[Image description: the word Discussion in yellow letters, with Week Four in white hand-written script below it. In the background is a photo of a tree-covered mountain side with a range of peaks receding into a cloudy sky.]
How do you know when a fundamental difference between you and a person or organization is a “deal-breaker"?
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.
I think it's always worth noting that difference can be energizing, challenging and really valuable! Often it's what makes a relationship expansive. Compatibility is definitely not all about being alike.
"Compatibility is definitely not all about being alike" really strikes at the heart of things for me! As well as the notion that relationships aren't "all or nothing" -- we can have boundaries around where a relationship is generative and not.
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.
Yes - this is such a relevant struggle for so many people working for social justice right now. How many organizations exist that *don't* have a legacy of colonialism and misogyny? Sort of unrelated, but this reminds me of something Shira Hassan and Mariame Kaba often talk about, which is that organizing isn't about *maintaining the organization* it's about the changes or supports the organization was created to do, when the the work becomes about keeping the organization going, instead of about keeping social justice going, then the organization has reached the end of its lifecycle. If I can recall an interview or article where they talked about this, I'll make sure to share it with you because it might help in identifying that break point.
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.
"I know there are so many things that would be deal-breakers for me if I felt I could easily find a new job." I think this is so insightful - it's true that if we have other options we are less likely to accept or go along with things we would normally really disagree with. This is a big part of the next newsletter! Similar to this, it really matters when (a) harm is involved, and (b) the difference depends on you/your actions. All such important noticings and thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
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.
Dre, if you feel like expanding on dogmatism strangling a relationship--what do you mean by that? I think I'm with you, but I'd love to hear more to make sure I'm getting it. :)
Certainly, I can...I’ve been thinking a lot about this because I’ve been brainstorming ways to talk to my child about boundaries....but I am not 100% settled in my own ideas about it, so writing it out is helpful!
I didn’t mean to imply that having firm values and beliefs is a bad thing. I think it has more to do with how someone puts those beliefs into action—I think that dogmatism is about asserting authority and control. When someone flexes some kind of authority over others during disagreement—saying that something has to be true without even entertaining time to listen—it shuts the door on the possibility for people to have the kind of messy back and forth that would result in relationship-building. I’m inclined to believe that when people do this, it’s usually because they think their beliefs or values are more important than the person they’re in relationship with....and maybe they’re equating disagreement with threat. I’m also inclined to think that humans learn from their relationships more than anything else, so shutting the door on a relationship can be counter-productive because it forecloses on the possibility of growth.
The confusing thing about this balance, for me, is how this dance between values and relationships has to be different for everyone and there has to be times when we can all say that we won’t continue a relationship because it compromises our safety too much. I haven’t quite figured out how to explain to my child is when to know someone has crossed your own personal threshold, or how it doesn’t have to be your responsibility to stick it out and work with someone who has beliefs that are personally threatening.....but also being aware that oftentimes disagreement can feel like a threat even when it’s not.
Yes, this is such a fine and nuanced line, that I think is related to the difference between "I am uncomfortable that you believe/support/do that" and "I am uncomfortable that you are expecting that of me" -- one is sort of a relational experience of the other person (do I want to be exposed to this), while the other is about having one's behavior, body, or mind impacted by that person -- and the line can be really blurry and difficult where we can't decide if a change or impact is right for us (challenging in a good way) or harmful to us.
Would love to hear more of your thoughts as you and your child work through this and also want to make very clear that it's okay to err on the side of caution and trusting our bodies and listening to our instincts! <3
I love "people's identities are also comprised of their relationships with other people" - so good to be reminded of that and stay humbled by it, thank you!
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.
I think this is a really important distinction and I find myself often challenged by where to draw the line. As an abolitionist, sometimes it's really clear that an person or organization is "pro-cop" and so working with them on a project isn't something I'm willing to do. But, there are also liberal organizations that aren't inherently pro-cop, but whose actions reinforce criminalizing rhetoric or reinforce the mechanisms that fund policing. Where is the line of when harm is too much harm to work with someone or not? And then beyond me not working with them, when are they harmful enough to become an "opponent" - someone to actively fight against?
This reminds me of something I read recently about “non-reformist reforms.” It’s when we work with liberal orgs that aren’t necessarily abolitionist to change conditions in ways that won’t expand the carceral system but aren’t exactly working towards abolition either....one example off the top of my head is when people work to bring better living conditions to prisons without increasing their funding.....I find my energy is constantly torn between non-reformist reforms and total transformation. I really want things to get at least one iota better for at least one person right this second, but I also want complete and total, uncompromising justice.
Thanks for bringing this up, it's a reality that we have to work with what we've got sometimes. Always a nice idea to start something new if there's something important missing, but maybe that's not immediately viable or possible in all situations. A relationship is not necessarily going to match up with our ideals, while still being an important relationship in the moment. It feels grounding to keep that in mind. Has me thinking about the depths of what transformation means, it's hard work and a marathon.
"Hard work and a marathon" is SO accurate. It really is tough to do sometimes, but a lot of folks in my community are grappling with that now and finding that starting from scratch is definitely hard. But the nice this is that so much can happen in tandem. Like, I'm working with some folks on things that, in my opinion, don't really go far enough, but at the same time I'm working with others to start more radical projects. Like you said, it can be grounding to remember that that's how it is sometimes, but the long game is still there!
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.
I think it's always worth noting that difference can be energizing, challenging and really valuable! Often it's what makes a relationship expansive. Compatibility is definitely not all about being alike.
"Compatibility is definitely not all about being alike" really strikes at the heart of things for me! As well as the notion that relationships aren't "all or nothing" -- we can have boundaries around where a relationship is generative and not.
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.
Yes - this is such a relevant struggle for so many people working for social justice right now. How many organizations exist that *don't* have a legacy of colonialism and misogyny? Sort of unrelated, but this reminds me of something Shira Hassan and Mariame Kaba often talk about, which is that organizing isn't about *maintaining the organization* it's about the changes or supports the organization was created to do, when the the work becomes about keeping the organization going, instead of about keeping social justice going, then the organization has reached the end of its lifecycle. If I can recall an interview or article where they talked about this, I'll make sure to share it with you because it might help in identifying that break point.
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.
"I know there are so many things that would be deal-breakers for me if I felt I could easily find a new job." I think this is so insightful - it's true that if we have other options we are less likely to accept or go along with things we would normally really disagree with. This is a big part of the next newsletter! Similar to this, it really matters when (a) harm is involved, and (b) the difference depends on you/your actions. All such important noticings and thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
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.
Dre, if you feel like expanding on dogmatism strangling a relationship--what do you mean by that? I think I'm with you, but I'd love to hear more to make sure I'm getting it. :)
Certainly, I can...I’ve been thinking a lot about this because I’ve been brainstorming ways to talk to my child about boundaries....but I am not 100% settled in my own ideas about it, so writing it out is helpful!
I didn’t mean to imply that having firm values and beliefs is a bad thing. I think it has more to do with how someone puts those beliefs into action—I think that dogmatism is about asserting authority and control. When someone flexes some kind of authority over others during disagreement—saying that something has to be true without even entertaining time to listen—it shuts the door on the possibility for people to have the kind of messy back and forth that would result in relationship-building. I’m inclined to believe that when people do this, it’s usually because they think their beliefs or values are more important than the person they’re in relationship with....and maybe they’re equating disagreement with threat. I’m also inclined to think that humans learn from their relationships more than anything else, so shutting the door on a relationship can be counter-productive because it forecloses on the possibility of growth.
The confusing thing about this balance, for me, is how this dance between values and relationships has to be different for everyone and there has to be times when we can all say that we won’t continue a relationship because it compromises our safety too much. I haven’t quite figured out how to explain to my child is when to know someone has crossed your own personal threshold, or how it doesn’t have to be your responsibility to stick it out and work with someone who has beliefs that are personally threatening.....but also being aware that oftentimes disagreement can feel like a threat even when it’s not.
Yes, this is such a fine and nuanced line, that I think is related to the difference between "I am uncomfortable that you believe/support/do that" and "I am uncomfortable that you are expecting that of me" -- one is sort of a relational experience of the other person (do I want to be exposed to this), while the other is about having one's behavior, body, or mind impacted by that person -- and the line can be really blurry and difficult where we can't decide if a change or impact is right for us (challenging in a good way) or harmful to us.
Would love to hear more of your thoughts as you and your child work through this and also want to make very clear that it's okay to err on the side of caution and trusting our bodies and listening to our instincts! <3
I love "people's identities are also comprised of their relationships with other people" - so good to be reminded of that and stay humbled by it, thank you!
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.
I think this is a really important distinction and I find myself often challenged by where to draw the line. As an abolitionist, sometimes it's really clear that an person or organization is "pro-cop" and so working with them on a project isn't something I'm willing to do. But, there are also liberal organizations that aren't inherently pro-cop, but whose actions reinforce criminalizing rhetoric or reinforce the mechanisms that fund policing. Where is the line of when harm is too much harm to work with someone or not? And then beyond me not working with them, when are they harmful enough to become an "opponent" - someone to actively fight against?
This reminds me of something I read recently about “non-reformist reforms.” It’s when we work with liberal orgs that aren’t necessarily abolitionist to change conditions in ways that won’t expand the carceral system but aren’t exactly working towards abolition either....one example off the top of my head is when people work to bring better living conditions to prisons without increasing their funding.....I find my energy is constantly torn between non-reformist reforms and total transformation. I really want things to get at least one iota better for at least one person right this second, but I also want complete and total, uncompromising justice.
Thanks for bringing this up, it's a reality that we have to work with what we've got sometimes. Always a nice idea to start something new if there's something important missing, but maybe that's not immediately viable or possible in all situations. A relationship is not necessarily going to match up with our ideals, while still being an important relationship in the moment. It feels grounding to keep that in mind. Has me thinking about the depths of what transformation means, it's hard work and a marathon.
"Hard work and a marathon" is SO accurate. It really is tough to do sometimes, but a lot of folks in my community are grappling with that now and finding that starting from scratch is definitely hard. But the nice this is that so much can happen in tandem. Like, I'm working with some folks on things that, in my opinion, don't really go far enough, but at the same time I'm working with others to start more radical projects. Like you said, it can be grounding to remember that that's how it is sometimes, but the long game is still there!