I was on exchange in Paris last semester and I stayed in an
apartment with three friends: A, B and C. A and B
are girls, while C is a guy. We first met in June 2010, during
a one month language immersion program. We got along well and made plans to stay
together during our exchange as we all applied to go to Paris.
The first two months were
extremely enjoyable. However, it all changed in early November. A and C travelled together to Amsterdam as
they had recess week before B and I joined them for the weekend. They stayed with A’s friend, while B and I
stayed with B’s friend. From what I know, A and C had a taste of spacecakes on
the first night but only A had it the next night (Friday). While A was feeling
vulnerable as a side effect, C did not make her feel
safe but provoked and taunted her repeatedly to tears. C was unapologetic and even found it amusing.
The same night, A told us what had happened and that she did not want to spend
any more time with C.
When B and I arrived on Saturday afternoon, we were
supposed to meet A and C but chose to meet A first to see how she was. We were not taking sides as we were planning
to meet C on Sunday to find out his side of the story.
C was angry and sent me a text saying that it was natural
that we sided with A as we are girls. He took this as a hint that we did not
want to meet him, changed his train timing and left Amsterdam on
Sunday afternoon. When we reached home on Monday, he did not
speak to B and I when we greeted him. We decided to let him cool down for a few days, before asking for his side of
the story. But this did not happen as it was clear he did not want to
speak with us anymore. B and I did not apologise for meeting A first as we did not
think that we were in the wrong, and C did not apologise for behaving that way
to A. Days turned into weeks and months, and we did not speak to each other for
the remainder of our time on exchange and even till now.
Do you think things could have turned out differently? What
could I have done differently to have prevented this awkward living
arrangement? If you were ever in a
situation like this, what would you have done and why?
Hi Priscilla,
ReplyDeleteIt seemed that you were caught in a conflict between A & C, which C had somehow dragged you & B into. I hoped that the rest of your stay was not miserable!
In this situation, I felt that C was at fault on many levels. Firstly, C had wrongly assumed that you & B were siding with A, even though your intention was only to hear her side of the story. Secondly, C avoided discussing the incident with you in Amsterdam (I assumed that when you planned to talk to him on Sunday, you actually informed him in advance?) This was understandable as he could still be (wrongly) mad at you & B for approaching A first. Finally, C started the cold war back in Paris. This showed the lack of self-awareness, self-honesty, and the inability to manage feelings in C. I believe the onus is on C to present his case and clear the air. Continuing the cold war actually reflects badly on his reputation and character.
On your side, you should re-examine the text messages that you sent to C during the time in Amsterdam. Perhaps your (lack of) tone or words used had somehow led C to misintepret your message? The use of shorthand or even the medium itself could be inappropriate in such a situation. However, all these are only speculation without hearing C's side of the story. If you do treasure your relationship with C, and wish to help A and C resolve their conflict, I suggest that you & B continue with your original plan, i.e. to approach C privately first. It may be wise to choose a time where C is more relaxed and less guarded, but you should do it as soon as possible as the more time you spend in close quarters without talking, the more opportunities there are for misunderstandings.
There are 2 issues you need to resolve: the fact that you & B met up with A first, and the alleged incident between A & C. Seek to settle the former issue first by emphasizing your neutrality, then try to get C to open up about the incident by symphatizing with him, and to get him to agree to a further meeting with everyone (including A). In this second meeting, attempt to help A & C resolve their conflict by assuming the middleman role. It will be up to them to fix their relationship, but at least you & C will be on talking terms now (though A & C may not). Personally though, based on your description of C, I would be content to let the cold war continue (sorry bad advice indeed).
Bokai
Hi Bokai
DeleteThank you for the advice! It is well thought out. It seems that I took your last piece of advice the most seriously as that is what B and I did.
On hindsight, there are really many things that I could have done to try to salvage the situation. There are reasons why I handled the situation passively, but my pride and indifference played a part as well.
I agree that communicating with C through text messages was not ideal as well, and I should have called him. I have reflected on this as well and it is one of the things that I would have done differently. This really emphasises the fact that appropriate channels of communication need to be chosen for the type of message to prevent any miscommunication and lack of sincerity.
Thanks (:
Priscilla
Priscilla,
ReplyDeleteFor a start, I don't see any interpersonal conflict between A and C when they took those drugged cakes, but there was indeed conflict between you and C afterwards.
A and C were already in the soul of conflict before they got into conflict! Why is that? Supposing A and C knew what those cakes contained, they were obviously looking at possibility getting into trouble, including getting into a conflict between themselves, by ingesting those food! Make sense? Every action as a clear consequence for a human being acting rationally and of sound mind. A and C chose to ingest risky food, and they paid the price with their relationship in the throes of collapse. The other way of looking at it is C knew what the risk was, and A might have been the risk as well because A could have taken advantage of C more than just taunting her to tears, anything can happen once you have given up your rational control to evil----spacecakes; A and C really asked for it for their relationship outcome now.
To the matter between you and C, I found it doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Your visiting A first rather than C told C that you were siding with A rather than C. Is that really the intent of what you were trying to communicate to us? Or was it that the sequence of meeting was not of particular interest in this instance, just the fact that C did separately communicated in this manner as a result of something you specifically communicated to him that you have not told us about in the above story? You might want to review that again.
In other things when the three of you lived together after the incident, I'd say many things could have been done really. It is such a pity the 3 of you lived in a cold war zone a la some of your friends' posts. Personally I'd take it against you, that you did absolutely nothing, or close to absolutely nothing to salvage the communication and hence relationship. Try not to say others did absolutely nothing as well because the fate of others don't exclusively depend on the friends of others, it depends equally on you. Make sense? You could have done very little but significant interpersonal gestures of love, care and concern towards C for a start, or did you fear that he had a big man's ego frightening enough to confuse and paralyze your certain actions that you'd like to take.
If a girl knows and uses her softer side in a feminine advantage well enough, she can bring down a guy enough, any guy, from friend to spouse, to comfort and make sense to him. She will be able to open him up and create a new connection, new life. In this case, new life would be restoration of the relationship. That's what being a girl is all about; of course guys have their own advantage and use.
Great work anyway!
Hi Caster
DeleteThank you for the very in depth and objective approach of looking at the problem.
There are many things I could have done to change things in those awkward 2 months if I had wanted to. But I chose not to. There are a variety of reasons why I chose not to, but as of now, it is all in the past.
There are however many lessons to be learnt. The first is what you have mentioned, that actions definitely speak louder than thoughts, intentions or words. We had no intention of siding with A as we knew that there should be more than one side of the story and genuinely wanted to understand C's perspective, but the action of meeting up with A first spoke otherwise. Therefore, I have learnt to review my actions and interpret it from the perspective of the other person first. This is important in touchy situations like this.
Thank you for being so honest and objective in your comment, I really appreciate the directness.
Priscilla
"There are a variety of reasons why I chose not to," it is from these reasons that you will find your answers to changing the situation.
DeleteWelcome :)
Hi Priscilla,
ReplyDeleteThat must have been a tough situation for you to be in!
I am actually unsure about what you can do in this situation. Given the time elapsed, I think all four of you had sufficient time to think and reflect about it, without letting unwarranted anger cloud the key issue now.
But going back to your question on what could have been done during the trip, I think you could perhaps have repeatedly shown A and C that you (and B) are neutral parties. Like Caster said, show C that you are being open-minded through non-verbal actions. Empathise with him on why he may have behaved as he had. (Lack of awareness that A was feeling vulnerable maybe?) If he does not respond, I think it is also A' onus to speak up to C. She must also want to resolve the cold war situation that has occured due to A's and C's conflict. (I think...if not, perhaps you could persuade her to move on from the problem after some time.) A and C could communicate to each other about their side of their issue, and sincerely try to resolve the situation. C could mention that B and you were neutral third parties and his anger on you guys was unwarranted. A could also raise C's self-awareness of the main cause of his anger. He could then "delay gratification" by doing the right thing (apologise for his actions) so that all can enjoy the trip. He must recognise that all four of you are interdependent on each other to a certain extent during the trip, and should therefore get along. (Same for A)
I think for the most part, it is a conflict that should be resolved by A and C. Is C showing his anger to A by extending it generally to the whole group?
I think that sometimes most of us take the easy side of the issue and ignore the problem if it suits us. Taking the problem by the horns and resolving it takes courage as well as effective communication skills. Which I am learning to as well...
All the best=)
Cheers,
Priya
Hi Priscilla,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing with us your experience. It was very well written. Good job!
With regards to the question, I think what stirred up the misunderstandings between C and you would be the very first action both you and B did even before you arrived at Amsterdam.
I can understand your reasons for meeting A up first because you would be more concerned of her well-being, given she is a girl, and she was the one who told you the whole incident before you even arrive at Amsterdam.
Although your stance to this situation would be to be neutral to both parties. However, in this case, it is very easily for your intentions to be misinterpreted by C. This is because C would take your actions to meet A first instead of him to be a form of acceptance to A's proposition about him. Ultimately, he had not told his part of the story to anyone of you yet :(
Also, as a guy just like C, I think I can sympathize his point of view. There could be actually more to the situation as what was mentioned by A. However, he was at fault for not wanting to communicate clearly with all of you. Instead, he chose to avoid and stop communication. This led to the breakdown of the communication and gradually your friendship.
I think perhaps if I were you, given that you have another friend with you, say B. Each of us should go and find out the situation from both parties separately instead of going to find A together first. This will minimise any possible misunderstanding generated. After all, you must know clearly that your objective is to try to resolve the conflict and not to find out who's at fault or not. In this way, both parties will provide you with their explanation to the situation and you will have a clearer picture.
This would minimize the problem of hearing 'one side of the story' & this would help better in resolving this problem.
Just my 5cents worth. Cheers!
Thank you for sharing this interesting scenario, Priscilla. You describe it beautifully, giving us a clear understanding of the problem's context and the characters involved. And you do so in a concise manner. We don't learn much about the individuals A & C themselves, nor about their motivation for what they did and for not resolving the issue. But by the time we arrive at your three questions, there is plenty to contemplate. In fact, your three questions can be viewed as different sides of the same question: what could you have done to repair the break?
ReplyDeleteWell, you have received lots of great input from your readers, and you've taken the time to respond, which I really appreciate.
A compelling story!
Hi there Priscilla,
ReplyDeleteThis scenario seems familiar!
I think I would've done the same things you did up to the point where C started pulling away from the three of you. However, as Caster said, "Your visiting A first rather than C told C that you were siding with A rather than C" I think that this was because all three of you were girls while he was the only boy which might have given him that impression.
That all of you were living together should actually have given all of you the opportunity to patch things up. I'm not sure if I would use the term feminine advantage as Caster did but living together means that you have the chance to reach out first in an attempt to thaw things.
If the relationship all of you shared with C was important enough, I think you could have done something as small as texting him after he had cooled down. You should not start questioning him immediately regarding the matter because that might be too confrontational for him. Instead, you could just make simple gestures such as asking about his day etc.
I found the following website here which might provide more details about things that can be done. I think that the most important thing is to re-extend your friendship even if he seems reluctant at first. From there, you could slowly move towards talking in person before you actually bring up the issue at hand.
Perhaps in your case, giving all of you some time away from the event would allow C to cool down and A to perhaps think clearly about the events that happened.
I know all this is moot after the fact, but I hope it helps.
Jie Ying
From what I understand, A took the spacecakes and C did not. A was drugged and she assumed that it is the responsibility of C to take care of her?! Not that I am supporting what C did to her, provoked and taunted her to tears. But is it not the duty of C to take personal responsibility of herself and to make sure she is under control? The interpersonal conflict comes later, much later after C realizes she must have been prepared for situations like these!
ReplyDelete-EB
Muddled up Cs and As. So reposting..
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, A took the spacecakes and C did not. A was drugged and she assumed that it is the responsibility of C to take care of her?! Not that I am supporting what C did to her, provoked and taunted her to tears. But is it not the duty of A to take personal responsibility of herself and to make sure she is under control? The interpersonal conflict comes later, much later after A realizes she must have been prepared for situations like these!
-EB