Addressing Nuanced Problematic Communication
This post was written by the accountability pod members with tremendous input from the pod consultant
As we have been working with Charlie, both as a collective pod and as individuals, we have paid close attention to his communication, both written and verbal how he presents ideas, and the way he reacts when challenged. Charlie is a skilled communicator and prolific writer. He knows what words to use and how to get his point across, which played a part in the harm he caused. These factors have created unique challenges for us during this process. We are taking the time to delve deep into his patterns and ideas, as well as our own cultural conditioning, to address the very nuanced ways in which his communications have been problematic.
Over the course of our work with him, we have had the opportunity to experience communicating with him in a variety of ways. We’ve met via video conferences, as well as by phone, in-person, through emails, and using shared documents. We have also witnessed his communication in professional, social, and personal settings. These varied forms of communication have allowed us to take a holistic approach and address the areas in which Charlie needs awareness, education, and accountability.
Some of this work has been done by reviewing his communications from the past — social media posts, curriculum, and articles he has written; however, a majority of this work was, and continues to be, done in real-time. By calling in current thoughts and behaviors through explicit feedback, asking him directly to explain what was happening for him and challenging him to explore his personal “why”, and offering education when needed, we have seen, and continue to call him towards positive change.
We have specifically challenged him in the following ways:
Addressing the ideas of his role & responsibility within the community.
Charlie did not see himself in a “leadership” role within the sex-positive community because he doesn’t run a brick and mortar space or coordinate a specific “group” of people. By challenging that erroneous thinking, he was able to come to the conclusion that he is indeed viewed as a “thought leader” by some through his writing, workshops, speaking engagements, etc. We’re challenging him to continue considering that his role as “thought leader”, which has benefitted him, also obligates him to challenge his own privilege and hold himself accountable for doing better. He is developing a growing understanding of the enormous responsibility that comes with being viewed as a thought leader.
Challenging his ideas around consent and power/privilege dynamics.
The idea that Charlie didn’t see himself in a “leadership” role informed his inability to see how much power and privilege he has held within the sex-positive community. Once he made the breakthrough to better understand his role as a leader, he was able to address the need to be more mindful of the power and privileges that come with leadership. His Personal and Professional Consent Policy are being built around this new found awareness.
Analyzing how he reacts when activated and/or experiencing “urgency”.
Creating a public accountability process does not always go smoothly. We ask the hard questions, hold space for trauma response (for those who have been harmed, pod members, and Charlie), help process through scary emotions and tender feelings. When examining and rooting out inappropriate ways of being, things get messy. Past traumas can get triggered, process fatigue can set in, and life in general can get in the way. We have carefully watched how Charlie reacts under this type of stress. When he has engaged in frantic, demanding behavior, or seems activated in his communication, we have asked (or reminded) him to put the brakes on the process. We have reminded him on several occasions that there is “no emergency”. We have modeled making time for consideration before responding to email and encouraged him to slow down his communication. He has been tasked with developing ways to recognize this pattern, how to graciously take a “time out” when needed while keeping others informed until he is ready and able to come back to a situation when he is regulated. Some of his past harm has come from acting out from a place of false urgency.
Exploring his reactions to being challenged.
Being personally challenged comes in many different forms. Charlie has a love of learning and is usually receptive to new ideas. The accountability process was initiated by Charlie after he was not receptive to his behaviors (and subsequent reactions) being challenged by peers, colleagues, friends and partners. We have been closely monitoring how Charlie reacts during this process as a whole. Close attention has been paid to how he responds when confronted about his interactions by the pod when we present new ways of thinking, interacting, and language. We have seen him make connections between his own trauma response/activation and how he reacts to being challenged.
Addressing nuanced problematic language.
With the social awareness, extensive vocabulary and knowledge Charlie already possessed before starting this process, sussing out problematic language has been an ongoing challenge. By having a pod with a diverse background we have been able to address the granular issues in Charlie’s writing and verbal communications. We focus on highlighting specific instances in his communication, when he is using a passive voice, euphemisms, and indirect language when speaking, or writing, about the harm he has caused. We continue to directly address instances of Charlie using words, phrases or statements that impart victim blaming, are commonly triggering, or flatout gaslighting.
Extra effort has been focused on addressing how to name his reactions and take responsibility without excusing or minimizing inappropriate behavior. We have noticed that in the past, Charlie rarely named the specific harms he caused without qualifying them and noting context about where they came from for him. While we know context is valuable for his understanding of how and why he caused harm, it’s not appropriate to detail the context when the harm itself has not yet been addressed.
The ways in which he provided context, which we found to be problematic, were presented as repeatedly naming his behaviors as trauma reactions, triggers, activation, acting out, dysregulation, “acting outside his integrity”, insisting on providing context for his actions as a defense reaction and so on, when acknowledging the harm that he’s caused.
These types of statements can also be minimizing, excusing, defensive, or distracting from apologies and accountability for harm caused. Furthermore, context is not always relevant. In fact, context is sometimes harmful as it distracts from the priority of attending to the emotional realities and focus on witnessing feelings of directly harmed parties before we move into context of why, logistics, and next steps. Even when he says his reasons/context are not an excuse, they occupy space in the narrative that detracts from the people who are naming the harms caused to them by Charlie.
As we move forward, we continue to be vigilant in our observations and fearless in mapping micro-aggressions as well as language that reflects and creates abusive patterns of thinking and behaving. We understand, based on the transformative work that we do, that when this type of language and behavior is left unchecked, it paves the way for bigger harms.
