conflict – Real Social Skills

The rules about responding to call outs aren’t working

October 24, 2017June 9, 2021 Real Social Skills

Privileged people rarely take the voices of marginalized people seriously. Social justices spaces attempt to fix this with rules about how to respond to when marginalized people tell you that you’ve done something wrong. Like most formal descriptions of social skills, the rules don’t quite match reality. This is causing some problems that I think we could fix with a more honest conversation about how to respond to criticism.

The formal social justice rules say something like this:

You should listen to marginalized people.
When a marginalized person calls you out, don’t argue.
Believe them, apologize, and don’t do it again.
When you see others doing what you were called out for doing, call them out.

Those rules are a good approximation of some things, but they don’t actually work. It is impossible to follow them literally, in part because:

Marginalized people are not a monolith.
Marginalized people have the same range of opinions as privileged people.
When two marginalized people tell you logically incompatible things, it is impossible to act on both sets of instructions.
For instance, some women believe that abortion is a human right foundational human right for women. Some women believe that abortion is murder and an attack on women and girls.
“Listen to women” doesn’t tell you who to believe, what policy to support, or how to talk about abortion.
For instance, some women believe that religious rules about clothing liberate women from sexual objectification, other women believe that religious rules about clothing sexually objectify women.
“Listen to women” doesn’t tell you what to believe about modesty rules.
Narrowing it to “listen to women of minority faiths” doesn’t help, because women disagree about this within every faith.
When “listen to marginalized people” means “adopt a particular position”, marginalized people are treated as rhetorical props rather than real people.
Objectifying marginalized people does not create justice.

Since the rule is literally impossible to follow, no one is actually succeeding at following it. What usually ends up happening when people try is that:

One opinion gets lifted up as “the position of marginalized people”
Agreeing with that opinion is called “listen to marginalized people”
Disagreeing with that opinion is called “talking over marginalized people”
Marginalized people who disagree with that opinion are called out by privileged people for “talking over marginalized people”.
This results in a lot of fights over who is the true voice of the marginalized people.
We need an approach that is more conducive to real listening and learning.

This version of the rule also leaves us open to sabotage:

There are a lot of people who don’t want us to be able to talk to each other and build effective coalitions.
Some of them are using the language of call-outs to undermine everyone who emerges as an effective progressive leader.
They say that they are marginalized people, and make up lies about leaders.
Or they say things that are technically true, but taken out of context in deliberately misleading ways.
The rules about shutting up and listening to marginalized people make it very difficult to contradict these lies and distortions.
(Sometimes they really are members of the marginalized groups they claim to speak for. Sometimes they’re outright lying about who they are).
(For instance, Russian intelligence agents have used social media to pretend to be marginalized Americans and spread lies about Hillary Clinton.)

The formal rule is also easily exploited by abusive people, along these lines:

An abusive person convinces their victim that they are the voice of marginalized people.
The abuser uses the rules about “when people tell you that you’re being oppressive, don’t argue” to control the victim.
Whenever the victim tries to stand up for themself, the abuser tells the victim that they’re being oppressive.
That can be a powerfully effective way to make victims in our communities feel that they have no right to resist abuse.
This can also prevent victims from getting support in basic ways.
Abusers can send victims into depression spirals by convincing them that everything that brings them pleasure is oppressive and immoral.
The abuser may also isolate the victim by telling them that it would be oppressive for them to spend time with their friends and family, try to access victim services, or call the police.
The abuser may also separate the victim from their community and natural allies by spreading baseless rumors about their supposed oppressive behavior. (Or threatening to do so).
When there are rules against questioning call outs, there are also implicit rules against taking the side of a victim when the abuser uses the language of calling out.
Rules that say some people should unconditionally defer to others are always dangerous.

The rule also lacks intersectionality:

No one experiences every form of oppression or every form of privilege.
Call-outs often involve people who are marginalized in different ways.
Often, both sides in the conflict have a point.
For instance, black men have male privilege and white women have white privilege.
If a white woman calls a black man out for sexism and he responds by calling her out for racism (or vice versa), “listened to marginalized people” isn’t a very helpful rule because they’re both marginalized.
These conversations tend to degenerate into an argument about which form of marginalization is most significant.
This prevents people involved from actually listening to each other.
In conflicts like this, it’s often the case that both sides have a legitimate point. (In ways that are often not immediately obvious.)
We need to be able to work through these conflicts without expecting simplistic rules to resolve them in advance.

This rule also tends to prevent groups centered around one form of marginalized from coming to engage with other forms of marginalization:

For instance, in some spaces, racism and sexism are known to be issues, but ableism is not.
(This can occur in any combination. Eg: There are also spaces that get ableism and sexism but not racism, and spaces that get economic justice and racism but not antisemitism, or any number of other things.)
When disabled people raise the issue of ableism in any context (social justice or otherwise), they’re likely to be shouted down and told that it’s not important.
In social justice spaces, this shouting down is often done in the name of “listening to marginalized people”.
For instance, disabled people may be told ‘you need to listen to marginalized people and de-center your issues’, carrying the implication that ableism is less important than other forms of oppression.
(This happens to *every* marginalized group in some context or other.)
If we want real intersectional solidarity, we need to have space for ongoing conflicts that are not simple to resolve.

Short version: “Shut up and listen to marginalized people” isn’t quite the right rule, because it objectifies marginalized people, leaves us open to sabotage, enables abuse, and prevents us from working through conflicts in a substantive way. We need to do better by each other, and start listening for real.

Mean people who aren’t mean all the time

October 11, 2015June 9, 2021 Real Social Skills

Mean people aren’t necessarily mean all the time. Mean people aren’t necessarily mean to everyone.

I think most people who are mean are nice to at least some people at least some of the time. It can be hard to understand that they’re mean to other people in ways that matter if you don’t see it.

One example of this is that many men who are awful to women treat other men well. Some men don’t know this. They often assume that a man who treats them and their male friend group well is basically well-intentioned — and may have a lot of trouble understanding why their female friends think he’s dangerously creepy.

That happens in a lot of contexts. Some of which have to do with socially marginalized groups like gender or race or trans status or disability or religion or any number of other things. Some of them aren’t like that.

Sometimes it’s about in groups and outgroups in ways that aren’t otherwise connected to privilege.

For instance:

Jesse is mean, but not mean to everyone.
Jesse is nice to people who they like
Mostly, Jesse likes people who admire them and don’t contradict them about anything important
Jesse is mean to people outside their circle
People who are in Jesse’s circle and really admire Jesse might have trouble believing that they’re ever mean to anyone else
On the logic that “Jesse has never said anything like that to me; I can’t believe Jesse would say that”. Or something else like that.

It’s not unreasonable to base some of your opinions on what’s probably going on in a conflict on your personal experiences with someone. To an extent, it’s *necessary* to do it that way, because you can’t find out what’s going on by disregarding what you know. But it’s also important to remember that the way someone treats you might not be representative.

For instance:

If you’ve never contradicted someone, you might not know how they handle being contradicted
If someone’s never been mad at you or someone you respect, you might not know much about how they treat people when they are angry
Everyone gets into conflicts.
Everyone gets contradicted.
Everyone is wrong sometimes.
Nobody handles this perfectly. Some people handle this more-or-less reasonably; some people handle it horribly.
If you haven’t seen what someone does in those situations, it’s hard to know whether their reactions are reasonable

Short version: It’s easy to misunderstand conflicts by assuming that people who have always been nice to you are always reasonable with everyone. It’s important to consider what you know about someone *and* to consider the possibility that your experiences with someone may not be representative.

‘but’ vs ‘and’

February 25, 2015June 21, 2021 Real Social Skills

I’ve been taught this trick for giving feedback by a couple of people recently, and I’ve been finding it really helpful:

Using “and” instead of “but” can make it much easier to give useable feedback. It also sometimes works in conflict situations:

Eg:

“I really liked your message, but I thought it was too long to follow.“
“I really liked your message, and I thought it would have been easier to follow if it was shorter”.

or:

“I’m sorry that I yelled, but what I was saying was important. Your dog has to stay out of my yard. He’s been digging up my flowers.”
“I’m sorry that I yelled, and what I was saying was important. Your dog has to stay out of my yard. He’s been digging up my flowers”.

If you say but, it’s often heard as “I know I’m supposed to say something nice, but I don’t really want to.” If you say and, it’s more often heard as “I believe both of these things.“

It’s worth considering erring on the side of saying and rather than but when you sincerely believe both things. It often makes a big difference, both in how you think about what you’re saying, and in how it’s perceived by other people.

When people bait you into fights about controversial issues

January 25, 2015June 21, 2021 Real Social Skills

A reader asked:

People ask me what I think about something or how I feel about something. If my answer is unpopular it makes them upset or angry. I have told people not to ask me questions if they don’t want the answer, but that doesn’t seem to be very effective. I am thinking about ignoring questions that are like that, but I don’t know how well that will work or if people will get upset because I ignore them. So at this point I am at a loss for what to do.

realsocialskills said:

I think this depends on the context. I’m assuming here that you’re talking about unpopular opinions related to social issues, religion, politics, or other things that are about deeply held values. If you’re asking a different question (eg: if people are asking you whether you like their art), this answer probably won’t be helpful. That said:

It’s not always possible to avoid offending people.

There’s a social price to be paid for having unpopular opinions. Sometimes it’s really important to people that you agree with them, and some of them will push the issue until you say something that offends them. (And, depending on the nature of the opinions, people might sometimes be justified in pushing the issue.) If you have strongly held unpopular opinions, it’s probably really important to work on keeping perspective in the face of other people’s anger.

But, not everybody is going to be hell-bent on pushing the issue, and even when they are, it’s still sometimes possible to avoid the conversation:

Sometimes the best thing is to immediately change the subject, eg:

Them: So what do you think of this controversial thing that we always fight about?
You: Let’s not go there. Did you see the game last night?

Some subject-change phrases:

“Did you see (episode of show you both like)?“
“How’s work?”
“How are your kids?“
“Do you think the weather will be good enough to go hiking this weekend?”

You can also sometimes evade the question by deflecting it to something vaguely related, eg:

Them: What do you think of subway strike?
You: The trains are all really broken down and dirty. I’m amazed that Improv Everywhere gets people to take off their pants in those trains every year.

Another possibility: expressing discomfort:

Them: So, what do you think about this controversial thing we always fight about?
You: I’m not really comfortable talking about that.
or: “That’s really personal.“
or: “That’s a bit heavier than I like to get at a party; let’s keep it lighter.”

It can also sometimes work to give them a specific warning that they’re treading into potentially offensive territory (although this can also backfire):

Them: So what do you think of this controversial thing?
You: I think my answer might offend you. Do you really want me to answer that question, or should we talk about something else?
or: “Do you really want to know the answer to that question?“

Another possibility: stating your opinion in a matter-of-fact way and refusing to fight about it:

Sometimes just stating the opinion in a straightforward way will deflect conflict
This doesn’t work with everyone, but it can be really effective with people who are trying to bait you into an emotionally laden fight
It’s sometimes possible to say what you think in a way that makes it clear what you think, and that you’re not interested in fighting about it

I’m not totally sure how to describe how to do this. But, eg:

Them: What do you think of the really popular ballot measure everyone else at this party likes?
You: Actually, I’m against it. I think it’s harmful to people with disabilities.

Sometimes that can even lead to a good conversation. Sometimes it gets them to drop the subject. Sometimes it can lead to an argument (which you might be able to refuse to continue; you don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to.) It helps a lot if you can take an unapologetic tone that doesn’t sound like you think you’re saying anything objectionable.

Short version: If people try to pick fights with you on controversial issues, there are sometimes ways to deflect them. Scroll up for more details.

Perspective in the face of other people’s anger

October 3, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

This is a thing that happens with some people:

People get angry
They tell you off in mean ways that make you feel horrible
Or their anger scares you, even if they’re not actually being mean
You feel like the way you’re feeling is evidence that you’ve *done* something horrible
Or you’re afraid, and feel like you have to grovel for forgiveness in order to be safe

It’s really, really hard to tell whether you’ve actually done something wrong when someone is being mean to you. (Or when you’re terrified by anger or conflict.)

If you’re afraid or hurting, or especially both, it’s hard to have perspective. Especially if you feel like acknowledging that you’ve done a horrible thing might make that person stop hurting you. *Especially* if you’re really good at reading what someone wants to hear.

This is doubly true for people who have been abused. If you’ve been hurt by someone who demanded that you stop thinking in the face of every conflict, it’s hard to think when other people are angry with you.

There are countermeasures. It’s possible to learn to deal with anger and conflict without falling apart.

Countermeasure #1: recognizing feelings that indicate that your perspective is off, and creating distance

If you’re panicking and feeling inclined to make an abject apology, it’s probably time to step back
Even if it turns out that you were in the wrong, a panic apology is unlikely to make the situation better
Because when you’re panicking, you’re not really capable of apologizing sincerely anyway
It’s ok to need time to think
It’s ok to realize that you’re panicking and need to back away from the situation to be able to think
Someone who won’t let you do this is probably not someone you should trust

Countermeasure #2: considering reversal:

Think about what you did, and how the person who is angry at you is reacting
What do you think you’d do if the situation was reversed?
In light of that, do you think their reaction is reasonable?
And do you think you actually did something terribly wrong?
(The answer to this might be yes even if you think you would have reacted differently. But thinking about reversal can still make the situation easier to understand)

Countermeasure #3: Think in concrete terms:

What, specifically, does the person who is mad at you think you did?
Do you think you actually did that thing?
If not, do they have a reasonable basis for thinking that you did that thing?
Are they understanding correctly? Are they listening to your explanation of what you think you did? (eg: if they think you said a slur and you actually said a different word that they misheard, are they screaming at you and saying you are just making excuses?)
If you did do the thing, why are they angry about the thing?
Do you think it’s reasonable that they are offended?
Do you think it’s reasonable that they are *as* offended as they are?
(Think about this seriously, especially if they think you are being racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc towards them. Your initial reaction to this kind of thing is likely to be off base. But it is also possible to be wrong about these things, and ultimately, you have to think for yourself about whether you think you’re guilty of what you’re accused of.)

Countermeasure #4: Considering the perspective of someone you respect:

Think of someone who you know well and respect as someone who treats people well
If you’d done the thing to them, how do you think they’d react?
Does that match how the person who is angry at you now is reacting?
If you’d hurt the person you respect in a similar way by accident and they were upset with you, how do you think you’d be reacting?
Does it match how you’re reacting here? (Eg: are you more afraid? more inclined to panic-apologize? more defensive?)
In light of all of that, what do you think about what’s happening now?
Do you think that you did the thing you’re being accused of?
Do you think it was wrong?
Do you think that the way they are reacting to you is unjustified or otherwise objectionable?
Do you think you should apologize?
Do you think they should apologize?
(These are all real questions. Considering the hypothetical perspective of someone you know doesn’t give you automatic answers, but it can be helping as a way of getting unstuck when you’re afraid and inclined to panic about something you’ve been accused of. You might find that, even after you’ve stopped panicking, you still think that you have done something wrong and that you should apologize for it.)

Countermeasure #5: Outside perspective:

It can help to discuss the situation with people who know you well (especially if they’re not parties to the conflict)
Particularly if they are people who you can trust to tell you when they think you actually *have* done something wrong
Some friends are mutual check in people for one another.
Some people get outside perspective from therapists.
When you’re panicking, it can be hard to tell from the outside that you’re panicking. Panic in response to conflict can feel like you’re just accurately recognizing that you are terrible or something.
It’s much easier to tell from the outside when that is happening
So, if you have people you trust to help you check your perspective, it is tremendously helpful in staying oriented and figuring out what’s actually going on

Short version: Some people find other people’s anger terrifying. If you experience that, it can be really hard not to automatically try to fix things by conceding that you are terrible and did a terrible thing. There are countermeasures that can help. It helps to work on noticing how you are feeling so that you can get distance when you need it. It helps to think about what you’d do if the roles were reversed. It helps to think as concretely as possible about the specifics of the situation. It helps to think about what you think someone you know well and respect would do (and what you would be doing if the conflict was with that person). It helps to get outside perspective from people you trust about what’s going on.

Speaking up is hard

September 29, 2014June 11, 2021 Real Social Skills

In just about every group conflict I’ve witnessed or participated in, I’ve seen some version of this happen:

Some people will speak up about something
There will be a conversation that gets heated
Someone else will be very uncomfortable with the fact that conflict is happening (despite somewhat sympathizing with the people who are speaking up)
And they will say something like, “Wow, I don’t like this tone. Can we all try to respect each other a bit more?”

And I think part of this is that people who aren’t speaking up really often have no idea how hard it is. It looks much easier than it is.

It’s hard, and it’s scary, to say something that you know will result in conflict. It’s hard to phrase things well, it’s hard and sometimes impossible to stand your ground in a way that makes everyone feel respected. Especially if you don’t have a lot of practice.

It’s possible that people who are speaking up really are being inappropriately or counterproductively disrespectful. That is a real thing that actually happens. But it’s also possible that people are doing the best they can, because speaking up is really hard and there’s often no way to do it which won’t be at least somewhat painful or awkward.

If you’re not in the habit of speaking up about anything other than the tone used by others when they speak up, it’s entirely possible that tone isn’t the real problem. It’s possible that the problem is that you haven’t learned through experience how hard it is to speak up, and how complicated of a skill it is to learn.

That is not always the problem, but it’s usually a possibility worth considering in that kind of situation.

Plans, changes, anxiety, depression, and conflict

August 31, 2014June 21, 2021 Real Social Skills

A reader asked:

I have anxiety and depression and probably some other shit I get very scared and panicked when someone says “I’ll be right back” and walks away from me and if I’m supposed to meet someone and they are late or don’t show up. I guess it’s abandonment.

So my question is: how do I keep from flipping out on my boyfriend when he accidentally distresses me, like when I’m supposed to pick him up but he finds another way home. His phone is off so he can’t tell me.

And I guess my other question: is it fair for him to get frustrated and angry with me when I tell him that doing this is inconsiderate? He said he thought he’d get home before I left to get him so it wasn’t intentional, but I still feel disrespected.

ealsocialskills said:

This doesn’t sound to me like it’s just a depression and anxiety problem. It sounds to me like either something is going wrong with your communication with friends, or people aren’t treating you well, or a combination of both. It’s hard for me to tell which from a distance.

Having anxiety and depression does not mean that you are wrong every time you are upset about something. Sometimes, you’re going to be upset because something is actually wrong.

It is not unreasonable to want people you make plans with to either show up or let you know that they’re not going to make it. It is not unreasonable to want people to tell you if they are going to be late. It is not unreasonable to want people you’re supposed to pick up to let you know if they found another ride. Those expectations are normal, and not something unusual caused by mental illness. Most people would be upset if others habitually made plans and failed to show up.

(It might be unreasonable to expect people to refrain for saying “I’ll be right back” and walking away, depending on the context. For instance, that’s sometimes a euphemism for going to the bathroom. So if you’re, say, eating at a restaurant and someone says that, it’s probably not reasonable to object. But if they’re, say, leaving you in the middle of a crowded park without any clear plans for how you’re going to reconnect, that’s a problem. There are any number of configurations for that; it’s hard for me to tell just based on the phrase.)

It is entirely reasonable to want people to care that they flaked in a way that was distressing. Even if they did it for a reason or thought it would be ok, they should care that they flaked on you and apologize if it caused you distress. They should also be willing to think about how to avoid that problem in the future. In close relationships, people make mistakes from time to time that cause one another inadvertent distress. If someone gets angry and defensive every time you feel upset about something they did, something’s going wrong.

That said, it’s not ok to regularly flip out at people close to you for making mistakes. It’s hard for me to tell from your description if that’s what’s happening. Like, I could see a few possibilities:

Possibility #1: You’re actually flipping out in a way that’s not reasonable. Eg:

You: WTF?! Why didn’t you show up?! You’re a terrible boyfriend. You always do this. Why don’t you respect me?
Him: I thought I’d get home first. I’m sorry.
You: That’s not good enough. You’re awful. Why can’t you be considerate ever?

If this is what’s going on, you flipping out may well be part of the problem (but not the whole problem, because wanting people to either keep plans or let you know that they’ve changed is entirely reasonable even if the way you react is not.)

If actually flipping out on people is part of the problem, then it’s important to learn how to distinguish between how it feels to have anxiety triggered and what someone actually did. If you’re freaking out, it might be best to hold off on talking about what’s going on until you’ve calmed down. It might also help to say explicitly something like “I’m not rational right now; let’s talk about this in a few minutes.” (This is also the kind of issue that a lot of people find therapy helpful for. I don’t know if you’re someone who would find therapy helpful, but it might be worth looking into.)

But even if you are doing things that look like flipping out, that may be misleading. It’s possible that he’s intentionally provoking you in order to make you look unreasonable to avoid dealing with the problem. That brings us to possibility #2:

Possibility #2: He’s accusing you of flipping out as a way to avoid dealing with the thing you’re complaining about. Eg:

You: I went to pick you up and you weren’t there. What gives?
Him: Chill. I thought I’d be home by the time you got here. Why are you flipping out on me?
You: Can you please call me if plans change?
Him: Why are you accusing me of being inconsiderate? I didn’t do anything wrong.

For more on that kind of dynamic, see this post and this post.

Possibility #3: You’re responding to a pattern, he’s insisting that you treat it as an isolated incident, and that’s pissing you off. Eg:

You: I went to go pick you up and you weren’t there and didn’t call. Can you please let me know if plans change.
Him: Oh, sorry, I thought you’d come home first and see that I was already here.
You: Ok, but this happened last week too. Can we figure out how to stop it from happened?
Him: That happened last week. That’s over and done with.
You (raising your voice): This keeps happening! I need it to stop!
Him: Why are you flipping out? I *said* I was sorry.

Possibility #4: You both mean well, but you’re setting off each other’s berserk buttons inadvertently. Eg:

You (visibly close to melting down): You weren’t there?! You are here? Why weren’t you there?
Him (freaked out by the idea that he did something seriously upsetting, also visibly close to meltdown): I tried to be there! I did! I thought it would be ok!

If that’s the problem, finding an alternate way to communicate about problems might solve the problem. For instance, it might mean that you need to type instead of speaking, or use IM in different rooms, or talk on the phone. Or it might mean that you need ground rules about how to communicate in a conflict without setting each other off. For instance, some people need to explicitly reassure each other that this is about a specific thing and not your judgement of whether they’re a good person (sometimes judging people is appropriate and necessary. This kind of reassurance only help if that really *isn’t* the issue).

This is not an exhaustive list. There are other patterns of interaction that could be going on here. But whatever is going on, it probably isn’t just your depression and anxiety making you unreasonable. It is ok to expect people to either keep plans or let you know when they have changed.