A chalice is only valuable as a container of anxiety if it is being offered on behalf of the welfare of those in the relationship or group. A chalice should never be used to derail expression of anxiety or for distorting the source of and cause of the anxiety. As Abraham Lincoln displayed and declared, he held no malice for his rivals (even those leading the confederacy), and extended charity to all. Lincoln created a chalice of leadership with the clear intention “to bvind up the nation’s wounds—to do all wh ich may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” And then he was assassinated.
The third kind of trust is particularly important in a world that is becoming increasingly flat (and dangerous). This is trust in a shared perspective. Imagine again that you are standing on the platform. Those asked to catch you when you fall don’t seem to really understand what this strange American ritual is really all about. They come from a society that is quite different from that found in the United States. You could fall off the platform and not be caught by these folks. They might be surprised that you chose to fall off the platform and would graciously ask you if you would like to fall off the platform again.
We might find something comparable when members of an organization enter into a problem-solving conversation with quite different perspectives on the nature of this problem or steps to be taken in finding a solution (Bergquist and Brock, 2008). Each of these participants in competent in their own field and come to the meeting with the best of intentions (these intentions being aligned with their own sub-culture in the organization). The challenge is to identify the differing perspectives to be found in each of the sub-cultures and to identify ways in which these differing perspectives can help rather than hinder this problem-solving endeavor.
This is where Carol Gilligan’s ethics of care comes back into view. This ethic requires that we “discern” the differences in perspectives being offered by each sub-culture. We discern when we not only acknowledge the differences, but also identify the contribution to be made by each perspective (appreciation) and the way each perspective interweaves with the other differing perspectives (integration).
As introduced through an organization called Synectics (Gordon, 1961), the processes of spectrum analysis can be of value here. I must do something unusual when participating in a Synectics session before offering my own idea. I must first provide a successful paraphrase of the idea that was just presented (to insure understanding) and identify three reasons why there is the seed of a good idea in what was just presented (appreciation). Did Abraham Lincoln offer something like spectrum analysis in providing his own chalice of leadership? Did Carol Gilligan offer some idea about how Lawrence Kohlberg’s model of moral development was of value before offer her criticism of his model? Actually, she did and she retained her appreciation for his work and his mentorship of her as one of his students.
Connecting
There is one other lesson that Carol Gilligan has taught us through her continuing relationships with Lawrence Kohlberg. She has provided an example of staying connected with another person. It is not just a matter of telling someone that we still care about them even though we often disagree with them. It is a matter of caring about their continuing welfare and of listening to them in a “whole hearted” and “while headed” manner so that our connection might itself produce new insights and a revised version of reality for both of us.
