Withholding Information is Controlling Not Protective
How oppressive practices infiltrate our attempts at anti-oppressive relationships
Control: (a) to exercise restraining or directing influence over; (b) to have power over
Withholding information is a controlling tactic in conflict, and a common reason that relationships & organizations end up with deteriorating conflicts.
When is withholding information controlling?
I’ll start by saying, of course I don’t mean that we must tell everyone everything or else we’re being controlling. In conflict, information about what’s happening, why it’s happening, and the potential impacts of those events, all provide us with the context we need to make decisions about what is best for us and how to navigate our relationships. When we withhold information that could impact others’ choices—especially when we do so knowingly and because we want people to choose a particular set of actions—then it is controlling to do so.
This can look like:
Silo’ing information that impacts the whole group into a small team tasked with “solving” the problem;
Only sharing a problem when we have a “solution” ready to go;
Presenting a positive, falsified front when people sense a problem and start to ask questions.
You can figure out if you should be sharing information (to avoid control and deteriorating outcomes) by asking a few questions:
What information do I have and is it confirmed/solid/trustworthy?
If you have very little information and that information is unreliable, it makes sense to try to get more information before sharing. However, be careful of avoidance of information as a means of controlling the situation (Thoughts might sound like: I don’t want to know because it’s scarier to know than not know, If I know, then I have to act on it).
Who is impacted directly and indirectly by this information? What are the relationship and power dynamics between me and them?
We are prone to withholding information in a controlling way in relationships where we have power or a deep connection that we are afraid of losing—consider how your own fear is informing this decision and how it limits the choices of the other person/people.
We are also prone to withhold information in a controlling way in relationships where we have less power, if our own choices are threatened by providing the information—for example, in a domestic violence or landlord/tenant relationship, we may need to withhold information in order to ensure our safety. This is not an oppressive act of control, it is a reclaiming of control in a situation where our own agency has been threatened—this is a good time to withhold information.
Would having this information potentially change how those people respond to the situation (hint: if you have to guess, then lean heavily toward “yes.”)?
In rare cases, the other person may have expressed that they don’t care, don’t want to know, will go along with whatever, etc. and withholding information is simply honoring their boundaries. You shouldn’t have to guess—someone would have expressed this to you.
Withholding information is controlling when it limits another person’s choices. Looking at the situation, consider what options the other person might have if they knew the information and what your motives are for closing off access to some of those options by not giving them the information.
Think about a time when you were in a difficult situation and you later found out that someone didn’t tell you the whole story; now think about a time when you were in a difficult situation and everyone was on the same page about what was going on. Which was more distressing? What made those experiences different?
Why do we withhold information in our relationships?
Unfortunately, many people in relationships and groups adopt a practice of “protecting” others from difficult or stressful information, typically related to collective problems (such as big transitions, crises, financial issues, internal patterns of harm). This desire to “protect others” is loaded with assumptions about other people’s capacities and abilities, while usually carrying a benefit of protecting ourselves—our own desires for security, attachment, esteem—that we prefer not to acknowledge. Children, femmes in partnerships with masculine people, disabled folks, elderly folks, and poor folks are all especially vulnerable to being controlled in this way by caretakers, partners, and bosses.
If we find ourselves engaging in this type of control, we might inadvertently hold some core beliefs that we’ve adopted from hierarchical and oppressive systems, like:
we know the “right thing” for others;
negative feelings (fear, anxiety, stress, anger, frustration) are bad and should be avoided;
it is noble or heroic to prevent people from having to make hard choices;
it is reasonable and the natural order of things to “keep” people (workers, partners, children) and prevent them from leaving;
it is more important to be liked and approved of than to have an honest relationship;
people in positions of authority have earned those positions because they have good judgment and skills that others don’t have, and therefore we must just trust them to do the right thing or else there will be disorder;
there are some members of our society who can solve problems logically, rationally, or unemotionally and everyone else will just make things worse;
some people are capable of solving problems and others are not;
some people can handle difficult information and others cannot;
individuals can solve group problems alone / a solution designed without collective input can meaningfully resolve a collective issue;
when people are in a bad social position, it’s probably because they can’t make good choices for themselves;
when people have limited options in life, it’s better to decide for them because it will just upset them to have to choose between a bad thing and a bad thing / there is no meaningful way to expand our choices in life;
not all members of the group have essential insight into shared problems.
Oppressive systems instill these beliefs and we sometimes act on them automatically. These beliefs drive us to isolate decision-making, power, and control in the hands of dominant groups and authority figures. If we want to prevent controlling behavior, we have to change these core beliefs.
What are the hopes and unintended impacts of withholding information?
When we withhold information, we usually intend to ensure that relationships or operations don’t change or remain “ordered.” Our hope is that we can keep everything together, despite the signs that things need to change. By withholding information, we’re able to respond to those signs in ways that lean toward what we want and think is best—our partner stays in the relationship, our workers continue productively working, our volunteers show up regularly, our friends or family stay together.
Unfortunately, these seemingly noble pursuits are driven by misinformation. That misinformation tends to rupture the relationships because it means we’re ignoring the signs of change and failing to get all of the information and capacity we need to really address what’s going on. Usually, the other people can sense those signs and this leads to:
we create invisible power dynamics between group members that slowly intrude on how people relate to one another and who they trust,
we hide the full extent of a problem from the very people tasked with solving it, because other people who have valuable information are not brought into the discussion—this leads to the solutions not being effective,
people have a felt sense of being lied to or deceived, things don’t feel like they’re adding up,
we become angry about the unfair burden of having to solve everyone’s problems (even when we took on that burden by not bringing others in)
other becomes resentful of the way our anger leaks out into our relationships and approaches to other issues,
we call into question whether we really believe in equity, consensus, consent, and related values we have claimed, by not using collective decision-making,
we withhold valuable capacity from the solution, making the solution fall apart under the stress,
people feel blindsided and are more stressed in the end, when the whole story comes out or things start to fall apart.
Can you remember a time when someone came to you with information about a conflict that impacted you in a meaningful way, but presented it as a problem they already had a solution in motion for? How did that make you feel?
How can we prioritize people’s wellness and choice at the same time?
We can address both the reasonable interest in reducing unnecessary stress and address shared problems in anti-oppressive ways. These two approaches are actually not mutually exclusive, they are mutually reinforcing. Most people experience stress when our choices are limited (with the exception of having way too many meaningless choices, like brands of shampoo).
Here are some options for reducing distress in a situation where you have information about a conflict that impacts others.
Once signs of conflict have been identified, ask yourself what your own hopes and fears are about the conflict and how other people might respond.
What are you most worried will happen?
What do you most hope will happen?
Consider how those fears and hopes are influencing your actions going forward—are you trying to “manage” other people in order to get the outcome you hope for, at the expense of others?
Identify who is impacted by the conflict and the information you have—impacts can be safety, material wellbeing, social position, relational integrity, psychological wellbeing. Some examples we might not always think about include:
Dignity—the information may impact how they feel about themself, their feeling of being respected, acknowledged, etc. and how they may want to respond to those experiences;
Priorities—the information may lead them to prioritize their time, money, relationships differently.
Integrity—the information might lead them to deepen their commitment or question their commitment based on their values and principles.
Engage the people involved (individually or collectively).
Start by acknowledging and remembering the strengths of the relationship or group when it comes to solving shared problems. Recalling a successful obstacle that has been overcome in the past or the way things have gone well, grounds the group in collective strength.
If there are no such reassurances, be honest— “We haven’t done the best at working through problems together, I am committed to doing better this time.” (If that’s true).
Provide information about the problem in a direct, honest, and straightforward way. Include:
the facts you have about the present situation (content),
the factors that are relevant to the situation (context),
***the relational patterns and dynamics that led to the conflict (causes),
any reassurance you can provide based on that information (e.g. “we have enough savings to stay housed for at least two months, we aren’t getting evicted tomorrow”).
For now, don’t focus on your own fears and hopes so that people don’t feel pressured to instantly take care of you—give them time and space to feel their own feelings.
Create an opening for people to share their initial feelings and questions without trying to force “positive vibes.” We can sometimes make the mistake of telling people to “focus on the positives,” which communicates that this is not a safe space for real reactions. There will be time later for solution-oriented conversation.
When people have had a chance to share their feelings, feel free to share your own feelings—do you share some of their fears? their hopes? can you understand where they’re coming from? Don’t try to mask the feelings—acknowledge that it is stressful, it is hard, it’s okay to be scared.
Return to collective assets and opportunities available that can offer reassurance that things are not totally falling apart or if they are, that there will be some kind of safety net. These are *NOT SOLUTIONS,* they’re the components a solution may be made out of. For example:
we can use xyz resources to address this,
we are in a good time of year to be making these transitions because of abc,
we know/have on our team these people with these strengths/skills,
we can redistribute time/energy toward this, we’re interested in what could be shifted around to do that,
we recognize there’s a harmful pattern here and we’re willing and able to adapt so that the pattern doesn’t reoccur.
People may need some time to reflect and collect themselves. That’s okay. It can be painful to not immediately have people’s support or commitment. This can be a time when we feel a strong urgency to return to control. Instead, try to address your own fears during this time, rely on your support system for reassurance, offer the resources that are available in the short-term when people seem especially impacted by stress.
When people seem ready, invite them into creative ideas that focus on short-term changes and changes that address the underlying cause of the conflict; This can include offering some solutions you’ve considered, presented as ideas, options, proposals but not decisions.
Warning! Do not close off possibility by saying “Don’t worry! I’ve already solved it! This is what we’ll do!” This prevents them from being a part of the solution and is another form of control.
Show gratitude for people’s questions, contributions, and ideas. Thank them for listening. Thank them for being vulnerable.
Sharing the information available and making space for people’s responses and a chance for them to be involved in the process are effective at reducing the stress and giving people choices. Using shared decision-making processes (like consensus-based practices) create even more reassurance.
Sharing information isn’t a guarantee people will stay or do what we hope they’ll do
Relinquishing control by sharing information means that people may choose to leave a situation that no longer serves them. People may react with anger, frustration, or sadness and that might lead to people acting out those feelings in ways that complicate the conflict. People might come up with ideas and make collective solutions that are uncomfortable for us, cause us to lose some power that we wanted to hold on to, or make the conflict worse before it gets better.
Relinquishing control sometimes means more mess in the short-term. But, in the long-term it usually means taking on less of the burden of holding it all together, and sharing that load with the people who are really committed to the relationship or project. It means having relationships that are authentic and honest, with people who are choosing to be a part of our shared connection or shared work because they feel a stake in its success. We no longer have to be the idolized and isolated hero or authority, we can be really known and seen by others as we really are.
When we withhold information that directly impacts others’ lives, it is patronizing, authoritarian, hierarchical, and leads to anger and resentment.
When we are open, honest, and direct, we may face difficult conversations, but we are more likely to earn trust and get to lasting solutions based on all of the information and capacity available.
Opportunities for Learning & Action
Stop Gaza Genocide Toolkit by US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, includes action items that are relevant to pressuring the U.S. government to stop arms sales;
Moving Toward Conflict for the Sake of Good Strategy by Yotam Marom explores how we avoid conflict in our movement organizations and suggestions for how we can engage in generative conflict instead
Share information about these crisis helplines that approach crisis support with an anti-oppressive lens (United States Only):
TransLifeline: (877) 565-8860 by and for trans and nonbinary people in crisis
BlackLine: (800) 604-5841 by and for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
Thrive Lifeline: Text THRIVE to (313) 662-8209, suicide intervention by and for POC, LGBTQ2S+, and people with disabilities