It is unclear exactly how President Donald Trump will carry out his foreign policy during his time in office. As promised during his campaign, he is proving to be unpredictable, an intentional disrupter.
In that vein, we want to suggest what may, at first glance, appear to be an outrageous recommendation to President Trump: Consider disrupting the usual order of things on the international stage by practicing intentional vulnerability. Yes, that’s right. Intentional vulnerability.
And here is why it could work, not only for the president, but for all of us if put into daily practice: In life, when someone makes a decision not to be defensive in interpersonal negotiations, this approach helps the individual actually hear what the other person is trying to say. You might learn, for example, what’s really at stake for that person. What is the most important among the many concerns they may have?
When you listen and speak without being defensive, people begin to trust you with their fears, their hopes, their not-fully-formed vision of how things could be.
Could intentional vulnerability, the relinquishing of defensiveness, operate in somewhat the same way for leaders on a global scale as they seek to foster human rights, democratic principles and environmental collaboration?
What does it take to practice intentional vulnerability? First of all, the two parties need to want to cooperate, to improve a divisive issue, to clarify a misunderstanding, to resolve a disagreement or a dispute. Then it’s a three-step process:
Party A acknowledges and regrets that in the past they may not have acted properly (they are only human). In this way, Party A lays down its defenses, becomes vulnerable.
Party B recognizes the vulnerable action Party A has taken to disrupt the fixed dynamic between them. Party B reciprocates, admitting “we, too, are not without sin and regret our past misdeeds.”
Party A and Party B agree to work together to rectify the situation.
A global example might be an upcoming trade deal, let’s say with China. Before getting down to the specifics of the deal, the United States becomes concerned with how China is treating its ethnic Muslim minorities, i.e., the Uyghurs. U.S. negotiators might start by acknowledging our own historic enslavement of an entire race of people and the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. We realize that this was wrong and we have taken and are still taking steps to rectify the situation. Being guilty of discrimination ourselves makes us concerned about reports of discrimination of ethnic Muslims in China. If we are to be trading partners, we both need to move forward to protect the rights of all of our citizens. Can we agree that in the past we have not acted justly? Trade is surely an arena for human rights (fair payment and safe employment conditions) and environmental concern (the environmental impact of production). The vulnerability of admitting our mutual shortcomings can help us discuss how we can work together to attain objective fair-trade policies and uphold human rights in both of our countries now.
There are numerous issues in which the United States is called to the moral high ground, not because of a pumped-up view of America being first and exceptional, but because we’ve learned from our own mistakes. To operate from a stance of superior or dominant strength may have its place in certain negotiations, but embracing intentional vulnerability has the potential to break open stuck dynamics between individuals and nations. Our president, so fond of disrupting the usual manner in which things are done, could use intentional vulnerability in global bilateral discussions to disrupt — and improve — these negotiations, leading to more trust and common ground with our global neighbors.
Paul Manganiello, of Norwich, is an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and Susan P. Thomas, of Lebanon, is a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.