Moving beyond defensiveness during conflict

Different people react to perceived attack or threat in different ways, but the most common reaction is one of defensiveness: fight, flight, or play dead. This reaction occurs before the message of threat has time to get to the neo-cortex in our brains and to facilitate the beginning of awareness and conscious choice.  Before we can make a rational evaluation of the threat and choose an appropriate response our defensive system has already triggered us into instinctive defensive reaction. Since our instinctive mechanism for responding to threat cannot tell the difference between a threat to our physical self and a threat to our psychological self, the reaction is very often incommensurate; what we might call over-the-top and often triggers further escalatory or unproductive responses from our opponents.  Decommissioning our defence mechanisms is not a very good idea even if we could do it easily. We need to protect ourselves but we also need to avoid or counteract the damage an inappropriate response can cause.

Sometimes when we react instinctually to perceived threat we realise later - too late - that we overreacted and exacerbated the situation and thereby triggered an escalatory conflict. We may blame ourselves for our own defensiveness or else be mystified as to why we had such a strong reaction. Even more damaging, if we don't realise, even after the event, that we have over-reacted, we may have no awareness of the impact of our actions on others. The earlier we can become aware of our defensive reactions and their impact the better and we need to stop judging ourselves for our lack of awareness.

It is not uncommon where there is friction or conflict for one person to accuse the other of being defensive, as if this was somehow an abnormality or a failing of some sort. For me this is as daft and as useful as accusing someone of being hungry.  Understood in the sense described in the first paragraph, we do not have a choice about being defensive.  The accusation may have the intention of alerting us to our state of defensiveness but it is more likely to trigger even more defensiveness, as the natural tendency is to defend oneself when accused, especially when one has no consciousness of wrong-doing, as is the case with pre-conscious defensive reactions. By definition these are below the level of consciousness to begin with. A compassionate and inquiring question is more likely to serve the much needed requirement to raise awareness of defensive behaviour, without insinuating that one is somehow less valued or wrong for being so.

The way our bodies are designed to instinctively leap into defensive reaction in the face of threat before we have had time to consider the situation is a powerful and highly effective survival mechanism, which has served us well as a species.  However, it can also be a liability when our survival is not threatened, i.e. when the threat is psychological and a more subtle and a commensurate response is required.  A fight, flight or play dead response is not the most advantageous when you are insulted or someone takes advantage of you in a social situation. Yet our bodies can leap into defensive reaction as if our very survival was at stake. Such defensive over-reaction tends make a difficult situation even worse and may damage the relationship or lead to breakdown if the relationship is not strong enough to contain the fallout from the defensive reaction. We need to find ways of overcoming this "design fault" if we are to effectively deal with friction and conflict and have productive relationships with others.

The key to overcoming this "design fault" is awareness; awareness of our defensiveness and, more particularly, of our emotion and choices, which are critical parts of the process that get skipped over when our bodies take the survival shortcut of instantaneous defensive reaction. Early recognition of our defensive behaviour enables us to re-evaluate the level of threat we face, to consider whether our survival is indeed under threat or, if not, to step down the level of alarm and readiness to leap into action.  Stepping down our emergency alarm system allows us to pay closer attention to and to process our emotional responses that drive our actions. Awareness and processing of our emotions can help us to clarify our needs, values and beliefs and in particular to identify the psychological threat that triggered the defensive reaction.  It may be our identity, interests or reputation that have been threatened, our values that have been violated or our desires blocked.  The clarity that arises out of such processing will enable us to choose a more commensurate and effective response to the perceived threat than the defensive fight, flight, play dead options.

For some the defensiveness will be experienced as being stunned or paralysed by an attack and they will find it difficult to find words or indeed any other response other than silence, along with the realisation that they have taken a hit but not quite sure what it is that has been hit. Attention may be locked on the attacker in fear or alertness against another attack. Or they may experience a sense of foreboding and a determination to save face and not become exposed to further attack by freezing, withdrawing or not responding.  To the onlooker, it may seem like they are in denial that an attack or violation has taken place, they are not engaging, not standing up for themselves and are steering clear of eye contact or any other kind of contact for that matter. It can look like accommodation, compliance or capitulation.

For others the defensiveness will be experienced as an attack on the source of the threat. Attacks don't look like defensiveness as we usually understand the term but that is what they very often are. The attacker will seem like they are getting their retaliation in first, like they are attempting to dominate, control or neutralise the source of threat through aggression, shouting directions at the other, critical attack, blaming, judgement, and so on,  - anything that will relieve the tension and pressure which the threat stimulates. It often appears to observers like gaining power over the opponent and forcing or coercing them. It is easy to forget that the attack is essentially defensive behaviour and therefore to fail to search for the emotional state and what is being protected or what has been violated. 

On the receiving end of such defensive aggression it is easy to frame oneself as victim of an unprovoked attack with no part in or responsibility for triggering, however unintentionally, the aggressive behaviour.  Framing attack as defensive behaviour implies that a threat exists in the perception of one's opponent and that it is possible, or even likely, that you are seen as the source and a trigger for your opponent's defensive attack.  Such framing generates a more compassionate and inquiring stance rather than the more common retaliatory or defensive response.

For yet others defensive reaction will be experienced as a compelling drive to be somewhere else, which is enacted through denial, deflection, distraction, removal of oneself from proximity or contact with the source of the threat with immediate effect.  "I'm out of here, escape, get me out of this conversation, relationship or situation to the safety of somewhere else - anywhere else - now or better still, yesterday".  Like the fight defence there is a sense of active engagement in one's defence but unlike the fight defence there is no attempt to dominate or control the other.

This flight strategy is more one of avoid, dodge, hide, pretend, be indirect in order to deflect or minimise the threat and distance oneself from it. It is different from the play dead strategy in that it is highly active rather than compliant and submissive; at best it pretends to be submissive while it executes escape. Flight may take a physical, emotional or mental form e.g. avoiding the conflict or the person, hiding/feigning emotion or escaping into jocularity to deflect when contentious issues are imminent or attack has taken place, changing the subject or direction of the conversation, and so on.

We tend to use one of these defence mechanisms predominantly while only occasionally using the others and this tends to contribute to our personality - the way that others see us.  The intentional rather than unconscious use of these various strategies forms the basis of various models of conflict resolution - the most notable being Thomas-Killman, with his competing, avoiding and accommodating styles.  However, even for people who are aware of these different behavioural options much of their use of them at critical moments during conflict is far from intentional. It is often much more compulsive and unconscious, usually with the effect of damaging their relationships and impeding the achievement of their goals. 

To be able to sustain intentional use of such behavioural strategies and interventions during conflict requires that we begin to understand what is being defended - what needs protecting - so we can be more conscious, effective and commensurate in looking after what is important to us and our opponents.  Unconscious defensive reactions are too generalised and it is only by learning to process our emotion, discovering the meaning behind them and choosing the actions most likely to realise the needs, values and expectations of all sides that we can avoid emotional hijack and the more destructive effects of defensive behaviour.

With practice we can learn to recover our consciousness quickly in the face of threats and to recognise our defensive behaviour.  The proverbial counting to ten - playing for time to recover from shock and unconscious behaviour - is a critical skill as it allows us to re-evaluate the threat and process our emotions. Creating space works equally well in this regard. Mentally taking a step backward (creating space) or even physically doing so reduces the threat as perceived by our opponents and the intensity and immediacy of our urge to launch into defensive action.  However, we also need the help, goodwill and tolerance of those around us to aid early recognition of our defensive behaviour.  If we can remember to ask their assistance we are more likely to get it in a compassionate rather than an adversarial manner.

As we process our emotions and discover more of what we are protecting and the vulnerabilities we are defending, the less likely it is that we will be taken by surprise by our defensive reactions. This will also enable us to be more conscious and transparent in protecting our interests, fulfilling our needs, upholding our values and evaluating how realistic our beliefs and expectations are. We will recover more quickly from unconsciousness of our defensive behaviour as we strengthen our self-awareness and identity, become more confident and competent in fulfilling our needs and protecting our interests.

In addition to awareness we need to have acceptance and compassion for our defensive reactions. To the extent that we can have compassion for our own defensive reactions we can have compassion toward others' instinctual behaviour, and therefore the more effective we become in facing conflict. The more compassion we show toward ourselves for our defensive responses the less we are shamed by them and the more freedom we experience in engaging openly, appropriately and effectively to perceived threats.