10 Principles of Emotional Literacy

She says for the third time that she does not want to visit. His voice grows gentler: “I’m only asking. It matters to me.” The conversation appears polite, but her refusal is no longer being accepted. In another home, someone apologises for harsh words and immediately asks, “So will you stop being upset now?” Both people may have read about emotional intelligence and still miss the way familiar, well-meaning words become a means of getting their own way.

Claude Steiner proposed ten commandments of emotional literacy. Here we will call them principles and explore everyday situations. This is our practical adaptation, not a literal translation or a validated relationship test. The original list brings together attention to love, honesty, speaking up, avoiding power plays, respect, repairing mistakes and judgement.

Let us look at these ideas through small decisions: can someone refuse, is a request clear, does anything change after an apology? No list makes a relationship safe on its own. Where there are threats, coercion or fear of retaliation, protection and support are needed; the burden of explaining feelings more effectively should not fall on the person being harmed.

Steiner places love at the centre of emotional life. In an ordinary conversation, we can explore this idea without grand declarations: what will happen to the other person if I get my way right now? For example, you can secure a family dinner by ridiculing someone’s tiredness in front of everyone. The dinner will happen, but agreement following humiliation says little about wanting to be together.

Being attentive to another person does not require constant gentleness or avoiding difficult decisions. You can be angry without humiliating someone. You can end a relationship and speak clearly. Warmth alone is not enough either: “But I love you” does not erase broken agreements. It is worth noticing how a feeling connects with actual behaviour.

Steiner’s original formulation makes a specific exception to honesty concerning safety. In practical use, it also matters to distinguish concealing facts that affect shared decisions from a right to personal space. Not disclosing a friend’s private conversation is different from hiding a loan that will have to be repaid from a shared budget.

“I don’t want to discuss this yet” can be an honest answer. If the issue affects someone else’s decision, however, they need enough information to make that decision. Saying “the purchase cost three thousand” when it cost ten is a different situation. You can acknowledge both the spending and your fear of the conversation, without presenting one as an excuse for the other.

Sometimes we stay quiet because a request seems too obvious. After a difficult day you want help, while the other person keeps watching a series. Instead of “Can’t you see for yourself?” you might try: “I’m exhausted. Please make dinner tonight.” There is now an action that can be understood, discussed and carried out.

Expressing a wish does not make it compulsory. The other person may be equally exhausted and suggest delivery or a simpler meal. Having a voice lets you participate in an agreement; it does not provide a fail-safe way to control others. If speaking in person is difficult, a short note beforehand may help too.

Return to the proposed visit. After someone says no, a gentle tone does not give you the right to repeat the request until they give in. You can clarify once whether another option is possible: “Would you rather not go at all, or just not today?” Once the answer is clear, you are left to decide what to do with your disappointment and your own plans.

A request leaves a real possibility of refusal. When refusal is followed by insults, threats, conspicuous silence or persuasion that goes on and on, look at the consequences as well as the polite wording. At work, it is especially important to distinguish explicitly between an assigned duty and a voluntary favour.

“I can’t cover for you on Saturday” communicates a decision clearly enough. You can add an explanation if you want, but you do not have to keep proving that your reason is valid. When someone argues with every explanation, it may help to return to the answer itself: “I understand this is difficult for you. I won’t be there on Saturday.”

A refusal cannot guarantee respect from another person. You may need to end the conversation, speak to a manager about workload or seek support. Naming a boundary and protecting it in unequal or dangerous circumstances are different tasks. Being unable to stop someone else’s pressure with words does not make you responsible for that pressure.

Your partner is upset about a cancelled evening. You consider postponing it unavoidable. Both things can remain in the conversation: “I can see you were counting on tonight. I won’t get back in time; let’s think about another day.” Acknowledging disappointment does not mean you now have to do the impossible.

Likewise, you can listen to an unfamiliar opinion without adopting it. Respect for a person does not oblige you to approve degrading claims or endure insults. Sometimes the most accurate response is simple: “I see this differently. I can explain if you want, but I won’t continue with this tone.”

You interrupted a colleague in a meeting and took credit for her suggestion. A general “Sorry about everything” leaves it unclear what you have noticed. More specifically: “I presented your idea as mine. I’ll tell the team it was your suggestion and correct the meeting summary.” What matters next is doing what you said.

Repair should fit the event and take account of the affected person’s wishes. It is not always possible to reverse a situation or restore trust. An apology does not purchase forgiveness or set a deadline by which someone must stop feeling hurt. You can fulfil your responsibility without a promise of immediate reconciliation.

Steiner’s eighth point concerns not accepting false apologies; it is not merely advice against offering a formal apology yourself. At the same time, we cannot reliably read another person’s inner state from their tone. It is more accessible to notice whether they name the action, avoid shifting blame and do anything after the conversation.

To “Sorry you take everything that way,” you could respond: “I’m talking about you publishing my message without permission. Please remove it.” If there is no willingness to repair, the word “sorry” alone does not require you to consider the matter closed. When you do not yet understand an event yourself, it is better to say so and agree to return to it than to pretend the conversation is complete.

The image of a triangle linking “me, the other person and truth” can remind us of three questions. What matters to me? What rights does the other person have? What facts do we already know? There are no measurable equal portions of love here, or a formula that automatically determines a fair decision.

For example, you want to lend money to someone close to you. They are genuinely struggling, but lending the money would leave you unable to pay rent. Compassion does not change the figures. You can decline that amount, offer less or help look for another option. An unpleasant feeling after refusing does not by itself prove the decision was wrong.

The final principle leaves room for judgement. Before a difficult conversation, consider the time available, people’s energy and their ability to answer freely. A shared debt is unlikely to receive careful attention in a doorway on the way to work. Postponing the conversation until an agreed evening may be appropriate; postponing indefinitely becomes a way of leaving someone without necessary information.

Flexibility does not mean any action can be justified by intuition. It helps to check the consequences: is there more clarity, is choice still possible, has the agreement been fulfilled? If you keep finding exceptions only for yourself, it is worth taking another look at the rule itself.

Choose one recent conversation you can recall with enough calm. Write down specific words or actions, then your feelings and desired outcome. Which of the ten principles helps you see a manageable next step? Perhaps you need to ask directly once, accept a refusal or repair something already done.

Do not try to fulfil all ten points and reform your partner in a single evening. Define one action and later check what happened. An ordinary notebook or the MriyaRun Emotional Intelligence Diary can provide space for these notes. Questions about agreement, refusal and your own workload can also be explored in the Personal Boundaries Diary. A tool provides room for observation, but cannot guarantee a change in another person.

Find out more about the publications on the MriyaRun website.

Steiner’s list and Stephen Hein’s commentary are available at EQI.org; the author’s text and the critical annotations there need to be distinguished. In this article, all ten themes are paraphrased; everyday scenes and clarifications concerning privacy, refusal and apologies have been added by the MriyaRun editorial team. These are guides to a more attentive conversation, worth checking against actual actions.