为您找到与如何打破冷场相关的共17个结果:
不管是职场,还是朋友圈之间的交流,总有冷场的也总有热闹的。那么你知道领导如何应对冷场才是机智的做法吗?今天,读文网小编为大家推荐导开会出现冷场的说话技巧。
一、简短式的发言
没有人愿意听一个人在台上讲的过久,我想你也不想看到这样的情况吧。我也是一样,记得那时候在学校的时候,学校领导都是一讲就半个小时,下面的同学们都要崩溃了,领导还没有要停的意思。讲的多,讲的好,并不是件好事,有时候听的过多了,也会让人生厌的。所以,做为领导,一定要把话讲明白,但是,要用最短的时间。
而在我们的演讲艺术中,单向交流中那种应景式讲话,越短越好。而在双向交流中,任何一方都不要滔滔不绝地包场,要有意识地给对方留下发言的时间和机会。自己一轮讲不完,应待对方有所反应后再讲。不然的话,哪来的交流呢。
二、变换话题,穿插趣闻轶事
当然,一个演讲过程中,总会出现这样或者那样的情况,就好比如说冷场,这个是不可能不出现的,在每一个演讲会场都会出现这样的情况,那么做为演讲者,你要怎么去处理这样的情况呢。
在这里,口才培训网就给大家支一个招,那就是变换话题,在这样的情况下,你适时的去换一个话题讲讲,穿插一些有趣的事情,让会场上的与会人员一听到这事就非常的有兴趣,迅速的把注意力集中到你这里来,这样的话,你就有一个很好的机会来演讲你的话题了。
三、适时地赞美听众,求得共鸣和好感
人都喜欢被以赞美,一听到别人肯定自己,自己肯定会很高兴。我们可以利用这一个特点,来调剂气氛。听众发现演讲内容与自己的关系不大,自然不会给予太多的关注,在这种情况下,常常会出现冷场。
此时,演讲者应当注意采用恰当的方式,拉近与听众的心理距离。贴近听众的一个有效方法就是发自内心地赞美听众,用中情中理的话语拨动听众的心弦,激起他们的共鸣,使他们重又对演讲产生浓厚的兴趣,从而打破冷场的尴尬局面。演讲者为了打破冷场局面,常会以现场中具有代表性的某一类人为话题,进行赞美,近而产生对方的共鸣,从而达到活跃现场的目的。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
约会时没有好的口才怎么行呢?青年朋友都有这样的体验,平素自己的口舌尚算伶俐,在同性朋友中交际也没在乎过谁,偶尔遇上自己心中不存幻想的异性也能间或幽上一默。为何与女友约会时总是或三缄其口,或语不达意呢?
首先,约会时不能顺畅地表达、从容应对是因为我们的情绪处于较为紧张的状态。心理学告诉人们,紧张的心理会导致大脑思维缓慢甚至停滞。而外在的言语是思维的结果,这样紧张的情绪状态就必然引起语言表达上的麻烦了。释除约会时的紧张心理通常有两种方法:
其一是约会前的心理调节。我们应该清楚最初的约会仅仅是谈恋爱三部曲的第一部。一般说来,“谈”是双方选择、结识的过程,“恋”是双方空间距离的缩短,表现为难舍难分,“爱”则是双方心理距离的消除,出现卿卿我我的恋情状态。既然约会仅仅是“谈”的开始,它本身就是一次选择过程。因此,我们没有理由过于看重它,而给自己增加心理压力,否则,一旦心理紧张,反而影响自己“临战水平”的发挥。
其二是约会中的心理暗示。尽管我们在认识上有充分的心理准备,但是双方见面还是难免出现局促紧张的情绪。大家都知道自己是来干什么的,因此,为了消除这些紧张因子,应注意暗示自己:对方也很不自在,没有过多的精力来注意我的言行,我随便说就是了,越轻松就越能发挥“水平”。默念这些暗示语之后,我们的心情就会平静多了,语言表达也就利索起来了。
其次,最初几次约会,为了开阔思维,方便谈话,避免出现“冷场”,在选择场景时也要注意。不要在僻静的房子里,也不要在冷清的公园一角,要尽可能地选择“边走边说”的方式。我们知道话题的多寡取决于周围刺激(信息)量,双方守在一个静谧的氛围里,自然只能双目间或一轮而了无生气。“边走边谈”便可以从街面上闪烁的霓红灯、过往的人群、接踵而至的告示上得来谈资,从而左右逢源,侃侃而谈了。
再次,利用“请君介入”法,烘托气氛,激发对方参与兴趣。约会时,不管哪一方,即使你有出类拔萃的口才,唱“独角戏”也是不成功的。只有双方你来我往、你言我语感情才会更进一步。因而,采用诸如马克思寄小圆镜给燕妮之类的“爱情阴谋”来放松情绪,调节气氛,消除双方因过多顾虑而带来的过于谨慎的言谈是非常必要的。同时,因为气氛和谐,对方的自然参与会给谈话的话题选择提供机会和灵感,从而有了你发挥口才的便利条件。
第四,约会时因为一次“冷场”,往往会给双方带来较为严重的负面心理积淀,这种负面心理会化作一种沮丧、退缩的行为,从而进一步影响以后约会的语言表达能力。这样,连锁式地积累下来,即使你有着很好的口才,约会时也会变得沉默寡言起来。因此,我们提倡在约会时尽量做到“少吃多餐”,即每次见面时间不要过长,相互之间留有一份牵挂、一份思念,提高来日见面约会的兴趣。这样做每次见面后,我们都有一种谈话兴致未尽的感觉,同时,约会时话题多且新鲜,也有效地防止了“冷场”。
第五,约会时尽可能安排一些活动,比如一起去夜大上课、打网球、参观艺术展、郊游等等。从心理学观点看,有活动相伴,人的机体会得到有效的放松,从而达到缓解脑神经的抑制过程,开拓思维,轻松表达的目的。这样说我们可能更容易理解,我们常常看到少女约会时总要拿条手绢在手里摆弄不停;男士谈判时遇到棘手的问题往往要不停地踮脚等,这些都是因为内心紧张焦虑、心理失衡导致的。不平衡的心理蕴藏着机体的内在躁动,它必须通过外在的活动释放出来,才能使心理恢复平静。可见,约会时有意识地安排一些活动,可以防止心理紧张,让我们轻松自如地谈吐,愉快而又不失雅趣。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
僵局使谈判双方陷入一筹莫展的境地。它影响谈判效率,挫伤谈判人员的自尊心。因此,应尽力避免在谈判中出现僵局。在僵局已经形成的情况下,一般应采取以下对策来缓和双方的对立情绪,使谈判出现新的转机。
当谈判僵持的双方己产生对立情绪,并不可调和时,可考虑更换谈判人员,或者请地位较高的人出面,协商谈判问题。双方谈判人员如果互相产生成见,特别是主要谈判人员,那么,会谈就会很难继续进行下去。即使是改变谈判场所,或采取其他缓和措施,也难以从根本上解决问题。形成这种局面的主要原因,是由于在谈判中不能很好地区别对待人与问题,由对问题的分歧发展为双方个人之间的矛盾。当然,也不能忽视不同文化背景下,人们不同的价值观念的影响。在有些情况下,如协谈的大部分条款都已商定,却因一两个关键问题尚未解决而无法签订合同。这时,我方也可由地位较高的负责人出面谈判,表示对僵持问题的关心和重视。同时,这也是向对方施加一定的心理压力,迫使对方放弃原先较高的要求,做出一些妥协,以利协议的达成
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
“怪”,即“个性鲜明独特,与众不同”。演讲的“怪”味,体现在演讲者敢于打破常规,标新立异,独树一帜。演讲有“怪”味的人,不按常规的思维去思考问题,不按传统的观念去看待事物,他们的演讲立意新颖,角度独特,语言亦庄亦谐,表达灵动、张扬,充满了张力和磁性。显然,加了“怪”味的演讲,更具震撼力和吸引力,它会激活听众的思维,带给大家更多的回味和思考。那么,如何给你的演讲加点“怪”味呢?
反弹琵琶是和传统观念唱反调,而另辟蹊径则是从另一个新的角度巧妙切入,提出与常人不同的见解,但却并不否认他人的观点。请看这样一段演讲--我的话说完了,鲁迅的话题,说不完的。我关于鲁迅先生的两点私人意见--他好看、他好玩--就勉强说到这里……这是着名画家陈丹青在北京鲁迅纪念馆的演讲《我看大先生》中的一段文字,它概括了演讲者对于自己欣赏的大先生--鲁迅的个人评价。显然这样看似“大不敬”的评价是大家闻所未闻,甚至连想都不敢想的,因此它带给大家的震撼和冲击是巨大的。陈丹青的演讲没有像以往的评论家那样,字斟句酌的去推敲鲁迅作品中的文字,而是另辟蹊径选择了以自己个人对鲁迅的评价:“好看”、“好玩”为切入点。应该说,选择这样的角度,给予鲁迅这样的评价,不但新奇、吸引人,更重要的是它让大家感到了一个不再是“视觉符号”,也不再是“很凶、很严厉、不通人情”的鲁迅,它让大家有了想重读鲁迅作品,重新“走近”鲁迅的冲动,而这不正是演讲最大的成功之处吗?
这几位演讲者的演讲的确是各有各的精彩,但都有个共同点,那就是他们在演讲时,根据不同的场合和对象,有选择地加了点 “怪”味,他们的演讲堪称是“怪”味演讲的典范之作。
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
所谓变换话题,就是当众讲话时遭遇冷场可通过暂时变换话题的办法吸引听众的注意力。如通过穿插趣闻轶事活跃现场气氛来吸引听众的注意力。趣闻轶事是人们在生活中津津乐道的闲谈资料,生活中的许多情趣即由此而来。演讲者抓住人们渴望趣味的视听倾向,恰当而又适时地讲述一些趣闻轶事,会使混乱或呆板的演讲现场马上活跃起来,听众的注意力也被迅速地集中到演讲内容上。这时演讲者仍要回到原有话题的轨道,而效果就要理想得多了。如果是双向交流,话题的变换就是不定的,根据现场情况随时进行。
如当年孙中山先生在广州广东大学、即中山大学发表演讲,谈论三民主义。当时因为礼堂小,听讲的人多,通风不够,空气不好,所以有些人精神较差,显得比较疲倦。孙中山先生看到这种情况,为了提起听众的精神,改善一下场内的气氛,他于是巧妙地讲了一个故事:“我小时候在香港读书,见过有一个搬运工人买了一张马票,因为没有地方可藏,便藏在时刻不离手的竹竿(挑东西用的粗竹杠)里,牢记马票的号码。后来马票开奖了,中头奖的正是他,他便欣喜若狂地把竹竿抛到大海里去。他以为从今以后就不再靠这支竹竿生活了。直到问及领奖手续,知道要凭票到指定银行取款,这才想起马票放在竹竿里,便拼命跑到海边去,可是连竹竿影子也没有了……”讲完这个故事,听众当中议论纷纷,笑声、叹息声四起,结果会场的气氛活跃了,听众的精神振奋了。于是,孙中山先生抓住时机,紧接着说,“对于我们大家,民族主义这根竹杠,千万不要丢啊!”很自然地又回到了原有话题的轨道上。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
在商业谈判中,往往都是因为经济利益而举行不同形式的谈判,当两者的利益存在差异,谈判僵局怎么办呢?下是读文网小编整理了怎样才能做一个好的销售员?,希望对你有帮助。
桌下是朋友,桌上是敌手,谈判中间双方各为其主,免不了唇枪舌剑甚至必须斤斤计较(因为一厘钱的单价在合同中就可能表现为成千上万的交易额),话不投机争得面红耳赤也是常有的,使情绪因素成为影响谈判顺利进行的障碍,“气滞胃痛冲剂”广告的画面就是这种情况的真实写照。假如自己能够运用恰当的方式,或妙语解窘,或投桃报李,化解矛盾,活跃气氛,必将收到柳暗花明的效果。
浏览量:1
下载量:0
时间:
在僵局已经形成的情况下,一般应采取以下对策来缓和双方的对立情绪,使谈判出现新的转机。以下是读文网小编整理了商务谈判中打破僵局的对策,希望你喜欢。
转移视线也不失为一个有效方法。有时谈判所以出现僵局,是僵持在某个问题上。这时,可以把这个问题避开,磋商其他条款。例如,双方在价格条款上互不相让,僵持不下,可以把这一问题暂时抛在一边,洽谈交货日期、付款方式、运输、保险等条款。如果在这些问题处理上,双方都比较满意,就可能坚定了解决问题的信心。如果一方特别满意,很可能对价格条款做出适当让步。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
做一个有技巧的人,从聊天开始。下面是读文网小编整理了关于关于永远不会冷场的谈话技巧,希望你喜欢。
当你回答问题的时候,做好准备回答一些不可避免的无聊话题。不要给一两个字的回答,像下面这些……
“今年你要到哪里去度假?”“佛州。”
“你父母(小孩、兄弟、姐妹、配偶、鹦鹉)还好吗?”“很好。”
如此简单的回答一定会提早结束谈话。准备好更长一些的回答,例如:“嗯,我们本来考虑去加勒比海旅行,但是我们又觉得太贵了。后来我们看到介绍佛罗里达州的旅游手册,那里可以考虑去的地方好像有很多,所以我们……”你可以就像这样地说下去。
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
演讲时,我们有可能会出现冷场。这种情况是非常糟糕的吗,为了避免冷场的发生,读文网小编总结了以下几种方法,供你参考。
这种方法是基于演讲的特性使然.也就是说,演讲者在以自己的演讲辞和形象的语言来感染听众的同时,听众的积极回应也有利于推动演讲的顺利进行.因此,演讲者在需要的时候向听众提出富有针对性和启发性的问题,可以调动听众参与演讲活动的热情,使他们意识到,自己也是整个演讲的一个重要组成部分,这样会有效地避免冷场和打破冷场.
如一位领导正在面向群众进行普法意义的演讲,由于话题具有一定的专业性,听众的注意力出现了分散,进而不少人开始交头接耳起来.这时,这位领导者及时提出了这样的话题:“请开小差的同志们想想,如果我们自己的权益受到了侵害,我们又将怎样来寻求法律的帮助呢?”这样一来,交头接耳的听众也就能重新将注意力转移过来.
演讲时出现冷场的对策二:变换话题,穿插趣闻轶事.
所谓变换话题,就是当众讲话时遭遇冷场可通过暂时变换话题的办法吸引听众的注意力.如通过穿插趣闻轶事活跃现场气氛来吸引听众的注意力.趣闻轶事是人们在生活中津津乐道的闲谈资料,生活中的许多情趣即由此而来.演讲者抓住人们渴望趣味的视听倾向,恰当而又适时地讲述一些趣闻轶事,会使混乱或呆板的演讲现场马上活跃起来,听众的注意力也被迅速地集中到演讲内容上.这时演讲者仍要回到原有话题的轨道,而效果就要理想得多了.如果是双向交流,话题的变换就是不定的,根据现场情况随时进行.
如当年孙中山先生在广州广东大学、即中山大学发表演讲,谈论三民主义.当时因为礼堂小,听讲的人多,通风不够,空气不好,所以有些人精神较差,显得比较疲倦.孙中山先生看到这种情况,为了提起听众的精神,改善一下场内的气氛,他于是巧妙地讲了一个故事:“我小时候在香港读书,见过有一个搬运工人买了一张马票,因为没有地方可藏,便藏在时刻不离手的竹竿(挑东西用的粗竹杠)里,牢记马票的号码.后来马票开奖了,中头奖的正是他,他便欣喜若狂地把竹竿抛到大海里去.他以为从今以后就不再靠这支竹竿生活了.直到问及领奖手续,知道要凭票到指定银行取款,这才想起马票放在竹竿里,便拼命跑到海边去,可是连竹竿影子也没有了……”讲完这个故事,听众当中议论纷纷,笑声、叹息声四起,结果会场的气氛活跃了,听众的精神振奋了.于是,孙中山先生抓住时机,紧接着说,“对于我们大家,民族主义这根竹杠,千万不要丢啊!”很自然地又回到了原有话题的轨道上.
演讲时出现冷场的对策三:制造悬念,激发听众的兴趣.
好的悬念不仅能够使演讲者再度成为听众注目的中心,而且能够活跃现场气氛,激发听众聆听与参与的兴趣.因此,在演讲中制造悬念,可以有效地吸引听众的注意力,使演讲内含的信息和情感得以准确传达.如果演讲者能在出现冷场的情况下,适时地制造一两个悬念,确实是重新吸引听众注意力的非常有效的办法.
请看下面这个事例:普列汉诺夫有一次在日内瓦做关于《无产阶级与农民》的演讲,当时会场乱哄哄的,几乎使演讲不能继续下去了.这时,普列汉诺夫双手交*在胸前,目光嘲笑地扫视着会场.当台下逐渐平静了些,他大声说:“如果我们也想用这种武器同你们斗争的话,我们来时就会——(他停顿了一下,大家以为他会说,带着炸弹、武器、棍棒,然而他说出的话却出人意料),我们来时就会带着冷若冰霜的美女.”此语一出,整个会场笑声一片,甚至连一些反对者也笑了起来.普列汉诺夫见时机已到,话头一转,又重新回到了演讲的正题上.
演讲时出现冷场的对策四:简短式的发言.
实践经验表明,单向交流中那种应景式讲话,越短越好.而在双向交流中,任何一方都不要滔滔不绝地包场,要有意识地给对方留下发言的时间和机会.自己一轮讲不完,应待对方有所反应后再讲.
演讲时出现冷场的对策五:适时地赞美听众,求得共鸣和好感.
听众发现演讲内容与自己的关系不大,自然不会给予太多的关注,在这种情况下,常常会出现冷场.此时,演讲者应当注意采用恰当的方式,拉近与听众的心理距离.贴近听众的一个有效方法就是发自内心地赞美听众,用中情中理的话语拨动听众的心弦,激起他们的共鸣,使他们重又对演讲产生浓厚的兴趣,从而打破冷场的尴尬局面.
如实际场景中,演讲者为了打破冷场局面,常会以现场中具有代表性的某一类人为话题,进行赞美,近而产生对方的共鸣,从而达到活跃现场的目的.
当然,演讲者在遇到冷场的局面时,如果已经采取了诸如简短发言、变换话题、加强语气等控制手段,但仍然不能扭转冷场的局面时,就应即时中止交谈.因为,长时间的冷场对交流双方来说,都是极不适宜的,也说明了这次谈话确实是多余的
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
与人交际时一不小心就会形成僵局,该怎么打破这些僵局呢?读文网小编为大家整理了打破交际僵局的技巧,欢迎大家阅读。
人有成千上万,细分下来,在交际上主要呈现以下风格:
1.惟我独尊型
有的人把自己看作社交的中心,在交际中态度生硬,以我为轴,希望对方就范,依从于己,不轻做姿态,做出友好的表示,遂出现双方互不交往、冷漠相向的“僵峙”局面。
2.看重差别型
人们相互间有着级别、地位、贫富、知识、能力等形形色色的差别。此时处于优势地位的一方,会自我感觉良好,习惯于俯视看人;处于低劣地位的一方,会平生一种傲然之气,绝不屈从于人。这使得双方关系无法沟通和发展。
3.使性弄气型
众多情况下,交际局面本是不会出现“僵峙”现象的。正当交际关系将要深化、发展时,对方的行为举动却引起乙方的消极反应,由此而使性弄气,关闭心扉,态度转阴,本来可以顺利发展的关系冷却下来。
4.相斥相克型
大自然中有些关系是相吸引的,有些关系是相排斥的。人际关系也是如此,有些人在一起自然投机融洽,有些则似天生对头,前世冤家,互相不服气、不顺眼,怎么也发展不了关系,有冰炭不同器的味道。
如何打破交际的僵局面呢?现介绍要法如下:
1.克服自我意识,树立开放思想。考察交际“僵峙”现象,会注意到这么个事实:即这种现象通常是在两类人身上发生:一类是清高自大的人,一类是内向孤傲的人。他们的显著特点是自以为是,自尊心强,自我封闭。要打破交际“僵峙”局面,首先就要克服自我意识,树立开放思想,淡化“我”字,主动交往。
2.透视现象看本质。交际“僵峙”现象颇有点小家子气,谁也不愿正视,谁也不好承认自己陷入其中,但有时它却实实在在地存在着。如果我们能透视清这一实质,一方面会为自己愚蠢荒.唐的举动哑然失笑,另一方面我们会采取主动积极的方式,自觉与对方交际。
3.注重方式技巧,尊重微妙关系。交际“僵峙”局面是要打破的,但这本身是十分微妙的,其中还可能有一些不好明说细究的关系。所以此时的方式和技巧尤为重要:方式适宜,技巧圆润,就可以圆满达到目的;否则可能显得唐突,或者适得其反。
4.显示人格魅力,取得对方尊重。
看完“打破交际僵局的技巧”的人还看:
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
一场成功的演讲更不会出现冷场的现象的,那么怎么才能有效的防止演讲过程中冷场现象的发生呢,今天读文网小编给大家分享一些防治冷场的小技巧,希望对大家有所帮助。
听众发现演讲内容与自己的关系不大,自然不会给予太多的关注,在这种情况下,常常会出现冷场.此时,演讲者应当注意采用恰当的方式,拉近与听众的心理距离.贴近听众的一个有效方法就是发自内心地赞美听众,用中情中理的话语拨动听众的心弦,激起他们的共鸣,使他们重又对演讲产生浓厚的兴趣,从而打破冷场的尴尬局面.
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
马丁·路德·金是著名的美国民权运动领袖,1986年起美国政府将每年1月的第三个星期一定为马丁路德金全国纪念日。今天读文网小编给大家分享一篇马丁·路德·金演讲的经典演讲英文版“打破沉寂”,希望对大家有所帮助。
Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit. I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?” “Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” “Peace and civil rights don’t mix,” they say. “Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people,” they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, “Aren’t you a civil rights leader?” and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: “To save the soul of America.” We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath –
America will be!
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954 [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission — a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for “the brotherhood of man.” This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I’m speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men — for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls “enemy,” for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 — in 1945 rather — after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China — for whom the Vietnamese have no great love — but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States’ influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.
The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call “fortified hamlets.” The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call “VC” or “communists”? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of “aggression from the North” as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
Part of our ongoing…part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile… meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation’s role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality…and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain.”
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.” “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.” Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word” (unquote).
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood — it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.”
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message — of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ’tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace.
If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
看了“"马丁·路德·金演讲英文版:打破沉寂"”
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
在谈判遇到僵局的时候,要想突破僵局,不仅要分析原因,而且还要搞清分歧的所在环节及其具体内容,比如是价格条款问题,还是法律合同问题,亦或是责任分担问题等等。要认真研究突破僵局的具体策略和技巧,以便确定整体行动方案,并予以实施,最终突破僵局。下面读文网小编整理了打破谈判僵局的策略和技巧,供你阅读参考。
谈判实践告诉我们,在一些特定的形势下,抓住对方的漏洞,小题大做,会给对方一个措手不及,这对于突破谈判僵局会起到意想不到的效果,这就是所谓的从对方的漏洞中借题发挥。
从对方的漏洞中借题发挥的作法有时会被看作是无事生非、有伤感情的做法。然而,对于谈判对方的某些人的不合作态度或试图恃强欺弱的做法,运用从对方的漏洞中借题发挥的方法作出反击,往往可以有效地使对方收敛。相反,不这样做反而会招致对方变本加厉地进攻,从而使我们在谈判中进一步陷入被动局面。事实上,当对方不是故意地在为难我们,而我方又不便直截了当地提出来时.采用这种旁敲侧击的作法,往往可以使对方知错就改,主动合作。
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
一旦谈判陷于僵局,谈判各方应立即探究原因,积极主动地寻找解决的方案,切勿因一时陷于僵局而放弃或终止谈判。下面读文网小编整理了商务谈判打破僵局的策略,供你阅读参考。
谈判者可依据谈判僵局涉及的专门问题,提请有关专家单独会谈。例如,涉及法律问题,可由双方律师单独会谈;涉及技术问题,可由双方工程师、技师等单独会谈。这是因为同行之间交谈,可以避免不少麻烦,也容易找到共同点,有助于产生解决间题的新方案。
浏览量:3
下载量:0
时间:
聊天是一门艺术,面对自己心动的女孩,想要很快打动她,你一定要掌握聊天技巧。今天读文网小编给大家分享一些和女孩聊天不冷场的技巧,希望对大家有所帮助。
从性别角度,思维方式可以划分为两大类,这些在心理学上早就详细的阐述:
(1)男性思维方式
该类思维方式具有以下特点:上堆、抽象概括、做出评价、解决问题、探求动机、预测未来、建立因果、推理总结、防御否定、目的优先、结果导向,以客观为标准。
(2)女性思维方式
下切、具体细节、表达感受、描述问题、关注过去、对照眼前、罗列现象、就事论事、开放肯定、忘却目的、活在当下、以自我为标准。
从上述思维类型的特点看,男性思维适合解决问题,而女性思维则更适合维护关系。同时,两种思维模式要能够“因地制宜”地进行切换。
具体而言,在有冲突(或者灵感)的情况下则要多采用男性思维,以确保自身的优势(或有趣);在没有冲突(或者灵感)的情况下则需要更多地采用女性思维模式,以维护相互之间的关系。
因此,男生和女生进行沟通的时候则可以更多地采用女性思维。否则,用理性的男性思维与感性的女性思维进行聊天,则很难将话题或者关系持续下去。
女性思维的运用,也能很大程度地提升她对与你谈话的兴趣。就比如我,在一次聊天当中,妹子一开始被另一个男的缠着,我基本插不上话,说也只有了了几句。然而,就是这几句,让妹子最后的话全都转向我着,向我倾诉,跟我讨论,那个男生也只能眼巴巴地看着,时不时想要插上一句却又失败。为什么呢?就是因为我在聊天中的思维偏向于女性,理解,表达感受。而那哥们却只懂得使用表现自己的男性思维。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
当你在一个陌生的环境中,或者是面对自己不熟悉的人面前,有的时候难免会发生僵局,今天读文网小编给大家分享一些打破僵局的沟通艺术,希望对大家有所帮助。
那就试着和他聊聊,分析一下吵架的原因。可以这样试着打开话题:“我对于我们吵架的事有点想法,要不要听听看?”什么“我有我的立场”,或者“你记得是什么样的?”的话一定要避开,它们不会对你有什么帮助的。有条理地说出自己的想法,把对话真挚地维持下去。不时询问一下朋友,问问他对这件事的看法,有些什么感受也是很必要的。如果再怎么说也没法恢复友谊的话,最好什么也别再说,也不要再道歉。这种情况,时间的解决是最有效的。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间:
怎样与陌生人交流不冷场?与陌生人交流不冷场的方法有哪些?下面读文网小编整理了与陌生人交流不冷场的方法,供你阅读参考。
你去朋友家串门,遇到有生人在座,作为对于二者都很熟悉的主人,会马上出面为双方介绍,说明双方与主人的关系,各自的身分,工作单位,甚至个性特点,爱好等等,细心人从介绍中马上就可发现对方与自己有什么共同之处。一位是县物价局的股长和一位“县中”的教师,在一个朋友家见面了,主人把这对陌生人作了介绍,他们马上发现都是主人的同学这个共同点,马上就围绕“同学”这个突破口进行交谈,相互认识和了解,以至变得亲热起来。这当中重要的是在听介绍时要仔细地分析认识对方,发现共同点后再在交谈中延伸,不断地发现新的共同关心的话题。
浏览量:2
下载量:0
时间: