doctors can see hundreds of people during long consulting sessions, and sometimes do not end their working days till 3 in the morning. 

They also work simultaneously in several hospitals, so they go from one set of consulting rooms to another each day, offering their skills to a wide range of patients. This is the dedication the initial commenting friend referred to. But the high volume of patient processing is often seen by the frustrated, unwell public as being monetarily motivated. 

Doctors study for years to qualify, and specialize, and from their point of view they get paid at a relatively low rate in the public health system. They are also human beings, who need sleep and food to perform their tasks at optimal levels of functionality. Doctors here sometimes get served sandwich meals during consultation hours, while patients are consulting them, because they cannot take time off for lunch or a break in a 15 or 17 hour working day. 

These hours are standard in the corporate world, but in the health care profession the clients’ lives are on the line, and at risk. 

The long hours of work performed by doctors also inevitably come at times with a lack of attention and care which can cost a patient their life. Doctors who are overworked and focused on ‘crowd clearing’ don’t often pursue further tests if the patient does not ask for them, for example. They simply do not have the time or the energy to persist in further diagnosis when there are further patients to see and clear. 

And sometimes, in this risk-prone scenario, patients get misdiagnosed, increasing their suffering and leading to their untimely death. Then the grieving families are told ‘It is fate. His/her time was up’. 

‘That happens in both settings’, say the doctors with whom I checked these facts. But it would be more likely to happen here, I suggest, given the ratios discussed in Sri Lanka. 

In other countries, the duty of care is more clearly mandated, because doctors are limited by legislation in the number of patients they are permitted to see each day, and they are required to spend a certain amount of time in each consulting session with each patient. This enables the taking of a proper detailed medical history and more than just a superficial diagnosis of each patient’s condition. 

Human beings in the caring professions are not robots. Quality control in a mass production scenario in a factory for example only works when dealing with material goods. Wellness encompasses not just biology but emotional and subjective factors as well, including the vulnerable patient’s trust and faith in their professional health practitioners and their country’s overall support system. The sheer weight of numbers as outlined above, in doctor/patient ratios in this country means that the odds are stacked against a patient getting excellent and supportive, humane care in what is described as ‘a broken system’. 

In this scenario, survivalism necessitates that word of mouth recommendation regarding the best doctors is essential for patients, and we see this happening on chat groups in social media every day. We also see people being warned not to go to some doctors with whom patients have had negative experiences. Some of these conversations are quite damaging to the professional reputation of the practitioners concerned. 

Attitudes towards doctors are often polarized, because their influence in our lives is so significant. Many people revere the excellent physicians they have encountered - almost to the point of idolatry. But there is also a tendency for doctors to be reviled, when things go wrong. Professionalism is not easy to maintain in a system which is so challenging for both overworked health practitioners and numerous unwell patients. 

This is not a litigious culture yet, as the processes of the legal system are so tortuous and expensive that many potential plaintiffs are discouraged from charging doctors with negligence or malpractice. Frustrated in that path of remedy, people’s discontent and envy of doctors’ personal wealth is easily spiked - nothing makes people so likely to make venomous assumptions about people as a feeling of personal helplessness and powerlessness in relation to themselves.

What is the solution? We see those who can afford to prioritize their health care getting their surgical procedures done in other countries. For the vast majority, not only ‘patience’ is needed to navigate this system, but persistence, and a determination not to be resigned or mindlessly accepting of what any doctor says, given awareness of the system in which they are operating. 

We must have a vigilant degree of awareness of our own condition, and our family and genetic history. Research it, with all the resources available to us. Question what the doctor says, if it does not make sense. My own advice is: If you are still in pain or distress even if you have been ‘treated’, ask for further tests. You have a duty of care towards yourself. Your life is important, and your quality of life is in your own hands. 

The best health care is one in which the patient collaborates with the medical practitioner, and does not just passively accept what they are told. Developing that awareness and exercising our rights - and by doing so fulfilling our personal duty of care - is the best investment in ourselves that we can make. 

Informed Consent

 

There were 3 topics our parents and grandparents told us that people did not speak of, in the civilized society of yesteryear: money, sex and politics. And now they are the 3 most discussed topics in the world, everywhere, at any given time!

Openly discussing what has not traditionally been spoken about is disruptive, and sometimes dangerous. Yet it is more dangerous, in many ways, for us to act in ignorance, unawareness, and in the absence of accurate information that could affect our decisions. 

The decisions which we think affect us directly, and shape our lives most profoundly, are usually simple to identify: they are the ones we pray about. We go to a place of worship to ask for blessing and enlightenment about forces we may not understand, to clarify our way forward. We consult our family, friends and mentors, and our doctors, lawyers and astrologers. But I suggest at this juncture that we need to not only ask the advice of those we trust: we need to ask direct questions, and engage in self-learning on these issues, understanding that our significant choices shape our lives, for better or worse. 

So caught up are human beings in the daily processes of our personal and professional lives that we sometimes do not have the time - or take the time - to educate ourselves about the society in which we live: its structures, and the laws by which our conduct is governed, monitored, disciplined and judged. 

Very few young people are taught from a young age how to manage money: how to balance a personal budget, and how to save money, and accumulate wealth. Banks and lending institutions offer them credit and loans at high interest rates, and  those people without a knowledge of the system in which they are operating can get caught in spiralling and stressful debt traps. 

In most conservative and traditional society, sex education was not taught, beyond a biological diagram of the human body and a focus on the reproductive system. Very little explanation was ever given about the practical information relating to the emotional and social contexts in which people actually have intimate relationships with others. If these connections are not made, young people act in ignorance, and in a state of vulnerability. They can be manipulated, and taken advantage of, and they are at risk, because of their ignorance. 

Their consent is given, but it is not really informed consent, because they are not aware of the alternatives to the choices they make, or the outcomes that could result. They are not able in such a situation to make the best choice, in their own interest, even when given the choice. 

Politics is something many people talk about, but do not actually participate in. Many voters in many participatory democracies do not actually know their own rights and responsibilities under the electoral system they live in. We all offer our opinions, about whether we ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ a particular candidate, but often we do not actually know the truth of the facts on which our opinions are based. We often believe what we are told, and what we are shown. 

Some of us do not vote, some vote foolishly, or cynically, some vote out of loyalty - blind or bought. But we live with the choices we make - and do not make. Because a bad choice, an unwise choice or a non-choice also counts in the reckoning of an outcome. 

To question these aspects of life takes time and energy, and a wish to be truly informed, as well as the skill to engage in critical thought. Often we make choices in our political lives as citizens much less seriously and thoughtfully than we do the choices in our professional or personal lives; and yet the consequences of these choices are powerful and significant. They make the difference between survival and fulfillment; between lesser or greater choice and happiness. 

This is a crucial question time for us. What sort of individual financial resources can each of us build? What sort of personal relationships do we want to create, to sustain our happiness? What political choices do we make, in supporting the people we choose to lead us, and whom we will empower through our votes in the upcoming election, to design the structure of our society? 

Every one of us has to take personal responsibility at some point in our lives, and cease to blame our parents, our elders or the ‘authorities in charge’ for those issues which negatively affect us, and which we can change. 

We act in ignorance of these basic facts at our own risk. Mindfulness, self-evaluation, and self-education, in relation to the three ‘impolite’ topics will help us personally act for not only our own well-being, but that of those we are connected with. 

Our consent should be fully informed consent, to be worth its exercise. 

Bright Lights

 

This is the time of year, as we clear our desks for the holidays, when we look back and make lists of goals achieved and resolutions for the year ahead. It’s also when we see lists being announced of the achievers of the year - the beauty queens and kings, the record-breaking athletes and the trail-blazing people to watch.

Image Courtesy: purplesoul.blog

In a dark sky, stars shine more brightly. 2019 has been a momentous year for Sri Lanka. The shock of the Easter Attacks, the subsequent rise in hate speech in the community, and the political tensions leading up to the recent election, have been challenging to navigate. Amidst all this, we have each had our own projects to wrap up and deadlines to meet.

We are acutely aware in these circumstances of what encourages us and gives us hope in the future. Thinking back on the whole panorama, I want to note the people whose work and existence have brought inspiration to me, in this hard year. They come from a diverse range of backgrounds, and work in different fields, and each is an individual who sees a bigger picture than their own concerns. Thus, everything they do adds value to the world they live in and the lives of those they impact.

I am inspired by the visual art of Anoma Wijewardene, which draws our attention to the climate crisis and our human frailty; the sculptures, paintings and poetry of Asela Abeywardene, symbolically showcasing our human condition; the prehistoric pencil drawings of Vasika Uduruwane, who also specializes in bicep selfies and dramatic arcs in poetry; Kaviru Samarawickrama’s sassy, sensory performance poetry; the skilled and enlightened precision of the writing of Ramya Jirasinghe; the genius, patience and constant encouragement of Ishan de Lanerolle as Choir Director and vocal coach, the bright, forceful beauty of Kumudini Perera’s resounding voice in song, and her impassioned commitment to social justice for children and the vulnerable; the exuberant, dramatic collaborations of Jehan Aloysius; the innovative theatrical vision of Tracy Holsinger; the empathy and social sensitivity of the actress Mayanthi de Silva; and the humanitarian perspective and urgent articulacy of the poet Haala Marikar.

I am encouraged by the generous dedication of the educator Samantha De S. Wijeyeratne; the bridge-building academic work of Madhubhashini Dissanayake Ratnayake; the multiple access points of critical and poetic openness of Vivimarie Van Der Poorten; and the commitment, flair and experience of the corporate trainers Nirmali and Shyam Hettiaraachi, Kumar de Silva and Angela Seneviratne, who support and refine the skills of upcoming members of our thriving business world, with insight, experience and finesse.

I am dazzled by the creative development, affirmative mentoring and self-renewal of Linda Speldewinde, whose vision built the amazing Innovation Tower this year; the exciting expansion of the entrepreneurial enterprise of Melissa Dharmadasa, who created a lifestyle brand that made cafe culture part of a new Belle Époque in Colombo; the sharp, insightful video photography and camera work of Don Isuru Epasinghe, who shows us the wonders and struggles around us with a clear and compassionate lens; and the social awareness of Natasha Rathnayake, who entertains with vibrant song and showstopping performance, and whose telling words via social media make us positively re-evaluate the life choices by which we shape our lives.

I am informed by the objectivity, good judgment, intellectual generosity and fact-based, journalistic professionalism of the media writers, editors and commentators Smriti Daniel, Adilah Ismail, Marianne David, Aisha Nazim, Kris Thomas, Munza Mushtaq and Thulasi Muttulingam; and the essential historical contextual knowledge of DBS Deyaraj. The news stories and articles all of them write add layers and depth to what we think about each other and urge us to be accountable in how we treat each other, and allow ourselves to be treated.

I am educated by the civil consciousness and integrity of Raisa Wickrematunge, Malathy Knight of Verite Research, the big ideas and bold pictures of Natalie Soysa the inspired photographer and writer, the sharp insights offered in informed discussions about gender equity conducted by Sharanya Sekaram of Bakamoono and Grassrooted, the challenging perspectives into socio-economic access and educational justice given by Kavindya Thennakoon, and the strong and abiding commitment to female empowerment of Shameela Yoosuf Ali, Founder of FemAsia Magazine - all of whose work bring into the cultural conversation the voices of the often marginalized, and highlight the need for continuing education to raise awareness of diversity and inclusiveness in a pluralist society.

I am challenged by the colourful clarity of Aritha Wickremesinghe, who uses his extensive knowledge of law and justice to raise issues which expand the idea of the range of what is socially acceptable, via the reasoned arguments he makes on social media, and his willingness to engage in difficult public conversations.

I am nourished by the strong moral compass and practical wisdom of Oshitha Narangoda, who mindfully engages in spiritual and philosophical discussions on FB and IG, and also dazzlingly embodies characters in intricately costumed cosplay; the open-minded realism, sincerity and integrity of Ayesha Ratnayake; and the honesty, engagement and articulacy of Nadeesha Paulis, who shows us how to live a more environmentally-conscious and wholistic life, and brings to us the benefits and joy of plant-based diet via her Instagram story.

I am prompted by the generosity of Koluu Ranawake, who urges us to live our best life, cheers everyone up with a quote of the day every day on FB, and a weekly column which holds a mirror to the way we live; Ramya Weerakoon with her halo of bright hair, whose entrepreneurial energy powers industries and aircraft; and Sarrah Sammoon, who has created a dynamic and evolving literary circle, and opens Sri Lankan enterprise and the world of international business to each other daily, in her work.

I am relieved by the brilliant You Tube talk show ‘Shhh!’ (Talk About Taboos) created by Shanuki de Alwis and Shifani Reffai, which has opened up crucial issues for discussion this year that our society until now has often shut down. The conversations started on this platform are positively transforming the way we think about a variety of issues that affect our citizens. I am impressed by the social articulacy of Grace Wickremasinghe, who hosts poets and voice artists in open mic events at various cafes; Eesha Coswatte, who raises a fierce and humorous amplifier to the issues of the day on her FB page; and Lilanka Botejue, and Cassendra Doole, who expand our vision of what citizens of the world sound like, with their pointed comments and revelatory opinions on social media.

I am impressed by medical doctors Pathum Kerner and Lawanya Wijesekara who not only heal the afflicted, but also create projects which help clean the environment, and create literary work which makes us question and want to participate.

I am upheld by the work of Nivendra Uduman, the clinical psychologist, who teaches workshops on identifying those who are struggling, and shows us how to support each other to become more productive and fulfilled; and the musician and composer Rukshan Perera, who has written songs for children which embody social values we would like to see flower in the lives of the future generation, in the ‘Little Minds, Strong Values’ Project.

Image Courtesy: independentbanker.org

Like bright lights, these individuals shine, and as this year ends I honour them for what they do, and thank them with full appreciation for the multi-faceted ways in which they do it. May their presence and their work continue to transform us and enrich our lives, in the years to come!

Fully Guaranteed Future Happiness

 

In a time of uncertainty and disruption, the human wish for stability and continuity becomes urgent. People need to feel that their sacrifices and hard work will bring positive, direct dividends in the future, and that the social structures around them will facilitate and deliver that outcome. This sowing of seeds which will bear fruit in the days to come reflects the operational laws of the natural world, and is true of both creative and destructive acts. Nothing stays still: every day we ourselves through our own choices create the future which we will inhabit. 

The late 20th century has seen rapid change in every way: to such an extent that generational difference means people operate in a completely different value system in the present day than those of the cultural context which formed their predecessors. The danger of short-term  and self-referential thinking, and hasty, desperate, ill-considered action at this juncture is a real danger to the continuity we want. 

The conditions today are different from those of the past: physically, in relation to the climate, and economically, politically and socially too - in lockstep with the mass movements of people through immigration, cultural dislocation and the increase of technology. Industrialization has increased social mobility; and increases aspirations for a better life, abundance and prosperity. We need, desire and feel we deserve better, as our self worth increases. 

When crises occur, the functioning of a system is exposed, the same way our personal coping mechanisms and moral infrastructure are revealed when challenges occur in our individual lives. In our youth, we cannot predict what may happen: events which occur seem random, unforeseeable and often overwhelming. But - ideally - over time, we see patterns in the apparent chaos; we evolve, and our ability to successfully navigate our circumstances increases. In our later years, we look back with understanding that those crises were a prompt to our evolution, and thus a blessing in disguise. 

Those who steer the ship of leadership must think of the future, and equip the younger generation for that future. Short term goals and projects may be newsworthy and personally enriching, but if motivated only by personal ambition, will be ephemeral in effect. As global warming increases, ego-centered benefits will evaporate. 

Wealth and security are not just measured in monetary terms: a functioning economy delivers financial profit; but without moral infrastructure, enshrined in enforceable legislation, the personal security of a country’s citizens will be founded on nothing more than hope. 

The lion centered in the national flag signifies our sovereignty, and stands upright on a field bounded by four golden bo leaves representing foundational moral principles: loving-kindness, friendliness, happiness and equanimity. 

Loving-kindness, decency, recognition of human dignity and goodwill and moral resilience and integrity can flourish in reality only when we can have strong belief in the responsible leadership and good functioning of the social system in which we live. Beliefs that the effort we make as individuals every day generate the prosperity we enjoy and secure continuity for every person’s life, are the index of happiness of a nation. 

For our own investment in our lives as individuals to be meaningful, and to bear the dividends we desire, we must plan for the future. This is equally true of us as a nation. Our younger generation, from all ethnic groups, who are currently expressing their views and opinions on social media, on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, the influencers and thought leaders, could be drafting legislation and enacting policy, and actively creating the world in which they will live, instead of merely responding with verbal outrage, cynicism and despair to the shortfalls in the one they have been born into. 

Responsible leadership now would train and equip the next generation, and increase the choices available to the voting population, instead of perpetuating a mindset of frustration, passivity and helplessness. The energy, articulacy, intelligence, insight and sincere love of country which we see in our younger citizens could then transition into actual responsibility, instead of being relegated to the marginalised status of mere outbursts of reactivity by social media bans and the self-serving ambitions of their elders. 

Education would be accessible, enriched, practical, effective, and goal-oriented. Effective leadership based on realism and foresight would equip the next leaders for the future; and prepare them with skills and awareness to design a country they can not only love, but be entirely proud of: which could be connected profitably to the wider world without fear of losing its sovereignty, autonomy and independence. 

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

I’m fairly sure most people aged 15 to 85 have seen ‘The Lion King’, in some form. Either as the Disney cartoon or on the stage as a musical. And in the jungle, the mighty jungle, young Simba’s worst enemies (apart from his evil Uncle Scar) were the hyenas. Remember them? Banzai, Shenzi and Ed. Scrounging, servile somewhat grovelling creatures, scared of Mufasa, fawning over Scar, but threatening those weaker than themselves. Including, eventually, Scar, after his terrible reign has come to an end and his lies have been exposed. 

It was the hyenas that were sent snapping at the heels of the wildebeest herd, in Scar’s attempt to kill Simba and Mufasa. Apparently, that scene made Arnold Schwarzenegger's young daughter very upset, and the man we know as ‘The Terminator’ reprimanded the producers of the Disney film for that.  

Hyenas are from the same biological species as jackals. And they are - by nature - scavenging poachers, unable to kill for themselves unless in a pack, and preying on the weak and defenceless. It’s easy to see, with these characteristics, why Jackals  have been used by certain practitioners of more effective communication to represent the negative aspects of human beings. 

Challenging Jackal Thinking 

According to Marshall Rosenberg, we are brought up with ‘Jackal’ thinking. And a lot of the social issues we are crippled by - the cruelty, the carelessness, the ego-driven encounters, the bullying, the shaming, the sneering, the criticism, the judgmentalism and lack of empathy all come from this punitive mindset.

Rosenberg says: ‘At an early age, most of us were taught to speak and think Jackal. This... is a way of mentally classifying people into varying shades of good and bad, right and wrong. Ultimately it provokes defensiveness, resistance and counterattack.’

Many of us have observed the rise in hate speech, cyber bullying and word-based violence in our societies in the age of the Internet. The violent words come from an angry and oppositional mindset, and can only be remedied by the opposite: a compassionate, empathic and gentle way of perceiving the self, and others. 

Rosenberg points out the contrast between ‘Jackal’ (quarrelsome, aggressive) thinking and what he calls ‘Giraffe’ (heartbased, empathic) thinking: 

‘The Jackal moves close to the ground. It is so preoccupied with getting its immediate needs met that it cannot see into the future... Jackal-thinking individuals believe that in quickly classifying or analyzing people, they understand them. Unhappy about what’s going on, a Jackal will label the people involved, saying, ‘He’s an idiot’, or ‘She’s bad’, or ‘They’re culturally deprived’. 

We see a great deal of this rapid and vindictive, sneering and dismissive classification of others on social media, and it is this that results in the often toxic atmosphere that is often complained about by participants on Facebook and Twitter platforms. Aggressive and opinionated individuals enjoy posturing and jousting on these public platforms, often venting private issues in public, for momentary relief, which of course then inevitably creates reaction in the person they have insulted. 

This aggressive perspective is based in violence and creates violence in turn. Rosenberg asserts that ‘Jackals... view others as the source of their anger.’ They blame others for failing their demands and expectations, and for hurting their pride, or self-esteem, or desire to look good. They respond by saying ‘things designed to hurt, punish, or blame the person whom (they) imagine has hurt (their) feelings.’ 

The best way to dismantle this destructive dynamic is to respond to affront by going inwards instead of hitting out: by examining our own expectations, through self reflection, and checking to see if they were actually realistic. This requires humility, and the ability to conduct self inquiry: to see more than our own needs and wishes in any encounter. 

This is difficult for human beings. I have only recently begun learning about Non Violent Communication, a practice which recommends that we do not judge and categorize but observe and work with ourselves and others. It seems to me that the compulsive reactivity we are trying to unlearn is ego-based. And ego is what has enabled us to survive. 

A friend and colleague of mine who, after 5 years of conscious practice of NVC, describes herself as an ‘enthusiastic beginner’, says: ‘Jackal is a state of mind that we all experience. When I say, “He makes me so mad,” we are in jackal.  In fact, even when we say, “Your racist remark is unacceptable,” we are also in jackal.  Also, when we say, “That was very thoughtful,” that’s a form of jackal, too.   Another jackal statement might be, “I don’t deserve to be treated this way.”

Can you see why?  #1 is easy because we are blaming somebody else for our feelings.  Nobody can make me feel anything.  

In the sentence #2, years the statement is jackal for two reasons:  a)”racist” is a label, and also the person is assuming that they are qualified to judge the other person’s meaning and intention; b) in saying “your remark is unacceptable,” rather than “I am having trouble accepting your remarks,” the speaker is making the other person wrong and responsible.  The speaker is making the other person’s statement universally wrong, when it may have been “wrong” to the speaker alone.  The speaker is also behaving as if they hold the book on what is acceptable and what is not.

In the sentence #3, “That was very thoughtful,” the speaker is making a positive judgment but a judgment just the same.  They are adopting a parental stance, and they are stating that they are qualified to know who is thoughtful and who is not.  

In the sentence #4, “I don’t deserve this,” once again, the speaker is blaming the other and also playing God.  Nobody knows what anybody deserves in Life.

So all these statements are jackal. But they are common statements that we use every day that carry violence within themselves.   We all have the choice, all the time, between choosing the stance of the jackal and that of the giraffe.’ 

In our attempt to defend ourselves from the perceived and actual attacks of others, we categorize them to try and control and contain the potential damage their actions cause us. This is understandable, but creates and increases potential conflict in the dynamic between us and them, violence which NVC radically seeks to gradually deconstruct and diminish. 

I, having been professionally trained to analyze, critique, assess, evaluate and judge, am learning that in NVC we avoid diagnosis of any kind. This is because the goal is not to classify intellectually which involves separation of self and other, but to heal human communication, and to see ourselves as fellow human beings who are often in states of suffering, discontent and anguish. My friend points out that in NVC, we offer compassion instead of condemnation to the Jackal and also to those we label as ‘unhinged’, or ‘irrational’ or ‘crazed’ or ‘neurotic’. 

In a process of learning non-judgment, we achieve a better state of health and happiness. It takes a lot of energy to criticize and condemn others and ourselves. It’s draining and exhausting and counter-productive. NVC is a way of transforming that energy in a more positive way. 

This healthy state of being which is most effective for human happiness is based on mindfulness, self awareness and a decision to live in harmony with others rather than in the constant, quarrelsome uproar of the ‘Jackal’ state. 

Rosenberg says that this empathic communication is what he terms ‘Giraffe’ thinking, which comes from a high-minded or noble individual, whose mindset is elevated above the survival state of the Jackal:

‘The Giraffe has the largest heart of any land animal, is tall enough to look into the future, and lives its life with gentility and strength... Giraffe bids us to speak from the heart, to talk about what is going on for us - without judging others... Giraffe is a language of requests; Jackal is a language of demands.’ 

Giraffe thinking clearly enables constructive communication, in which both parties can progress and build better understanding. It encourages us to see the fellow human being in distress under the angry and aggressive individual who is acting out in front of us, and to try and help them identify their unmet needs, instead of ranting and raving in a destructive way. 

Understanding the culture in which our collective character has been formed helps a lot in creating remedies for verbal aggression. A people who proudly call themselves the ‘lion race’ often focus on the warlike and powerful nature associated with the lion. Yet the Lion King himself, as Simba’s father Mufasa tells his young son, is fierce and angry ‘only when he has to be... There’s more to being king than getting your own way all the time’. 

Rosenberg points out: ‘In a Jackal culture, feelings and wants are severely punished. People are expected to be docile, subservient to authority, slave like in their reactions, and alienated from their feelings and needs.’ 

This lack of choice and imposition of authority and threat of punishment causes fear and resentment in the responder, rather than respect. And respect for others is based in self respect, and awareness of the effects of our own words and actions. 

When we see the serene faces of the Saints and the Buddha we are seeing the ‘pinbara’ face, which shows that the person is living a blessed life. Free of anger and fear, greed, hatred and delusion. Contrast this serene and joyful Giraffe countenance with that of the snarling Jackal, teeth showing, always ready to attack and scavenge. Which do we wish to be? It is our choice, in every moment. 

If we today want a gentler and more peaceful society, we need to stop praising violent speech and actions, via worshipping the role models we hold up for veneration as idols: movie stars, showoffs, influencers, icons, the super rich, over achievers and pop culture celebrities, and start praising and appreciating empathy and gentleness and courtesy instead. 

In doing so, we will be bringing to life the spiritual teachings of the Buddha himself, who we know and venerate as The Compassionate One.

Review Your Etiquette, Check Your Assumptions.

A ‘To Do’ and ‘Don’t Do’ checklist for people who want to get their books reviewed, by people they do not know.

I am a writer, journalist, editor and reviewer. It says so, on my professional profile. My field of specialty is language and literature.

Yesterday, I received a message via LinkedIn from a person on my professional platform. We had a fascinating discussion. I’m going to remove his name and profile picture and write about our exchange, here, because it is one of the best teaching exercises I have come across in my professional experience as an editor and reviewer.

The background is that he started by saying he wanted ‘to write an article’ on a book he wrote and launched late last year. Did he want me to edit an article he had written? No, he wanted me to write one! The book is huge — 600,000 words long. Could he send an online version of it? No, it only existed in print form.

It had been reviewed at the time it was launched, and had been written up in several papers, apparently. So … to be frank, I did not really understand why he wanted it reviewed again, 10 months later. It was not a second revised edition, was it? No. He said he ‘wanted it to be reviewed periodically’. The question for me remained: did he actually understand the difference between an article and a review? Did he understand that you can’t ask an independent professional to review a 600,000 word book, without checking first if they have any reason to wish to assist you? Was he a friend? No. Was he a colleague? No. Had we ever met or even spoken? No. Was I a specialist in the field he was writing in? No.

Want to know how this little chit chat turned out? I invite you to observe.

 

I opted for the direct approach. In Sri Lanka, many writers ask their friends for endorsements of their work, and while these testimonials are voluntary, and unpaid, they are not unbiased.

I needed to clear the ground.

First things first:

 

He wanted me to write ‘an article’. Did he know that I am a professional writer, journalist, editor and reviewer? Presumably yes, as my possession of these skills was why he had approached me in the first place. BUT. Did he understand that I had a pre-existing professional schedule, with inbuilt deadlines? For other projects? That had nothing to do with him, or his wishes and preferences?

Ah. 😬

 

Boundaries. And this assertion on my part received a surprising response:

 

Facts are facts, correct? It’s usual for an author or a publisher to send a review copy as a courtesy to the reviewer, who is not paid for their time and skill. It’s not an ‘inducement’. It’s a practical solution. If the review is published in a publication which pays the writer of the review, that is excellent. But that is not often the case. This way, the reviewer is given a book to add to their library, as a courtesy, or can choose to return it, if it is not of personal interest to them.

But:

To review a book, a person has to first read it. Right?

Did he expect me to buy the book? All 600,000 words of it? When its subject was not a field of special interest for me? What would I use it for? Furniture? 🤦🏾‍

I wanted to read it, before I reviewed it. Because — what sort of a review would be written by someone who had read only part of the book? But — how long would it take to read a book of that length?

 

At this point, he said all the review copies had been exhausted. He was getting the book widely endorsed, and had already had forewords for the book written by a legion of eminent specialists in the field. So the question arose again:

Why did he need a review in the papers? 10 months after the initial launch?

Clearly to renew interest in the book, as (perhaps) it had not achieved the success he wished? He claimed that everyone in the specialist field in which he worked referred to it, and thought highly of it, so that could not be the case. I received lists of names from him in this conversation of all the people who had praised the book. Many, many names.

So why did he need a review from me, a literature expert. For a work of non fiction?

To reach a wider public. To become known in the community, not just in his field of specialty amongst his peers. To increase the general recognition of his name, as an authority.

A review of an analytical and literary kind, printed in a large circulation print English newspaper, can reach up to 300,000 people in this country. And the people reading such a review would be politicians, corporate leaders, panel experts, organizers of seminars, potential clients, international advisory boards, and so on.

Was he able to openly acknowledge this?

Were the other ‘review’ articles written by people who had not actually read the book?

If so, their opinions were really not worth listening to. Were they? They would have only been able to write about the subject matter, or the themes. Not assess how well the writer had presented his opinions and facts, or his writing style, or his structure. In fact, they would really have written what he had told them to write. 🤨

You don’t ask an independent reviewer to do that. You ask your friends. Because you know they like you.

And then it would not be a review. It would be a promotion. 😐

 

Yes, it was indeed his ‘bad’. A writer wanting his book to be reviewed should have the discernment to choose a reviewer who is specialized in the field, or has enough knowledge to write an article promoting the book for public attention, or recommending it in the public interest. Would he run the risk of this independent reviewer being ‘a journalistic negative critic’? Yes. That’s what objective reviewing is. Weighing up what you are asked to review, and making an assessment that is of some value to readers, not only praising of the author.

 

 

Did he actually understand his own error? Or did he resort to shifting the blame for his disappointment? Was he asleep 😴 or awake? 🧐

 

The ‘problem’ was not that I was ‘not qualified’ to review the book. The ‘problem’ was that he wanted to prevent or discourage me from reviewing it objectively. He wanted only a positive opinion, and he wanted to control that outcome.

What can we learn from this case study of how not to approach someone you don’t personally know, for help?

DO NOT ASSUME THAT PEOPLE EXIST TO BE OF SERVICE TO YOU. THEY DO NOT.

Think before you ask someone to review your book. Do you actually want an unbiased, objective assessment of what you have achieved? Or do you really want a positive marketing endorsement, for promotional purposes?

Be honest with yourself.

Then select the person to approach, according to your honest need. Use the right terminology, when making your request. Try not to insult people when you are asking them to do a favour for you. It is unprofessional.

Be honest with the people you approach. No one wants their time wasted, or their professionalism disrespected.

Golden Opportunities

Like many people, I have been thinking a great deal recently about human nature, and specifically about the opportunism that we are seeing exposed by the stresses placed on our societies by the Covid19 threat, and the ongoing economic and social disruption it has caused.

We hear via social media and community discussion about people taking advantage of vulnerable others in unconscionable ways. People who are elderly, or ill, or lonely, or isolated. One person’s bad luck or misfortune is another person’s golden opportunity.

A lot of it goes unnoticed, in the maelstrom of daily life. The person who says they need to have surgery which is described by then as urgent and necessary, and is given a sizeable loan for that purpose, but who puts the amount in an interest-bearing account instead, and delays the surgery for as long as he can. The person who makes themselves indispensable to an elderly person living on his own, and then persuades him without witnesses present to sign over the land title deeds to his property to her.

People who invite their family and friends to invest in companies from which their life savings and the money they had invested - for their children’s weddings or their education or their own retirement - never emerge again. No accountability, no regulation, no returns. Unrecoverable loss.

The person whose schoolfriends join together to pay her child’s heavy medical bills at a private hospital, and then discover that the child had been moved by her parent to a local hospital instead, and that the person they helped had kept the balance money for herself. The tradesperson who charges a hidden commission on purchases he gets for a homeowner. The trusted bookings agent for a travel company who defrauds his employer by channelling the fees of incoming tourists into an unauthorized bank account set up by himself under a generic name, copying the letterheads and invoice forms of the company he is working for and substituting his own bank account for that of the company - to which, as an employee, he has a legal obligation not to act in a fraudulent way.

Horrified, we hear of people in public positions of authority, entrusted with the care of vulnerable children displaced by war, famine or disaster, trafficking the children they claim to have saved, using the children’s situations of poverty and economic desperation as leverage.

All these incidents show people who, when confronted or exposed, show that they really believe they were simply doing what came naturally to them in the circumstances. There was a gap in knowledge, or awareness, or capability, on the part of someone they knew, or worked for, or had been to school with, or were related to; and they felt entitled to insert themselves into that space and enrich themselves via the other person’s trust, innocence, frailty, generosity or sense of ‘old-fashioned’ honour.

At what point do self interest, sharp thinking and survivalism become exploitation? Not illegal acts, technically, but actually in fact unethical? The classic 1940s film ‘The Third Man’ shows this in a famous scene between two former friends in post war Austria. Orson Welles plays a man called Harry Lime, who is an American business operator working amidst the chaos caused by WW2, selling penicillin to the people via the black market.

When his friend Holly arrives at his request to accept his job offer to join in this enterprise, he discovers that his old buddy has been ‘watering down’ the penicillin he sells, charging higher prices and selling lower grade quality of the stock to ill and impoverished people: not selling the concentrated amounts that would make them well, but, like a predatory drug dealer, callously taking advantage of the great suffering and desperation of the people affected by the recent war. People - including children - had died as a result of the bad quality penicillin sold to them by Harry Lime. The debris of recent bombings lies around the city in which this scene is set:  the ornate public squares are deserted, and beautiful local girls are keeping company with Americans in exchange for silk stockings, high quality chocolate, and small amounts of cash to keep their families alive.

The exposure of Lime’s conduct takes place in the carriage of a Ferris wheel, in a macabre deserted amusement park in Vienna. As the Ferris wheel carriage sways, suspended high in the sky, Lime opens the door and invites Holly to look at the scene below. They themselves are so far up that the people ‘down there’ on the ground below look like dots.

He says to his shocked friend: ‘Victims? You’re being melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving, forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that...
stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you look down there and calculate how many - dots - you could afford to spare? And free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax.’

This is how an exploiter thinks. Whether they delay repaying loans given to them in good faith, or marry someone for money, or for property, or share dividends, or kill them for money, or land title deeds, the person they are extracting resources from ceases to be a human being in their eyes, but becomes a ‘mark’, a target. They look at them and see only how much money they can make from them. And they always say, as Lime does, ‘There’s no proof against me’. Indeed, it may be difficult to prove the crimes of these people, as so much of what they do is covered up, or obscured, or overly reliant on eyewitness reports, or described as ‘hearsay’ or ‘conjecture’ or ‘false accusations’ by the legal defenders they hire with the money they have unethically appropriated.

‘Nobody thinks about human beings,’ asserts Harry Lime, closing the door of the carriage. ‘Governments don’t. Why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat. I talk about the suckers, and the mugs. It’s the same thing. They have their Five Year Plans. And so have I.’

Harry Lime’s self-justifying monologue in this scene is very famous. I believe Orson Welles claimed to have improvised some of it, immersed in character as Harry Lime. The most famous speech, known as ‘the cuckoo clock speech’, takes place as they come back to ground and Lime takes his leave of his former friend, whom he has just, in a brief and menacing sequence, implicitly threatened to kill for knowing too much about his illegal activities, up in the carriage above the desolate city:

‘Don’t be so gloomy ...After all, it’s not that awful. You know what the fellow said - in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.  In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long, Holly.’

Well, well. As young Elizabeth Bennet asked her favourite aunt, in Pride and Prejudice, 200 years ago, where does prudence end, and avarice begin? At what point do we say ‘this is criminal’ when the perpetrators themselves describe it as ‘self help in times of other people’s trouble’?