To Engage or Disengage
November 19th, 2009
My clog-wearing friend, Cricket, lives on the fourth floor of a walk-up with marble, uncarpeted stairs. The other day she reached the bottom of the stairwell only to discover that she had left something in her apartment. She turned around, ran back upstairs, grabbed what she needed and ran down the steps again. This time, though, a neighbor she’d never met who lives at the bottom of the stairs greeted her angrily.
“You always do this!” fumed her neighbor, clearly expressing pent up frustration about my friend’s loud clomping. Cricket stopped in her tracks, turned to the neighbor and replied in earnest, “Forget things… I know. I hate it, too.” And out the door she went.
I love this story for many reasons. I’m inspired by and envious of Cricket’s presence of mind in that moment. She did not take on any of her neighbor’s upset, diffused the situation with humor, and continued on with her day. She disengaged from the rage.
I also feel compassion for the neighbor. It’s clear she had been feeling this anger for quite some time yet had not expressed it to my friend. Whether her explosion really did have to do with the clog stomping or was about something else entirely we’ll never know.
For me, there are two profound lessons about self-care in this story:
Lesson 1: Disengage from the rage
Cricket’s choice to disengage from her neighbor’s rage is a great example of self-care. She decided not to take the outburst personally. Much easier said than done, especially when it involves family and friends, the fact remains – you always have a choice: to engage or disengage with the rage. Whether you choose to disengage by using humor, remove yourself from the situation, and/or or set healthy boundaries in the moment or after the person has calmed down, then you are choosing personal power and freedom. If you choose to engage, then you are choosing to mirror whatever is being thrown at you, be it drama, anger, upset, etc.
Lesson 2: Own your 100%
Technically speaking, Cricket owned her 100% by taking personal responsibility for her forgetfulness. On the other hand, the neighbor never owned her part. The level of upset the neighbor demonstrated was not congruous with Cricket’s action. Or, said another way, the punishment didn’t fit the crime. One might argue that perhaps my friend was being inconsiderate. After all she does live in a brownstone with several tenants and listening to wooden clogs pounding on each marble step could be quite annoying. However, the neighbor’s reaction was likely a result of having not expressed herself prior to this moment. Not owning her 100%. Because she did not take care of herself from the beginning, this “annoyance” turned into “rage”.
When rage is present, it has to do with the past. It’s an indication, a trigger, that there is unfinished business lingering that may or may not have anything to do with the present situation. It’s a sign that somewhere along the line we did not take care of ourselves; we did not express ourselves authentically and now we are paying for it.
So I ask you, with whom do you have an opportunity express yourself honestly before the annoyance turns into rage? How can you acknowledge and own your 100%? What do you feel are the potential benefits of this action? How willing are you to do take these steps?
Today I invite you to own your 100%, to take care of your needs in the moment, and to disengage from that which is not yours. And above all, try your best to find the humor in all of it.
While I think there is wisdom in the lessons you have drawn out of this story, I can’t help but wonder whether “Cricket” has really “owned her 100%.” She fails to acknowledge to the enraged neighbor that it is her noisy clomping up and down stairs that is the irritation and source of the complaint… not the forgetfulness. You have given Cricket the benefit of interpreting her behavior as having defused the situation with humor. But, it seems to me one could equally see her as having been no more successful as expressing herself authentically than the neighbor. That said, thanks for posting this. One way or the other, I think I got the deeper points you’ve made.
Hi John – Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I hear your point and can appreciate that at the core, it’s true, Cricket did not acknowledge or take responsibility for the neighbor’s upset or any part she may have had in contributing to it. The 100% responsibility (“RESPONSE-ABILITY”) Cricket did take, though, was removing herself from this situation because she knew the level of rage ultimately did not have to do with her. Instead of engaging with the neighbor’s anger – which, to my original point probably had more to do with the neighbor’s lack of self-care regarding this situation in the past than Cricket and her clogs in the present – she chose to respond with levity and leave. This was her 100% “ability to respond” and take care of herself in the moment. Perhaps the bigger point is that there are several aspects of 100% in each scenario. Using this example with Cricket, I outlined one of them. Fair?