17 Comments
Oct 22, 2020Liked by luna nicole

Thank you for sharing Dre and Shayna. Riffing off of Shayna, I'm thinking about generative boundaries in response to this question. Some parts of a relationship might be healthy even if other parts aren't, so I would have to change up how I engage with it but not necessarily break it off completely. For instance, certain behaviors or beliefs could be a deal-breaker for being close but not for staying friendly, or for being partners but not for being friends, if some connection is still desired by us both. Or, my job sucks but I am really relying on it right now, it's paying my bills and that's real. So I'm not gonna over invest my energy but I'm gonna stay for now and give as much or little of myself as I want. It's nice to have the option to not burn a bridge. In general I know something isn't working for me when I feel drained by it. I don't personally feel that it has to be about harm, though someone being harmful could be and has been the end of a relationship for me. But if I don't have to stay with a job, person, org and I have other options for survival or in general, I'm going to leave when the connection clearly makes me feel (most of the time) depleted, restricted, bored, frustrated, angry, etc. And that's gonna depend on my values, personality, and boundaries in combination with the other side's and how they're treating me. Ideally there should be resonance with both sides of the relationship that fosters expansion, creativity and safety. If that's present, then differences are worth balancing and it's probably possible if willing. If that's not present, then those differences probably can't be worked out. It's been my experience that trying to work out differences in a job or relationship that really just wears down my energy and makes me feel bad ends up being a forceful process with little or no success.

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2020Liked by luna nicole

I've been thinking about this in the context of being new to an organization's leadership structure (on a board of directors) with an activist intent. I worry that joining a 100 year old institution (with all it's misogynist, colonialist baggage) with the desire/intent to affect change is naive, for all the reasons, but I also feel like I/we need to try. Or that I want to try, because I think leaving "harmful" organizations to their own devices can invite them to multiply the harm they are doing. In my case, I value the good work the organization is doing/has done, which does not negate the harm it has done/is doing.

I think what ely said was really helpful and clarifying for me. When I let go of the illusion that I will single handedly transform this organization, I can embrace a meaningful "break point"-- that as long as the work of trying to change/shift/re-direct the organization is generative/energizing and for me, the differences are not a deal-breaker. But when it becomes a drain of my energy, it's time to move away and let someone else participate in this way.

Expand full comment

I have recently been thinking about if it is a "deal-breaker" when, in a conflict, what both parties want can't coexist and one person's desires fundamentally *require* something of the other. I think a lot of conflicts and differences in desires can coexist just fine. However, when our desired actions have effects on our relationships, the other person's wishes have to be considered. I think this is especially present when trying to figure out what the dynamic of a relationship will be, and people disagree on those desires. Like in a romantic relationship, if one party wants to move in together and views that as something they need in a relationship and the other never wants that.

In terms of organizations, "deal-breakers" are difficult to discuss as they will often also have to do with your position within the organization. Especially with jobs, I know there are so many things that would be deal-breakers for me if I felt I could easily find a new job. It is hard to know that I would work for a company that has bad ethics and no will to change them because it sustains me.

There are also times when people cause harm and I believe in their ability to grow and learn, but have to view it as a deal-breaker for myself anyways. Especially in friend circles where somebody has caused gendered harm, I know it is important to sometimes put myself first as a survivor. I hope it is easier to take these steps back in the future when I feel I am in trusting communities that address harm in healthy, transformative ways. I have found that sometimes in taking those steps back, l see the conflict get handled in a way that perpetuates harm/violence and I end up regretting having to take space. Not helpful!

I think what ely said about deal-breakers for specific types of relationships but not a total deal-breaker in general applies well to all of these feelings I have. Especially when something is a deal-breaker because of an incompatibility in desires, that is just something you can rework a relationship because of. I've been trying to minimize the amount of deal breakers I have in terms of individuals, because I do want to be able to work through conflict and view difference as good. I don't find that as necessary in organizations, especially when they have always had power or access to change, growth, and accountability.

Expand full comment

When they're trying to control or harm me (or others)! Even if it's subtle, like using a condescending or belittling tone I know that they don't respect me enough as a human being for me to come out of the conversation or interaction unscathed. I feel like there are people who endorse harmful ideas without necessarily acting in harmful ways themselves. And there are also people who endorse transformative ideas but implement or communicate them in harmful ways. I get it--people's identities are enmeshed with their values, and difference can feel like a threat to their very identity. But people's identities are also comprised of their relationships with other people! And if dogmatism is strangling that relationship, it hurts everyone involved.

Expand full comment

This is a tough question, because it seems somewhat cut and dry, but it can feel a lot different in the moment of conflict. I would generally say that the "deal-breaker" comes from differences in which the other person is causing harm, whether intentionally or not, through their position or belief about something. I suppose it also depends on what "deal-breaker" means, though. I might still try to work with an organization, even if they are imperfect, if I think they can help on something else. For example, all of the existing orgs around me (a smaller, Midwestern city that leans very Republican) are either pro-cop or looking just for reform, not abolition. I find this position inherently harmful and dangerous, but I also know that if I didn't work with ANY org that isn't rooted in abolition, I wouldn't have anyone to work with. But since I know I can't change their mind on that, I may choose to put my efforts elsewhere. Given the lack of other options, though, I may end up working with them on other efforts. In that case, I think the defining line might be that, if they're at least identifying a problem (ex. police brutality) but might just be approaching it in a way I don't think is effective or enough (ex. reform), we're still more or less on the same side of the issue of, "Should we accept police violence?" But if an org or person were on the side of whatever is causing harm -- be that actively supporting policing, being transphobic, attempting to end or limit abortion access, etc. -- I couldn't work with them, as our differences mean that they are actively causing harm. In the fundamental difference is that they are holding onto a belief, especially if they are acting on it, that is causing harm to people, that would be a deal-breaker.

Expand full comment