A Culture of Disposability
This one’s pretty long, so let’s just get to it. Opportunity for weekly discussion is near the bottom, as are some opportunities.
Take care,
—Luna.
[Image is a teal bar with the words: A Culture of Disposability in yellow letters; behind the text are a series of barred windows with hands clasping the bars]
Disposability within a conflict is the practice of banishing, removing, displacing, silencing, isolating, or otherwise discarding a person or group of people as a means of “resolving” a conflict. Abolitionists talk about disposability in the context of the forcible isolation of people and the acceptance of harm (via punishment) against those people based on a coded understanding of who is “deserving” of protection or punishment by the criminal-legal system.
Within our culture of disposability this practice of removal and punishment is extended beyond the criminal-legal system into our relationships. While we often talk about disposability in terms of the harm-doer and the survivor (who is equally disposed in the criminal-legal framework), in the majority of conflicts there is no clear harmed/harmer distinction and there may be no harm at all. Yet, our thinking is so framed by this binary and the “solution” of disposability that our first response to conflict is to discover who is at fault and who is the victim.
If we are within the conflict, we must then make sure that we are viewed as the victim (or “good guy”) because this is the position in which we may remain in community, avoid punishment, and (perhaps) receive support—this positioning limits our ability to discuss nuance, doubt, or responsibility within our own experience. At some point in the process we eliminate the possibility that the harmer (or “bad guy”) has anything meaningful to contribute to solving the conflict, thus we preemptively frame their contributions as always-already illegitimate, harmful, pointless, or selfishly defensive.
Regardless of where we end up within this binary, we (and our friends and families) are now pinned into “opposing sides” that obscure our lived context and collective responsibility. Our second response to conflict is to figure out how to remove the “cause” of the conflict in order to return to order, comfort, and normalcy—often this is a person or group, rather than the root cause.
When we see this pattern disrupted it is often with the language of “seeing both sides,” which similarly uncomplicates the issues and events in order to diffuse responsibility rather than claim it. Within the framework of disposability, we dispose of the complex humanity of the impacted parties (including ourselves), as well as the potential for transformation. So, how can we alter our practice?
Here are four dimensions of disposability to start with:
[Image: a yellow bar with the words Silencing and Nurturing with a teal double-sided arrow between them]
While our responses to open conflict tend to rely on avoiding, removing, repressing, or “spinning” a situation in order to keep the conflict within our control, nurturing a space to talk about and engage in open conflict allows us to develop tolerance for seeking understanding, support, and strategy.
We can nurture an environment for open, authentic conflict by:
Inviting expressions of all emotions—rather than removing people who are disruptive, bothersome, direct, or “escalating”
Encouraging conflicting and multi-dimensional truths and stories when they extend from personal experiences (our vantage points can be different without being correct and incorrect)
Interpreting stories of harm as ways of discovering possibilities for support, healing, and transformation—rather than evidence that must be proven
Offering the same level of support to those who require protective conditions, such as anonymity and confidentiality, while also encouraging open, direct engagement when safety is not an issue
Co-creating (and making accessible) mechanisms for people to share their stories and experiences in ways that won’t be manipulated, exploited or weaponized, such as:
Circles of healing and understanding
Support groups of people with shared experiences
Writing, art, music, and other creative outlets
Listening sessions with trusted people
Silencing is not only the absence of listening, but also the voided opportunity of action that is responsive to the specific, unique circumstances of the conflict and those impacted by it.
[Image: a dark teal bar with the words Exposing and Warding with a double-sided arrow between them.]
Even as we suppress or silence the impacted parties, we often also expose them to extraordinary public scrutiny in order to shape a binary narrative of heroes and villains, victims and abusers, who can then be clearly uplifted or removed as symbols of resolution. This exposure obscures collective responsibility for addressing the root causes of conflict, while also instilling a sense of security, order, vindication, or justice. Exposure is a passive process that increases vulnerability to risk and harm, whereas warding is an active engagement that instills measures of protection, resilience, and support.
Warding might include:
Unconditional housing, food, access to healing, provision of information, and social support for impacted parties
Containing vulnerable information to those who will engage in supportive action for the impacted parties (such as those who will provide material support, organize solutions, and implement accountability measures)
Building broad, prevention-focused understanding of the harms and root causes in ways that leave out personal details that may lead to nonconsensual vulnerability or disposal
Mobilizing people to engage in transformation at all levels that will lead to a better future beyond those individuals impacted in this single instance.
(Exposure isn’t inherently bad and in the case of people who are predatory and resistant to or shielded from systems of accountability, exposure may be the only option. This is not meant to be a judgment on survivors who have, in a world of uncompromising cruelty, “outed” their abusers after other attempts failed or were made impossible.)
[Image: a yellow bar with the words Isolating and Enfolding with a double-sided arrow between them]
When we enfold the people at the center of a conflict into a support system, we create the conditions in which they are resourced to engage in restoration, transformation, and healing. Instead, we usually allow people to languish alone or with a small group of friends or family, creating conditions in which the conflict will be exacerbated, extended, or shift to a different space. Isolated people are more likely to self-harm or lash out and harm others, whereas people with social, emotional, and material support are more likely to engage in healthy conflict behavior.
We can enfold people into conflict support by:
Asking what kinds of social support would be meaningful to those within the conflict and making plans to provide that support, in ways that are sustainable over a long period of time.
Expanding our willingness and capacity to support people we don’t like, understand, agree with, or want to be friends with—what variety of relations can we create that extend compassion and joy to those we deem untouchable?
Co-creating free and accessible public spaces that are inviting to people across race, gender, class, and the survivor-abuser binary, where nurturing connections are available outside of consumer-driven or service-providing mechanisms.
[Image: a teal bar with the words Punishing and Preventing with a double-sided arrow between them]
When harm has occurred within a conflict, harm prevention holds the necessity for consequences and transformation within a conflict, whereas punishment enacts retribution (an eye, for an eye). Consequences as measures of accountability draw a direct connection to the specific events at hand (as opposed to prescribed, generic acts) and present achievable goals or conditions that lead to a state of transformation (as opposed to arbitrary “sentences”). We can co-generate these consequences only if we understand the resources available to make them accessible; that includes:
Shaping a consequence around the specific harm (e.g. the harm always occurs in this physical space, so that place is now off-limits permanently or temporarily); escalating consequences if harm continues, rather than using the harshest consequences immediately. Explaining these consequences so that they are understood and anticipated.
Addressing the specific harm with opportunities for learning or understanding (such as counseling, support groups, reading groups, etc.) that include but also extend beyond the individual responsible in a single instance.
Creating avenues and opportunities for the person to share their authentic learning and growth and interpreting what is shared generously and with encouragement.
Being transparent about what transformation means and how it is achievable in ways that are accessible to the person/people involved.
Extending responsibility beyond the individual, in ways that expand accountability to the systems and spaces where harm was taught, shaped, encouraged, or forced.
Ultimately, only when we try to understand why and how a conflict is happening, rather than who caused it, will we be able to expand our view of responsibility and transformation.
[Image: The words Discussion in bold yellow letters and Week Two in white hand written letters, on top of a photograph of cliffside covered in red, broken rocks of various sizes and shapes]
Weekly Discussion: What do discomfort and harm mean to you and what is their relationship to each other?
Guidance: Click here to access the discussion. I hope that folks will write to each other. I hope folks will be brave in sharing, receiving, and responding to difficult subjects. If sharing conflicts related to abuse, violence, or other sensitive subjects, I’ll ask that you preface your post with a content warning. Please have a plan for debriefing, decompressing, and healing if you plan to engage in discussions that may cause distress.
Opportunities to Learn + Act
Next week the newsletter will, out of character, address the simmering conflict of a contested election. I’ll be asking your thoughts and what kinds of actions your community is taking to protect each other from misinformation, increased federal law enforcement, and potential outbreaks of violence by white nationalists, as well as providing some practical steps we can take. Here are a few articles/resources to check out in the meantime:
What if Trump Won’t Leave (will be preferred by leftists).
Holding the Line Guide (will be preferred by people who align with the democratic party).
September 30th: Attend the Audio Interference + Survived & Punished NY listening party to celebrate the launch of the Archiving Abolition podcast. Register Here.
October 10th: Tea Time Queer Dance Party with Fireweed Collective. Tickets here.
Listen to Tlingit music by The Dakhká Khwáan Dancers + D. Ashley (DASH); Tlingit communities practice circle-based processes as a means of healing and transformation and are one of many communities identified as the source of restorative practices.
[Image is a teal rectangle with the text: "Consequences should be a series of steps grounded in minimizing future harm, taking power away from the harm-doer, and increasing the survivor’s agency and ability to thrive. This is different from punishment because to punish someone is to dehumanize, villainize, and inflict more harm on someone." ― Je’Kendria, Executive Director ofCollective Action for Safe Spaces]