This is part 3 of a series on relational communication, equipping people to enter into relationships in a more healthy and loving way. I highly recommend starting with part 1 of this series as this post draws upon points already established in parts 1 and 2.

We’ve all been there with social media. We posted something and others took offense, or misunderstood, or didn’t have the same sense of humor we did. So how do we have healthy interactions, to the degree we can be responsible, with large audiences where we have less control over how we’re heard and understood?

Our baseline, as usual, is what God says in His Word. Before we get into the practicals, I encourage you to meditate on this passage for a few minutes. Read it slowly, invite the Lord to highlight a word or phrase to you, and read it again. Invite the Lord to share more with you about that word or phrase. What does He want to you know? Then read a third time, asking the Lord to bring to mind for you what He would like you to do about it.

“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” – Colossians 3:13-17 ESV

Congratulations – you have just practiced an ancient form of Scripture-based prayer called Lectio Divina!

Let’s remember what we’ve covered in previous parts of this series, as we’ll be drawing heavily from these concepts.

Base rules for healthy communication:

• Not everyone values the same things you do! Take time to find out what they do value and what does motivate them before assuming they are like you.
• LOVE someone enough to try to understand them. Lean in.
• Assume the best of others until they prove otherwise (see below).
• We are responsible for ourselves; how we act and how we react. Others are responsible for themselves; how they act and how they react. No one makes you do anything.
  • You can also create a space for others to be more likely to act and react well by:
    • framing your conversation, 
    • using subjective & situational language, 
    • stepping back and observing, 
    • consider both/and (vs. either/or, or ‘all or nothing’ thinking), 
    • mining for conflict, and 
    • interrogating the direction to its natural end.
• 99% of the time, no one is trying to be a jerk, even when they hurt you. Usually, conflict with others comes from miscommunication or from misplaced expectations:
  • Miscommunication: when you both say one thing but mean two different things, or when you both use one word but mean two different things.
  • Misplaced expectations: didn’t have realistic or honestly communicated expectations of the other person going in
• It’s NOT about winning; it’s about deeper relationships.
• “So far as it depends on you, leave at peace with one another”. In conflict, you do your part; you cannot make them do theirs.
  • If, as you are trying, they are unwilling to have the conversation, you can try a mediator (see below) or stop trying.
  • If, as you are trying, they are unwilling to give any space to listen to you even when you ask for it, they may not be worth the effort.
  • If you have tried but you get nowhere, try bringing in a mediator (neutral third party) – especially if your conflict is within an organizational structure. If, as you bring in a mediator, they are still unwilling to have the conversation or to listen, then either more people will be brought in or you will have done your part.

So how is a platform different? What kinds of new considerations should we have when speaking to an ambiguous audience?

First, let’s define some terms.

Communicating on a Platform to an Ambiguous Audience:

Platform = anywhere that you are using your voice or your image or your persona and broadcasting it

Ambiguous Audience = you do not have complete control over who sees what you share or over how they might respond

Take a moment to think through your own experience on platforms. This could be social media, or a streaming/video platform where viewers can comment, or a blog of your own. Take a few minutes to look through your own platforms to observe your own interactions and posts, and to observe others’ interactions as well.

• Which platforms do you use? Why?
• What is your goal when you use a platform? Why?
• What are other goals you have seen others use that same platform for? How did you know? What are the indicators?
• What do you notice about the many ways people use social media? Is there anything that surprises you?
• What happens when someone uses a platform differently than how you use it?

Generational Differences:

Once, many years ago, I was posting on social media about my own learning journey around racial injustice as I had grown up in a place where race was never a topic and then I moved to a place where I suddenly had a number of colleagues of color whom I greatly respected and who had different viewpoints than me. As a result, I chose to lean in and would share what I was learning on social media.

Another colleague, and older (white) gentleman, pulled me aside one day and suggested that I no longer post these things as they wouldn’t amount to anything, and suggested that I instead make space to have these conversations in person. He didn’t believe that posting about volatile topics on social media would make a difference.

I disagreed, explaining that the students I was investing in were regularly discipled by social media one way or the other, and that it was important for them to see people posting things that encouraged them to grow in love towards people of color.

I don’t remember how the conversation ended, but it was amiable and we left it still disagreeing.

So what was going on here? Among many things we have already discussed in previous posts, there’s another facet I’d like to explore called Generational Theory.

Generational Theory:

For the past 450 years, sociologists have observed a 4-generation cycle of values/motivations in Western society. Each generation & societal trend spans approximately 15-20 years.

They are as follows:

Cyclical Generation Term:	Generational Question:	Modern Generational Term:	Youth during this Societal Trend:
Prophet	What is true?	Boomer	High
Nomad	What is real?	Gen X	Awakening
Hero	What is good?	Millennial	Unraveling
Artist	What is beautiful?	Gen Z	Crisis

The Prophet generation, today our Boomers, are primarily motivated by truth. If it’s true, they do not question it but take it, live by it, and move on. They spend their energy primarily refuting what they believe to be true with one another or with other generations. When they were young, society was nearing its height – there was a growing and steady economy and the way was paved for them to succeed.

The Nomad generation, today our Gen X, are primarily motivated by a real, authentic experience. They see Boomers fighting over truth and reject this, rather looking for an experience that helps them to feel whole, or real. The Nomad generation is called this as they are particularly inclined to spend their energy moving around to different places or experiences to feel something new and genuine. They’re seeing society at its height and they’re disillusioned (or awakened) as things still aren’t perfect, so they pursue something unique instead.

The Hero generation, today our Millennials (but 70 years before that, this was the Greatest Generation), are primarily motivated by fixing problems and bringing good to the world. They see their Boomer parents and their Gen X older cousins pursuing truth and reality, and meanwhile, society is starting to crack and fall apart (or unraveling), so they put their energy towards fixing the problems.

The Artist generation, today our Gen Z (but 70 years before that, this was the Silent Generation), are primarily motivated by transending reality through what is beautiful. They are raised in societal crisis and so are inclined to escape into a transcendant experience or to look diligently for what is beautiful. The best of this generation work hard to create spaces of beauty. This generation is often characterized by a ‘you do you’ type of lifestyle that encourages freedom of expression and great creativity.

This extreme freedom leads to the rollover back to the next Prophet Generation, which would be our Gen Alpha. They’ll be so frustrated by the sheer options that they’re long for something that is the way, and will value truth above all else. And once again, we’ll rotate through the 4 generations.

Back to the story…

There’s a lot more one could go into on this, but if you look at my story with this older colleague, you’ll see that we were operating on two different sets of values. I am a millennial. He is a boomer. My motivation was to be an agent of change for millennials and Gen Z on social media. His motivation was to make sure truth was shared and understood. His experience with his generation on social media was that truth was hard to come by, and my experience with young social media users is that people learn and grow through the voices they surround themselves with.

Who was right? Technically, neither of us and both of us. It just depends on who you are and who you’re reaching. I was a Millennial reaching Millennials. If I had been a Millennial reaching Boomers, I would have been wise to consider his words more seriously.

Sources: 

Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 & The Fourth Turning by Strauss & Howe (written in 1991 & 1997)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory#Archetypes

Clarity from Confusion

Using what we have learned so far, what of this can we apply to how we interact with others on social media?

What unique issues come up during social media use that you do not typically experience in more in-person interactions?

• Tone is harder to ‘read’ with text alone
• Without a physical person in front of you, it’s harder to remember they are a person worthy of dignity, love, kindness and gentleness
• You can’t follow body language to see how someone might be feeling

…and so on. In short, platforms make it harder to remember there are real people with real feelings, and it’s easier to be inhuman in how you interact with others. Where possible, I recommend picturing your community or each person’s face as post, share, and respond on a platform.

Shelly’s Rules for Engaging on Social Media:

• Remember who you are and who every single person in the world is in relation to God and to yourself.
• Realize you’re not going to be understood by everybody all the time no matter what you say or do (or not say and do).
• Decide what kind of interaction you want on social media and curate that kind of space through who you engage, how you engage, what you post, etc.
• Decide how willing you are to adjust your engagement on platforms when you’re interacting with others depending on their social media practices.
• Ruthlessly set up and uphold you own boundaries – for yourself and for others – to fit this set of expectations on yourself and others.
• Feel free to change your boundaries whenever as needed; do not hurt yourself just to maintain a rule that is no longer serving you.
• Consider adding some framing to your interactions on platforms – writing in tone (eg – “playfully” or “with sarcasm”), adding boundaries (eg – “comments that insult others will be removed”), etc.

What about if someone says something that sets you off? A friend of mine, Tamice Spencer-Helms, has shared her own rules for communicating on platforms, so I also wanted to share how she frames her interactions!

Tamice’s Guidelines for Engaging on Unwanted Social Media Interactions:

• Fumbling: sometimes, someone doesn’t know any better, and they’re trying but failing. Give them some slack. Gently help them to understand, because they want to understand!
• Foolish: sometimes, people are just saying something without realizing the impact it has. If you have the energy, you can enter in and point out for them the impact it had and, assuming the best of them, ask if that’s what they meant to say. Usually, it isn’t, and your gentle approach will keep them from being as likely to react poorly (remember our 201 skills!).
• Fascist: sometimes, people are out for a fight, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Ignore or remove these people. They’re not worth your time.

Source: The Hive Podcast from Sub:Culture Incorporated

And of course, you figure out where someone is based on skills we’ve previously discussed: lean in, ask questions, seek to understand before you assume where or who they are.

So what do you think? How are you going to try these skills on a platform you use?

What’s up Next?

We’ll be applying your new skills from 101, 201, and 301 to two specific and common questions:

Relationships 311: Changing Someone’s Mind

Relationships 312: Getting Healthy Enough to Engage & Knowing When to Stop Engaging