Bridging Divides podcast: episode three

[On-screen text in the top right, throughout the video: “British Red Cross”]

[Opening Scene: Ambient music begins quietly in the background. Podcast host Sonali Shah, and expert guest Gabrielle Rifkind, are sitting in a podcast studio. There are lots of books, artwork and lamps on the wall in the background, and two white armchairs in the foreground, where Sonali and Gabrielle are sitting. They are talking into microphones and separated by a wooden coffee table. A fast-paced montage of podcast studio shots and clips from later in the episode begins.] 

[On-screen text: “Coming up”.] 

Gabrielle Rifkind (00:00): 

For five minutes, you listen to what they have to say and you agree not to interrupt them. And then they give you that five minutes.  

[Montage: Clips from later in the conversation fade in and out.] 

Gabrielle Rifkind (00:00): 

[Intro clip 2]  

Why would we agree about everything when we've got such different backgrounds?  

[Intro clip 3] 

You kind of learn bad behaviour online and it becomes quite contagious or infectious. 

[Intro clips and ambient backing music end.] 

[On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes.]  

[Intro scene: Podcast Host Sonali Shah sits in the studio, speaking directly to camera.] 

[On screen text: Sonali Shah, Podcast Host, Bridging Divides] 

Sonali Shah (00:21): 

I am Sonali and this is Bridging Divides, a podcast series from the British Red Cross exploring why we feel so divided, and what we can actually do to change this. From broadening your own view to navigating emotionally charged family arguments, bridge building starts with each of us.  

[Intro scene ends] 

[On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes.] 

[Main conversation: Cut to two-person studio setup. Sonali and Gabrielle sit facing each other. The rest of the episode is a conversation between Sonali and Gabrielle.] 

Sonali Shah (00:45) 

What if we stopped having debates and started having conversations? I know many of you can relate. A comment turns into a heated conversation, then an argument, then a fight, and everyone leaves feeling worse. When we asked you what you wanted advice on, navigating these tricky situations came up time and time again. So, why do disagreements escalate so easily? Is it possible to listen without agreeing, and can better conversations really heal divides?  

Here to answer all these and more is Gabrielle Rifkind. She is a group analyst, psychotherapist and specialist in international conflict resolution, and the author of 'How to Agree to Disagree: From Conflict to Connection'. Gabrielle, it is so great to have you with us. We need you. We definitely do. Let's start with: why we argue. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (01:48): 

I think inside us we have a deep desire to be right. To win an argument. It maybe makes us feel better about ourselves. We want to pull the other person over the barricade, and we want them to think like us. And somehow, we believe that will make us feel better. But actually, first of all, that doesn't usually work. And when it ends up with us in a conflict, we can actually feel quite toxic inside and disturbed. We just need to think, with an argument with a member of our family or a friend, we might have a sort of immediate triumphant moment think, “Ah, I got the better of them! I got my one up.” And you have a sort of almost a rush of pride at that moment, but that particularly doesn't last long. And then we tend to feel a bit grubby inside and very unsettled. 

Sonali Shah (02:50): 

So do you think that need to feel right is what sits underneath a conflict, rather than the process of a good old disagreement? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (03:01): 

The interesting question is: why do we think we need to feel right? And why does it feel so uncomfortable to create a space where we might not necessarily even agree with the other person, but we could actually tolerate their way of thinking. And even if we started a conversation with the idea, they might well think differently from us. Can we be genuinely interested? Can we be curious about what they say? And can we think they might, they might think differently from us, but we can manage that difference. They've got different histories, different stories, different traumas, different wounds, and they see the world differently. And why are we so convinced that we've got to get them to think like us? And that might be with your partner, or in friendship, and certainly an international conflict. So, if we could manage this space of difference and be respectful of it, something different might happen. 

Sonali Shah (04:09): 

So, in our everyday life, can we really eliminate conflict? Do we really need to all see eye to eye? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (04:21): 

No, I mean I don't believe we can eliminate conflict. Conflict's normal. In loving relationships there will always be some tensions and conflict. Why would we agree about everything when we've got such different backgrounds? But I think what's interesting is how people handle conflict. So, some people rub salt in the wound, make it worse, heat up things then it becomes more conflictual. Other people avoid conflict, head in the sand, perhaps a people pleaser. And I think what I want to say, neither way works. Actually what we need to do is to become more skilled in how we communicate and what we say when conflict is brewing. So we can't do away with conflict. It will always be there. It's normal. It's a part of communication that can be healthy. 

Sonali Shah (05:14): 

So we need to learn how to deal with conflict, or learn how to adjust the way we handle conflict? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (05:23): 

Yes. We need to believe, first of all, not to be frightened of it, but we have to create the conditions in which we can communicate better about conflict. So for example, we often get very, very stirred up. We're very heated, we're fed up with our partners, we've been up in the night, they've been insensitive. And then in the morning they're still sleeping in and expecting us to do everything, give the children breakfast, get them to school. So, we really are rather stirred up, maybe even in a rage. Now, this is not the moment to resolve conflict. At that moment, we might want to say something sarcastic, something certainly disrespectful, or in a way, just to stir it up because we've got so many deep feelings inside us. 

Sonali Shah (06:16): 

Because we’re stirred up. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (06:17): 

Because we're stirred up, and we think, you'd just be making my life more and more difficult. Often I talk about the draft box in your email or the draft box in your mind. So when you are feeling that wound up, perhaps you do have to think, how can I bring myself down? How can I manage these feelings? Because of course we are full of emotion and that is not the moment that we can resolve conflict. So you need to distill these emotions. People have different ways of doing it. Some people might go for a run around the block, listen to music. Sometimes we talk to friends, but watch out: because sometimes we stir it up when we talk to friends. Friends agree with us. Oh, that partner is so terrible, they're so insensitive and so selfish. So watch out. Because actually, we have to think, how do we change the conditions and how do we start a conversation? So, take the example of this annoying partner when you've been up all night. You might have to say, look, something as simple as: I know you're completely exhausted, but I do feel a bit of an overload. Can we have a conversation about how we can work this out better? Now, the key in that is not to get immediately into blame. If you get into blame - and I understand why you'd want to do that  it makes the other person defensive. 

Sonali Shah (07:42): 

They get their back up. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (07:44): 

They get defensive, they get their back up, and the argument escalates. Now, maybe you might make it worse for a bit - preferably not, if you get really skilled-  but if you do, it is very important to pull back and allow yourself to listen to the other person, what they're actually saying and thinking. So how do you create the conditions for a different kind of conversation. When you sit down and have this conversation, try not to get into blame, try and set the scene to acknowledge the difficulty, but then you can start listening to what they think is going on as well. 

Sonali Shah (08:26): 

Something a lot of us talk about, a lot of us with young children, is when grandparents are stepping into help. So many of us are lucky to have that help, but there can be that conflict on how they did things, how you want to raise your children, and, if they're doing you a favour by helping you, how much can you really step in and say, actually, I don't want to do it your way. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (08:50): 

Yeah, I mean that's well put. I'm a grandparent so I know it from the other end. 

Sonali Shah (08:55): 

Yeah. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (08:56): 

Absolutely right. And because I think we fear underneath it, are we being criticised? Are we not getting it right? And that makes us immediately defensive. So the kind of conversation you need is, how can you learn from each other? 

Sonali Shah (09:12): 

The thing is the other side has to be prepared to listen. And I'm really intrigued by what you said at the beginning, which is a lot of conflict comes from this need to have a debate where you end up right and winning and how do we adapt that way of thinking? Is that innate? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (09:36): 

Well, it's also because we think we are not good enough and we think we are being criticised and we are failing and we'll say, “I'll show you”. Whereas, if we started this idea that perhaps we can learn from each other, the parental generation, and maybe it's a bit cultural, perhaps some cultures are much clearer that we learn from our elders. They do have something to teach us, and then there is something in the culture that's quite dismissive of that. So what kind of exchange between the generations could actually take place where we’re genuinely able to listen to each other. We don't have to end up agreeing, but if we don't agree, then how do we handle it? How do you manage it together so that you are respectful of each other and loving? 

Sonali Shah (10:31): 

I'm wondering if sometimes people don't always feel they've got something to learn because, maybe the product of that grandparent, they're sort of seeing as, “oh actually I don't want to do it that way”, or, “I see this trauma or I had that trauma and it comes from a place of trauma”. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (10:50): 

Sure, yeah. And that's right. And maybe their advice isn't always that great - because whether grandparent or parent, if things are coming from a place of trauma, our reactions are not necessarily the most healthy. But sometimes if we understand the trauma, the place it comes from, then we can be more tolerant and loving about why they're behaving like that. 

Sonali Shah (11:17): 

Gabrielle, I'm going to tap into more of your wisdom and put you in proper agony aunt mode. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (11:22): 

Okay, I'll have a go. 

Sonali Shah (11:25): 

Let's hear from our audience. Here is a question that's been sent in to us.  

[On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes, a waveform represents the voice recording from the audience member]  

Audience member voice recording (11:29): 

I wanted to ask if you're in a conversation with a friend or a family member and somebody said something you're not comfortable with or you'd like to challenge, have you got any advice or tips? How do you approach that? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (11:46): 

I think there are things like instead of saying, I was really upset by what you said, that will get the other person’s back up. But you might say, look, this is not going to be an easy conversation, but because of the strength of our bond, our friendship, our relationship, do you think we can manage a conversation about this? I think what you need to think about is how to create the conditions that the other person doesn't just react in a way that they put up their defenses. You are trying to open it up so that neither of you are having a defended conversation. I mean the perfect example was something like Brexit. People either avoided talking about it or temperatures rose. But what would happen if we listened carefully why people think as they do and why they think differently? And so that you can understand what is upsetting about what happened between you. 

Sonali Shah (12:56): 

So rather than starting with you've upset me, which then upsets them, start with can we have a conversation about it? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (13:04): 

It's a balance between emotional intelligence and when to pick something up and when to let it go. So always think about the end game. Where are you trying to get to? What are you trying to do? Do you want to improve the communication or do you just want to tell 'em how much they upset you? Because often we start from that position, but maybe if we have to reflect and if we make ourselves think where do we want to get to? What are we trying to do? I really care about this friend. I don't want to fall out with them. I don't want to make it worse. 

Sonali Shah (13:41): 

You talked about two different types of people when it came to conflict. The people that want to address things head on for whatever reason, whether it may be just to tell someone that they've upset them or that they were wrong, and the people that bury everything under the carpet. Can those two types of people learn from each other, or are they kind of, very much staying in their lane and that is a personality thing? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (14:11): 

No, I don't believe that we are just that sort of rigid. And in fact, it's very common for people when they're attracted to someone, to find someone with almost the opposite characteristics: someone who's conflict avoidant, because they themselves actually put salt in the wound and stir it up. But actually what they're often looking to do is integrate a bit of that in themselves. So the person who rushes to argue, if they can learn to perhaps be more reflective, let things go sometimes - and vice versa, the one who buries their head in the sand can learn to speak more. So, I think you'd need some kind of exchange and perhaps we have propensities, but we can look around and see how people, friends or family manage conflict, look at different styles and see, can we learn from that. 

Sonali Shah (15:14): 

I'm quite proud of us really only having this conversation so far about people we might be talking to in real life. 

Gabrielle Rifkind  (15:23): 

Yeah. 

Sonali Shah (15:23): 

If we move online, surely we conflict in a different way. We just do, don't we? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (15:33): 

Well, yes. I mean partly because it's often anonymous. 

Sonali Shah (15:38): 

Not seeing someone's facial reaction. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (15:40): 

Not seeing, but sometimes people don't even, you know, they're not even named are they? And if you do that, you don't have to take responsibility for what you do. 

Sonali Shah (15:50): 

If people through their anonymity, through not seeing the emotion of the other person, are bolder online, does that then transfer to their real life world? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (16:10): 

Yeah, I think that's well put. You kind of learn bad behaviour online and it becomes quite contagious or infectious. If you learn to be disrespectful in one place, you very quickly transfer it to another place. Sometimes it's almost like what we can get away with without taking responsibility. And I think we have to say to ourselves, if we behave like that, how do we feel when other people behave like that to us? We have to keep constantly looking towards ourselves and thinking, are these the kind of relationships we want? The hard bit is how to get people to be more self-reflective about how they're behaving. And if I say to you, do you know you're being aggressive? You might well hit back and become more aggressive. Whereas you might say, look, I feel like sometimes I feel quite aggressive and I'm being quite aggressive, but I know that actually it's making it worse. I wonder if we can have a different kind of conversation. So you're taking it back on yourself. I mean, wherever possible, if you can take responsibility for your own bad behaviour - I'm clearly no saint, I've got into all kinds of arguments.  

Sonali Shah (17:31): 

We all get things wrong, don't we?  

Gabrielle Rifkind (17:33): 

Yeah. But I think I realise, I pull back quite quickly because I don't like it. I feel worse for it. 

Sonali Shah (17:39): 

There's a big expression that a lot of people use and have used for generations: “let's just agree to disagree”. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (17:48): 

Oh yeah. 

Sonali Shah (17:49): 

But can we really do that properly without avoiding this situation? Can we listen without having to always agree with the person? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (17:59): 

Well, I think… 

Sonali Shah (18:01): 

Or are we only ever listening so that we know when they're stopping so we can get our point in? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (18:05): 

Exactly. Exactly. I think when we say let's agree to disagree, we're almost saying it in a sort of, ugh, we can't agree so let's agree to disagree. Whereas if we started a conversation where we thought, well, we might not agree at the end of it, but we can genuinely and empathically listen to what the other person is thinking about something we might not agree with. It might come from a deep religious position or some kind of sense of identity. And what would it allow for us to understand why they think as they do, and how could we tolerate it? Tolerate it may be lovingly around the difference, as opposed to it being a failure, a failure to agree. I think I want to get us to think again, whether, can we manage these disagreements? But even with people who think they come from similar backgrounds, they usually don't. They've had different parenting, different values passed down to them, different ways of seeing the world. So why would we agree over everything? So maybe we almost have to start from the idea that we don't have to agree. 

Sonali Shah (19:25): 

And we all are a product of where we've come from. I think key to this has got to be listening, but what does good listening actually look like? And sound like? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (19:38): 

Because as we've said, we so often want to jump in, make our point, tell them that we are right, and I'm as guilty of it as anybody, but good listening - and sometimes you can set it up with the person who you want this conversation with that literally maybe for five minutes you listen to what they have to say and you agree not to interrupt them. And then they give you that five minutes. And when you listen, you have to almost try and empty your head of all those judgments about why you think they're wrong, why you don't agree with them, and genuinely listen because you might learn something new. 

Sonali Shah (20:23): 

And listen without coming up with the counter argument. I think a lot of people might do that. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (20:30): 

Oh, certainly, that you are already preparing your counter argument and then stop listening. 

Sonali Shah (20:35): 

You’ve stopped listening. Do boundaries help or does that shut down conversation? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (20:40): 

The boundaries are important and I think it can make people feel safer. 

Sonali Shah (20:47): 

What would you advise someone who doesn't fundamentally agree, and it's okay to disagree, with something someone has said - it's a longstanding friendship, but actually you've sort of lost respect for them and that gets in the way of your friendship or you are related, so that person is not going to leave your life, but you just don't feel that deep sense of respect because you believe that their belief just goes against everything you believe, and it feels really, really hard to then have a respectful conversation, and it's easier therefore to just avoid seeing them. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (21:27): 

And of course it depends what that's about. But sort of coming to mind, I have a story in the book where - and someone chose to write it for me - it was about a deep friendship, and he thought his friend was being racist. And he in fact felt both offended and superior and wanted not much to do with him. But actually, later he rather regretted if he could understand better why the friend had thought as they did, and maybe where the space of misunderstanding had happened, and whether there was any room to try and shift things between them. Which is asking a lot, but it's sometimes, if we have these conversations, we find that people have these views that are very difficult, but maybe people might, as a result of the conversation, open their minds and think differently. And it's often, I mean from my own work, I believe that when we don't have contact - and when I'm working in international conflict - but it's equally as true in personal relationships, when the relationship stops being humanised, we throw into the space all our worst thoughts onto them. And often, it becomes much deeper. Whereas, if we understood why they thought as they did, there might be more space for movement. In the trade, we call it projection. You throw into the space all these kind of negative feelings, as opposed to trying to genuinely understand each other. Now, in the end you have to make a decision. How much do I care about this person? Are they important to me? Do I think I could change it? And if so, what kind of conditions do I need to create to try and do it? Do I need to create some special time between them us? When we do, suppose we say, well, let's go out for a drink and then you say, “Look, I really do care about our friendship, but I feel like we're getting into trouble at the moment. Some of the things you've said are really quite difficult. Would it be all right if I tell you if I say some of these things, is there a way we can do it so we don't really upset each other more, but , in a way, understand why we think differently?” 

Sonali Shah (23:54): 

Do you think that we have become worse listeners? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (24:00): 

Yeah, I smile because I think, I doubt we were ever much good. 

Sonali Shah (24:06): 

Maybe we just didn't question as much. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (24:09): 

I think we – quite rightly so, expect a different quality of interaction. 

Sonali Shah (24:18): 

There's something quite interesting about how, actually, I think what I'm trying to get at is sometimes I want to ask someone, if you truly believe something and it's part of who you are, why do you feel so threatened if someone believes something different? Why do people feel so threatened? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (24:36): 

Maybe it’s to do with whether we threaten those beliefs!  

Sonali Shah (24:42): 

Is it because we're in conflict with that belief in the first place or we're dithering ourselves? Is that why? Because if I believe something, I don't need you to believe it, do I? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (24:53): 

Yes. But then if you come from a very secure base and have done a lot of work on yourself, perhaps you can tolerate the difference and genuinely be curious about why someone thinks differently to you. But if you feel it threatens you, if it threatens your foundations... So I think you've picked up something absolutely core in the interaction. How can we genuinely be interested in the other person and not threaten them? Because as soon as we threaten them, they become defensive. I mean, the thing that's driven me, working in international conflict, is that these differences lead to war. Could we tolerate these differences respectfully and learn to live side by side with different stories, different narratives, different ways of seeing? I learned that from working on the Palestine-Israel conflict - that it didn't really matter if you put them in the same space, in terms of people changing their minds. They had different histories, different stories, different ways of seeing things, and they weren't going to end up in the space of empathy and understanding each other because they felt so threatened. And then you've got all the power imbalance and the asymmetry in the conflict. But, so, if we started from managing our radical disagreements and recognising that people think differently to us, but what other options can we come up with in those spaces of difference? And so it goes back to human relationships, in families, work, in the community. How do we manage these differences? 

Sonali Shah (26:33): 

How can we start? So you are talking about it because you've worked on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but even something like that going on in the backdrop - does that increase people's need to be on one side or the other and win? Or does that actually make us all question our need to be more understanding? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (26:57): 

I think we do - very naturally - in conflict identify with one party. One's right, the other's wrong. And it's sometimes to do with who we are, whether we perhaps identify with the more vulnerable party, the one who really seems to be suffering, or some people identify with the side that has more power. I completely understand why people emotionally feel those identifications, but it depends how much we are really interested in trying to resolve conflict. And if we want to resolve conflict, we have to think, always, how do we get to the end game? And that's really difficult. And, I know that in my work, if I was working with couples, that the more vulnerable couple, who looks the more beaten down, the more downtrodden, where it feels asymmetrical, you have to give them some sense of support and protection, but you also have to listen to the side that has more power because they too feel very wronged. And this is a really difficult thing to do. And so how you have to place yourself is, in space, perhaps like the Red Cross- you talk about neutrality. We can try our hardest to be neutral, not to take sides. We have to work on it. We have to really get ourselves in a particular state of mind. We have to really think about why we are identifying with one side. Maybe it's for very, very good reason. But in the end you still have to think, well, how do we help get to end of conflict? 

Sonali Shah (28:45): 

And that very question that often people during a conflict have, is probably the same question we could have in our personal relationships. When is this going to end? What is the end game? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (28:58): 

What is the end game? What is the end game? Do we want to end up divorcing our partners, or do we want to improve our communication? Do we want to, in the end, end up in a more loving space? 

Sonali Shah (29:13): 

In a space where both sides feel like they've won, rather than one side winning over the other? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (29:19): 

Yes. Yeah. I sometimes use the phrase a “golden bridge”. How do we offer a “golden bridge” to the other side? We can't do it when we are emotionally heated, but how do we offer them a way out so they don't feel humiliated, so that they feel they can hear what you’re saying? That's quite a hard thing to do when you are pretty fed up with somebody. But it's usually in your interest. And it's the same on the international stage as it is in your own personal relationships. We know it ourselves: humiliate me, and I'll probably want to hit back. But you can attune, well, maybe I did get something wrong or I failed, I might not have meant to. So, we are kind of asking ourselves all the time, do we want to change the dynamic between us? Do we want to improve things? Do we want to get closer in the relationship or do we just want them to suffer like we've been suffering? 

 

Sonali Shah (30:33): 

In the context of division, Gabrielle, what is the one thing that gives you hope? 

Gabrielle Rifkind (30:40): 

That, underneath, people want better relationships. We do want to find our better angels. We feel better when we do. We have the capacity to be both nasty and destructive, but we also have the capacity to be loving and kind and empathic and attuned. And I think when we find that part of ourselves, we feel better. 

Sonali Shah (31:03): 

Gabrielle, thank you so much. So many wise words there. 

Gabrielle Rifkind (31:07): 

Some of your wisdom as part of the conversation. 

 

[End of main conversation.] 

[Cut to Bridging Divides logo: colourful circles on a yellow background.] 

[Cut to closing scene: Podcast host Sonali sits in the studio, speaking directly to the camera.] 

Sonali Shah (31:11): 

I'm Sonali Shah and you've been listening to Bridging Divides from the British Red Cross. This episode rounds off our first three-part series. I hope you feel more confident navigating conflicts, big or small, and more hopeful for the future. If something here resonated with you, we would love you to stay connected. Visit bridging divides.org.uk for practical tools you can use in your own conversations, whether that's around the dinner table, at work or online. You can also sign up to hear about future episodes, tools, and ways to get involved. 

 

[Text appears on a yellow background:  

“Bridging Divides 

Join the community choosing compassion in a divided world 

bridgingdivides.co.uk"] 

 

[A white banner across the bottom of the screen with the British Red Cross logo reads: “A podcast from the British Red Cross”]