![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tin cans and string
Nov. 6th, 2010 01:38 pmSo we're sitting in the marriage counsellor's office (the occasional tune-up has done wonders for our relationship) and I'm looking at this poster which I must've seen a hundred times without really taking any notice of it. It looks roughly like this:
I went Googling. Apparently, research into conflict between couples has found that those "four horsemen", Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling, are predictors of divorce. Therapists try to get couples to recognise those unhelpful tactics in their own interactions so that they can switch to more helpful alternatives.
Criticism, in this context, not complaining about someone's actions, but attacking their character or personality. One book says "It is important to distinguish [criticism] from a complaint, which usually involves a specific situation, and is a specific statement of anger, displeasure, or distress". (IMHO "calling someone out" is often this kind of criticism.)
Contempt essentially says "you're worthless, you're unworthy of respect, I'm better than you". Sarcasm, mockery, insults, hostile humor, self-righteousness, eye-rolling - all very familiar tools from online anti-racism, I'm sorry to say, and readily exploited by bullies. (Apparently, out of the four "horsemen", this is the most powerful predictor of divorce. IMHO it's the most damaging problem in online anti-racism.)
Defensiveness is dodging blame (eg making excuses) or shifting responsibility (eg counterattacking). Also tediously familiar, alas. (White people's defensiveness is partly fuelled by a culture that protects racism by teaching us that racists are monsters, so if we say or do something racist, we're prone to panic and try to prove we're not a monster.)
Stonewalling, by the researchers' definition, is when someone gets so angry or upset that they just stop responding. That's what the "self-soothing" thing is about - ways of calming down so they can rejoin the discussion. I guess the online equivalent of stonewalling is refusing to engage altogether. What's the online equivalent of "self-soothing"? Maybe taking a day off to cool down and get perspective?
These are always going to be difficult and painful discussions, and the venting of anger and frustration is only natural. (tbh, so is panic and flailing.) But I strongly suspect that in order to really get anywhere, a large chunk of the movement online will have to meet two challenges: communicating without personal criticism and contempt, and getting people to respond without defensiveness or stonewalling.
Obviously, the former's easier than the latter; we have control over our own statements. It's far from impossible for anti-racists to communicate passionately, even angrily, and also clearly and respectfully - in fact, it happens all the time, but it tends to get drowned out by all the aggro. (ETA: if you've paged through screencaps of the comments to Ms Moon's posting, you'll have seen what I mean.)
OK, fine, but what about defensiveness and stonewalling from people who've said or done something racist? Well, the less they feel like they're under attack, the less they'll try to defend themselves instead of dealing with the problem. (We're still up against the "racists are monsters" problem, though.) That book says, "Focused problem-solving means that it is important for couple members to be able to openly state their opinions or concerns about problem issues. However, they should do so in a way that minimizes defensiveness from the partner." Besides that, though, perhaps we can only make it clear to the people on the other end of the tin-cans-and-string that we encourage them to engage and to take responsibility - more, that we expect them to. We're waiting for their answer - even if it takes a while.
NO criticism; instead, complain without blame.And it hits me: that poster describes a large part of the online anti-racism movement. The part that's stopping people communicating and solving problems - when isn't scaring them away. And not just the outright bullying, either. On the one side you've got sincere anti-racists who are so frustrated they're about ready to eat their own heads, and on the other side you've got folks so paralysed with fear they can't listen.
NO defensiveness; instead, take responsibility.
NO contempt; instead, build culture of appreciation.
NO stonewalling; instead, do physiological self-soothing.
I went Googling. Apparently, research into conflict between couples has found that those "four horsemen", Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, and Stonewalling, are predictors of divorce. Therapists try to get couples to recognise those unhelpful tactics in their own interactions so that they can switch to more helpful alternatives.
Criticism, in this context, not complaining about someone's actions, but attacking their character or personality. One book says "It is important to distinguish [criticism] from a complaint, which usually involves a specific situation, and is a specific statement of anger, displeasure, or distress". (IMHO "calling someone out" is often this kind of criticism.)
Contempt essentially says "you're worthless, you're unworthy of respect, I'm better than you". Sarcasm, mockery, insults, hostile humor, self-righteousness, eye-rolling - all very familiar tools from online anti-racism, I'm sorry to say, and readily exploited by bullies. (Apparently, out of the four "horsemen", this is the most powerful predictor of divorce. IMHO it's the most damaging problem in online anti-racism.)
Defensiveness is dodging blame (eg making excuses) or shifting responsibility (eg counterattacking). Also tediously familiar, alas. (White people's defensiveness is partly fuelled by a culture that protects racism by teaching us that racists are monsters, so if we say or do something racist, we're prone to panic and try to prove we're not a monster.)
Stonewalling, by the researchers' definition, is when someone gets so angry or upset that they just stop responding. That's what the "self-soothing" thing is about - ways of calming down so they can rejoin the discussion. I guess the online equivalent of stonewalling is refusing to engage altogether. What's the online equivalent of "self-soothing"? Maybe taking a day off to cool down and get perspective?
These are always going to be difficult and painful discussions, and the venting of anger and frustration is only natural. (tbh, so is panic and flailing.) But I strongly suspect that in order to really get anywhere, a large chunk of the movement online will have to meet two challenges: communicating without personal criticism and contempt, and getting people to respond without defensiveness or stonewalling.
Obviously, the former's easier than the latter; we have control over our own statements. It's far from impossible for anti-racists to communicate passionately, even angrily, and also clearly and respectfully - in fact, it happens all the time, but it tends to get drowned out by all the aggro. (ETA: if you've paged through screencaps of the comments to Ms Moon's posting, you'll have seen what I mean.)
OK, fine, but what about defensiveness and stonewalling from people who've said or done something racist? Well, the less they feel like they're under attack, the less they'll try to defend themselves instead of dealing with the problem. (We're still up against the "racists are monsters" problem, though.) That book says, "Focused problem-solving means that it is important for couple members to be able to openly state their opinions or concerns about problem issues. However, they should do so in a way that minimizes defensiveness from the partner." Besides that, though, perhaps we can only make it clear to the people on the other end of the tin-cans-and-string that we encourage them to engage and to take responsibility - more, that we expect them to. We're waiting for their answer - even if it takes a while.
