Let
us say for a week I have a contractor doing work at my house.
Perhaps it's a bit unusual, but every day we have lunch together in
the yard. He brings his own meal, but I supply the iced tea and
napkins. Over lunch the subject of politics comes up and we are both
opinionated and have viewpoints that are at polar opposites.
Therefore, we get into heated debates—yet our disagreements over
politics has no effect on our overall good relations. We even come
to have admiration, goodwill, and increasing trust in one another for
mutually showing honesty and spunk and for staunchly defending
strongly held convictions. The key reason for our good relationship
despite disagreement is that we have nothing critical at stake in
our discussions. We are merely affirming our points of view and do
not expect our discussions to have any practical consequences
whatever.
Notice
how quickly the picture would change if the subject were an area
where each one of us has critical, contesting stakes. Instead of
politics, say we are at polar opposites about the work the contractor
is performing at my house. We hotly disagree over the adequacy and
quality of work or materials. Here, surely, the practice of our
having daily contentious lunch sessions together would be short-lived. Rather
than witness a growing trust arising from our disagreements, distrust
would soon fester and ultimatums and accusations would be flying.
Thus,
locking horns in a dispute can occur on different levels depending
upon whether the stakes are critical or not—and this makes for a
decisive difference.
