Understanding does not mean agreeing

For me, one of the keys to compassion is to be able to understand the other person, without necessarily agreeing with what they say or do.

But how to do it? How can I understand my neighbor listening to music at 150 dB at 1 a.m.? Or even worse, someone hurting another person? So, let alone someone who kills?

This is where I have the choice between identifying the person with their actions, their words, or deciding to see their humanness despite everything and try to understand what drives them, without necessarily liking or agreeing with their how.

In fact, I try to recognise in them what we have in common as human beings (our values, needs, what we love to live).

It all depends on my ability to see this humanness in the other. This ability may decrease in inverse proportion to the intensity of what these actions or words have stimulated in me. The more reactive I feel, the less I have the ability, the internal resources, to see what drives the other person. And the more my habit of seeing the other as an enemy to be fought is more likely to manifest itself.

That's why the first thing to do is to evaluate my abilities. If necessary, I can take a moment, a day, a year. To take care of what drives me, of what is important to me, in this story, of my values.

---

And then I might ask myself, what's important to this person? What did they try to do, even in such a tragic way?

• In the case of the neighbor, it is very likely that what drives him is relaxation, the beauty of the music, letting off steam or bodily expression (if he dances at the same time), or perhaps he wants to avoid falling asleep because he has to stay awake for one reason or another?

• In the case of someone who kills another human being, we can imagine that this person felt extremely powerless to make themself understood, to feel heard, that they may have an immense need for bearings, recognition, to matter in this world...

Of course, this does not mean that I agree or condone their actions or words, and this is where the distinction between understanding and agreeing is essential.

Because it allows me to see the humanness of the other regardless of how I perceive their behavior.

It allows me to keep a connection, however tenuous, from human to human, it allows me to keep my heart even a little open by preventing me from seeing the other as an enemy, and thus to live according to my aspirations for peace.

---

Though I may understand what has motivated someone, I may as well make use of an action, even a strong one.

However, this action won't be in reaction to the impact what happened had on me, but it will be an action caring both for what matters to me and to the other person (at least, it's the intention).

For example, when I notice my child about to kick the cat, I will stop his movement out of care for the cat and with no intention to blame or punish my child.

I will then listen to what matters to him and share about my own values, so that we can understand each other with compassion.

It's what's called in NonViolent Communication, the protective use of force. I use force to protect with compassion, not violence, be it physical or relational.