Challenging Conversations and Complex Compassion: Revisiting the LARA (Listen Affirm Respond Add) Guidelines for Use in Diversity Dialogues

Communicating with someone with a different viewpoint can be challenging, and most of us can understand this from experience. Maybe you dabbled in politics at the thanksgiving table with family members who have drastically different perspectives on the role of government than your own. Perhaps you have experience sharing some religious differences with someone who was equally convicted of their faith (or lack thereof). Heck, for some people bringing up the success of a rival sports team can set the tone for an angry exchange of words.

​Certain conversational topics are more sensitive than others. Topics related to identities are often among those “hot button issues” which can cause a large array of overwhelming, involuntary and unwelcome feelings such as anger, frustration, fear, isolation, etc.

I had the opportunity to witness this phenomenon first hand recently during my neighborhood community association meeting. During this meeting, I sat around a table with neighbors to discuss a recent robbery and murder in our area. Emotions were high and one white neighbor at this table stated “the problem [of crime in our neighborhood] is all of these black men, that’s the problem.” Upon hearing that statement I experienced a flooding of emotions which caused me to feel anger and terror, but I was not sure what to say or do. I have friends and family who are men of color, none of them have ever mugged someone – let alone shot someone.

I was somehow able to gather my thoughts together and later in the conversation address this neighbor’s comments, but even so I left that meeting wondering how best to engage someone who make comments that I perceive as racist or bigoted. Was my response to his comments helpful? Was my response coming from a place of compassion and authentic allyship? That is when I remembered LARA.

LARA 1.0

​LARA is a communication guideline developed by Bonnie Tinker, a Quaker leader who noticed a need to teach others to engage in difficult and emotional conversations around sexual orientation. Bonnie created the LARA system in the early 1990’s and it has since become a staple ingredient in many diversity dialogues. LARA guidelines are used to help someone who is “triggered” (experiencing a flood of emotions) continue to engage in a safe way with someone who is uttering statements that are “triggering” (perceived to be causing that emotional flood). Basically, LARA can keep the conversation on track when someone makes a bigoted, oppressive, or otherwise insulting comment. A brief summary of the LARA communication guideline is listed below:

​Listen: First listen with the intention of truly understanding what the person is saying.
Affirm: Find something in what the person has said or implied that you share and affirm that.
Respond: Directly address the concern that was voiced.
Add: Give some new information, new perspective or personal experience.

​It seems that this LARA communication has not been changed much since its creation in 1992. There are a few alterations out there including CLARA (Center yourself, Listen, Affirm, Respond, Add information) and BLARA (Breathe, Listen, Affirm, Respond, Add information), but given the advances that have been made in helping approaches since the 1990’s it seems surprising that LARA has not been re-vamped.

Looking back at my experience at the community association meeting, I think one reason that I did not decide to use my LARA skills with the neighbor was that part of me feels like LARA lacks authentic compassion. To me, the Listen, Affirm, Respond, Add system seems to paint the other person as a symbolic demonic character (a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.). In order to not be harmed by this demonic character, we put on the LARA Hazmat Suit and find one little detail to affirm before trying to clean up the mess (Responding and Adding). The ultimate goal of the LARA system seems twofold: 1) to help us be safe around these toxic people, and 2) try to fix them (clean them up) by giving facts and responses. The problem is that by protecting ourselves with a polypropylene of armor, we are preventing real contact and authentic compassion.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that LARA communication is useful for the goal of continuing dialogue and keeping oneself safe. For me as a person who is striving to practice compassion on a daily basis, I feel a need to revise this system so that it better fits my values and approach. For this reason I put together CLARA 2.0.

CLARA 2.0

​The primary goal in CLARA 2.0 is for the trained diversity dialoguer to practice active compassion with the person who is presenting words and concepts that causing negative emotions to arise. Instead of slipping into our hazmat suit, we opt to sit next to the other person seeking to understand. Instead of seeing the other person as a demon-ish character who exudes toxicity, we assume this is a person who is seeking happiness and peace but may not have found the best way to do that yet. Admittedly, this is a much harder task that presented in the initial LARA, but I believe that it has the promise of being more effective.

Compassion does not just help others, but it helps ourselves. The more we have the opportunity to practice compassion (especially with those who are more challenging for us), the more we are able to see the humanity in others and engage in an authentic, intentional manner. Eventually we may be able to retire our hazmat suit all together, and we can relate to even those who say infuriating things like “black men are the main problem in our neighborhood”– although I am admittedly not there yet. It seems like hard work, but I am willing to practice so that I can be a better ally, better advocate, better neighbor and better human.

Below is an outline of my proposed CLARA 2.0 which introduces some concepts form Motivational Interviewing, Compassion Focused Therapy and Mindfulness approaches. This communication guideline may be helpful for folks attempting to work compassion into their practice of diversity dialogues, but it is not a cure-all for talking about tough issues. A printable PDF version of the CLARA Outline is available here.

CLARA 2.0 Assumptions, Terms and Guidelines

Assumptions
The CLARA 2.0 communication technique is based off of the traditional LARA/CLARA (Tinker, 1992) model of communication. The new CLARA model is intended to allow for more listening and compassion by the helper. It is based on the following assumptions:

1) Conversations with people of different viewpoints are important: Talking with people different from us is vital to building connections, changing minds and changing institutions. No matter the immediate outcome of the conversation, the act of truly communicating with someone of a different viewpoint plants a seed that may develop down the road.

2) Conversations with people of different viewpoints are difficult: We can experience strong emotions and overwhelming thoughts when attempting to engage in these conversations. They can bring up past trauma and hurt, sometimes it is best to not engage.

3) We must be the first to model authentic listening and respect: A trained helpers’ job is to practice skills and techniques to help others, we are in the best place to model these skills for others.

4) All humans want to be happy: We all want happiness and peace, but we have varying ideas of how to get there. Some of our ideas are harmful to others (knowingly or not knowing), but the main objective of happiness is shared by all people.

Terms
CLARA 2.0 incorporates a few new terms borrowed from Motivational Interviewing, Mindfulness, and Compassion Literature. Some of those terms and concepts are listed below:

Ambivalence: “The simultaneous presence of competing motivations for and against change” (Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p.1).

Change Talk: “Any… speech that favors movement toward a particular change goal” (Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p.2).

Compassion: “A sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it” (Gilbert, 20014, p. 19).

Mindfulness: “Paying attention in a particular way, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally,” (Kabat-Zin, 1994, p.4).

Reflection: “An interviewer statement intended to mirror meaning (explicit or implicit) of preceding… speech” (Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p. 7)

CLARA Guidelines
Center self and develop intention

• Calm and center the mind

• Prepare to suspend ego and agenda

• Set intention to help the other

Listen

• Body: open body language and eye contact

• Mind: attitude of curiosity towards the other, allow agendas and ego to pass

• Speech: minimal, supportive and seeking to understand

Affirm

• Start with compassion: all humans want to be happy and at peace

• Deeper characteristics: values, principles, loves and wishes

• Authenticity: notice tone, intent and reaction to remark

Reflect

• Use simply or complex reflections

• Focus on compassion and “change talk”

• Use double sided reflection to highlight ambivalence

Ask for elaboration or ask for permission to provide information

• Seek to understand more about ambivalence, compassion or “change talk”

• Seek to gain deeper understanding of intention, motivation, and person

• Ask “would it be OK if I shared my perspective?”