This is indeed an important dynamic to discuss, so I’m glad you brought it up, but I think your judgment of the correct way to handle it is entirely wrong, and quite detrimental to the health of social groups and communities.
You say:
Alex will look like The Source Of The Problem.
But in fact Alex not only “will look like”, but in fact is, the source of the problem. In fact, the entirety of the problem is Alex’s emotional issues (and any consequences thereof, such as social discomfort inflicted upon third parties, conflicts that are generated due to Alex’s presence or behavior, etc.). There is no problem beyond or separately from that.
However, it’s completely fine if someone else (Charlie) says “Hey, look—I think Alex needs more space, and we as a social group should figure out some way to create space for the processing and healing to happen. Maybe we invite Bradley to this one, but tell both Bradley and Alex that we’ll invite Alex-and-only-Alex to the next one?”
This is only “fine” to the extent that the social group as a whole understands, and endorses, the fact that this “solution” constitutes taking Alex’s side.
Now, it is entirely possible that the social group does indeed understand and endorse this—that they are consciously taking Alex’s side. Maybe Alex is a good friend of many others in the group; whereas Bradley, while they like him well enough, is someone they only know through Alex—and thus they owe him a substantially lesser degree of loyalty than they do Alex. Such situations are common enough, and there is nothing inherently wrong with taking one person’s side over the other in such a case.
What is wrong is taking one person’s side, while pretending that you’re being impartial.
A truly impartial solution would look entirely different. It would look like this:
“Alex, Bradley, both of you are free to come, or not come, as you like. If one or both of you have emotional issues, or conflicts, or anything like that—work them out yourselves. Our [i.e., the group’s] relationship is with both of you separately and individually; we will thus continue to treat both of you equally and fairly, just as we treat every other one of us.”
As for Charlie… were I Bradley, I would interpret his comment as covert side-taking. (Once again: it may be justified, and not dishonorable at all. But it is absolutely not neutral.)
I think the view I’d take is somewhere in between this view and the view that Duncan described.
If I’m sending out invites to a small dinner party, I’d just alternate between inviting Alex and Bradley.
However, if it’s an open invite thing, it seems like the official policy should be that Alex and Bradley are both invited (assuming all parties are in good standing with the group in general), but if I happen to be close to Bradley I might privately suggest that they skip out on some events so that Alex can go, because that seems like the decent thing to do. (And if Bradley does skip, I would probably consider that closer to supererogatory rather than mandatory and award them social points for doing so.)
Similarly, if I’m close to Alex, I might nudge them towards doing whatever processing is necessary to allow them to coexist with Bradley, so that Bradley doesn’t have to skip.
So I’m agreeing with you that official policy for open-invite things should be that both are invited. But I think I’m disagreeing about whether it’s ever reasonable to expect Bradley to skip some events for the sake of Alex.
I think your data set is impoverished. I think you could, in the space of five-minutes-by-the-clock, easily come up with multiple situations in which Alex is not at all the source of the problem, but rather Bradley, and I think you can also easily come up with multiple situations in which Alex and Bradley are equally to blame. In your response, you have focused only on cases in which it’s Alex’s fault, as if they represent the totality of possibility, which seems sloppy or dishonest or knee-jerk or something (a little). Your “truly impartial” solution is quite appropriate in the cases where fault is roughly equally shared, but miscalibrated in the former. Indeed, it can result in tacit social endorsement of abuse in rare-but-not-extremely-rare sorts of situations.
Neither ‘blame’ nor ‘fault’ are anywhere in my comment.
And that’s the point: your perspective requires the group to assign blame, to adjudicate fault, to take sides. Mine does not. In my solution, the group treats what has transpired as something that’s between Alex and Bradley. The group takes no position on it. Alex now proclaims an inability to be in the same room as Bradley? Well, that’s unfortunate for Alex, but why should that affect the group’s relationship with Bradley? Alex has this problem; Alex will have to deal with it.
To treat the matter in any other way is to take sides.
You say:
I think you could, in the space of five-minutes-by-the-clock, easily come up with multiple situations in which Alex is not at all the source of the problem, but rather Bradley,
How can this be? By (your own) construction, Bradley is fine with things proceeding just as they always have, w.r.t. the group’s activities. Bradley makes no impositions; Bradley asks for no concessions; Bradley in fact neither does nor says anything unusual or unprecedented. If Alex were to act exactly as Bradley is acting, then the group might never even know that anything untoward had happened.
Once again: it may be right and proper for a group to take one person’s side in a conflict. (Such as in your ‘abuse’ example.) But it is dishonest, dishonorable, and ultimately corrosive to the social fabric, to take sides while pretending to be impartial.
But in fact Alex not only “will look like”, butin fact is, the source of the problem. In fact, theentirety of the problemis Alex’s emotional issues
… and then say “Neither ‘blame’ nor ‘fault’ are anywhere in my comment.” I smell a motte-and-bailey in that. There’s obviously a difference between blame games and fault analysis (in the former, one assigns moral weight and docks karma from a person’s holistic score; in the latter, one simply says “X caused Y”). But even in the dispassionate fault analysis sense, it strikes me as naive to claim that Alex’s reaction is—in ALL cases that don’t involve overt abuse—entirely a property of Alex and is entirely Alex’s responsibility.
You seem to think that I’m claiming something like “it’s Alex’s fault that Alex feels this way”. But I’m claiming no such thing. In fact, basically the entirety of my point is that (in the “impartiality” scenario), as far as the group is concerned, it’s simply irrelevant why Alex feels this way. We can even go further and say: it’s irrelevant what Alex does or does not feel. Alex’s feelings are Alex’s business. The group is not interested in evaluating Alex’s feelings, in judging whether they are reasonable or unreasonable, in determine whether Alex is at fault for them or someone else is, etc. etc.
What I am saying is that Alex—specifically, Alex’s behavior (regardless of what feelings are or are not the cause of that behavior)—manifestly is the source of the problem for the group; that problem being, of course, “we now have to deal with one of our members refusing to be in the same room with another one of our members”.
As soon as you start asking why Alex feels this way, and whose fault is it that Alex feels this way, and whether it is reasonable for Alex to feel this way, etc., etc., you are committing yourself to some sort of side-taking. Here is what neutrality would look like:
Alex, to Group [i.e. spokesmember(s) thereof]: I can no longer stand to be in the same room as Bradley! Any event he’s invited to, I will not attend.
Group: Sounds like a bummer, man. Bradley’s invited to all public events, as you know (same as everyone else).
Alex: I have good reasons for feeling this way!
Group: Hey, that’s your own business. It’s not our place to evaluate your feelings, or judge whether they’re reasonable or not. Whether you come to things or not is, as always, your choice. You can attend, or not attend, for whatever reasons you like, or for no particular reason at all. You’re a free-willed adult—do what you think is best; you don’t owe us any explanations.
Alex: But it’s because…
Group (interrupting): No, really. It’s none of our business.
Alex: But if I have a really good reason for feeling this way, you’ll side with me, and stop inviting Bradley to things… right??
Group: Wrong.
Alex: Oh.
Separately:
But even in the dispassionate fault analysis sense, it strikes me as naive to claim that Alex’s reaction is—in ALL cases that don’t involve overt abuse—entirely a property of Alex and is entirely Alex’s responsibility.
Responsibility is one thing, but Alex’s reaction is obviously entirely a property of Alex. I am perplexed by the suggestion that it can be otherwise.
Yeah but you can’t derive fault from property, because by your own admission your model makes no claim of fault. At most you can say that Alex is the immediate causal source of the problem.
This is indeed an important dynamic to discuss, so I’m glad you brought it up, but I think your judgment of the correct way to handle it is entirely wrong, and quite detrimental to the health of social groups and communities.
You say:
But in fact Alex not only “will look like”, but in fact is, the source of the problem. In fact, the entirety of the problem is Alex’s emotional issues (and any consequences thereof, such as social discomfort inflicted upon third parties, conflicts that are generated due to Alex’s presence or behavior, etc.). There is no problem beyond or separately from that.
This is only “fine” to the extent that the social group as a whole understands, and endorses, the fact that this “solution” constitutes taking Alex’s side.
Now, it is entirely possible that the social group does indeed understand and endorse this—that they are consciously taking Alex’s side. Maybe Alex is a good friend of many others in the group; whereas Bradley, while they like him well enough, is someone they only know through Alex—and thus they owe him a substantially lesser degree of loyalty than they do Alex. Such situations are common enough, and there is nothing inherently wrong with taking one person’s side over the other in such a case.
What is wrong is taking one person’s side, while pretending that you’re being impartial.
A truly impartial solution would look entirely different. It would look like this:
“Alex, Bradley, both of you are free to come, or not come, as you like. If one or both of you have emotional issues, or conflicts, or anything like that—work them out yourselves. Our [i.e., the group’s] relationship is with both of you separately and individually; we will thus continue to treat both of you equally and fairly, just as we treat every other one of us.”
As for Charlie… were I Bradley, I would interpret his comment as covert side-taking. (Once again: it may be justified, and not dishonorable at all. But it is absolutely not neutral.)
I think the view I’d take is somewhere in between this view and the view that Duncan described.
If I’m sending out invites to a small dinner party, I’d just alternate between inviting Alex and Bradley.
However, if it’s an open invite thing, it seems like the official policy should be that Alex and Bradley are both invited (assuming all parties are in good standing with the group in general), but if I happen to be close to Bradley I might privately suggest that they skip out on some events so that Alex can go, because that seems like the decent thing to do. (And if Bradley does skip, I would probably consider that closer to supererogatory rather than mandatory and award them social points for doing so.)
Similarly, if I’m close to Alex, I might nudge them towards doing whatever processing is necessary to allow them to coexist with Bradley, so that Bradley doesn’t have to skip.
So I’m agreeing with you that official policy for open-invite things should be that both are invited. But I think I’m disagreeing about whether it’s ever reasonable to expect Bradley to skip some events for the sake of Alex.
I think your data set is impoverished. I think you could, in the space of five-minutes-by-the-clock, easily come up with multiple situations in which Alex is not at all the source of the problem, but rather Bradley, and I think you can also easily come up with multiple situations in which Alex and Bradley are equally to blame. In your response, you have focused only on cases in which it’s Alex’s fault, as if they represent the totality of possibility, which seems sloppy or dishonest or knee-jerk or something (a little). Your “truly impartial” solution is quite appropriate in the cases where fault is roughly equally shared, but miscalibrated in the former. Indeed, it can result in tacit social endorsement of abuse in rare-but-not-extremely-rare sorts of situations.
Neither ‘blame’ nor ‘fault’ are anywhere in my comment.
And that’s the point: your perspective requires the group to assign blame, to adjudicate fault, to take sides. Mine does not. In my solution, the group treats what has transpired as something that’s between Alex and Bradley. The group takes no position on it. Alex now proclaims an inability to be in the same room as Bradley? Well, that’s unfortunate for Alex, but why should that affect the group’s relationship with Bradley? Alex has this problem; Alex will have to deal with it.
To treat the matter in any other way is to take sides.
You say:
How can this be? By (your own) construction, Bradley is fine with things proceeding just as they always have, w.r.t. the group’s activities. Bradley makes no impositions; Bradley asks for no concessions; Bradley in fact neither does nor says anything unusual or unprecedented. If Alex were to act exactly as Bradley is acting, then the group might never even know that anything untoward had happened.
Once again: it may be right and proper for a group to take one person’s side in a conflict. (Such as in your ‘abuse’ example.) But it is dishonest, dishonorable, and ultimately corrosive to the social fabric, to take sides while pretending to be impartial.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest to write:
… and then say “Neither ‘blame’ nor ‘fault’ are anywhere in my comment.” I smell a motte-and-bailey in that. There’s obviously a difference between blame games and fault analysis (in the former, one assigns moral weight and docks karma from a person’s holistic score; in the latter, one simply says “X caused Y”). But even in the dispassionate fault analysis sense, it strikes me as naive to claim that Alex’s reaction is—in ALL cases that don’t involve overt abuse—entirely a property of Alex and is entirely Alex’s responsibility.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
You seem to think that I’m claiming something like “it’s Alex’s fault that Alex feels this way”. But I’m claiming no such thing. In fact, basically the entirety of my point is that (in the “impartiality” scenario), as far as the group is concerned, it’s simply irrelevant why Alex feels this way. We can even go further and say: it’s irrelevant what Alex does or does not feel. Alex’s feelings are Alex’s business. The group is not interested in evaluating Alex’s feelings, in judging whether they are reasonable or unreasonable, in determine whether Alex is at fault for them or someone else is, etc. etc.
What I am saying is that Alex—specifically, Alex’s behavior (regardless of what feelings are or are not the cause of that behavior)—manifestly is the source of the problem for the group; that problem being, of course, “we now have to deal with one of our members refusing to be in the same room with another one of our members”.
As soon as you start asking why Alex feels this way, and whose fault is it that Alex feels this way, and whether it is reasonable for Alex to feel this way, etc., etc., you are committing yourself to some sort of side-taking. Here is what neutrality would look like:
Alex, to Group [i.e. spokesmember(s) thereof]: I can no longer stand to be in the same room as Bradley! Any event he’s invited to, I will not attend.
Group: Sounds like a bummer, man. Bradley’s invited to all public events, as you know (same as everyone else).
Alex: I have good reasons for feeling this way!
Group: Hey, that’s your own business. It’s not our place to evaluate your feelings, or judge whether they’re reasonable or not. Whether you come to things or not is, as always, your choice. You can attend, or not attend, for whatever reasons you like, or for no particular reason at all. You’re a free-willed adult—do what you think is best; you don’t owe us any explanations.
Alex: But it’s because…
Group (interrupting): No, really. It’s none of our business.
Alex: But if I have a really good reason for feeling this way, you’ll side with me, and stop inviting Bradley to things… right??
Group: Wrong.
Alex: Oh.
Separately:
Responsibility is one thing, but Alex’s reaction is obviously entirely a property of Alex. I am perplexed by the suggestion that it can be otherwise.
Yeah but you can’t derive fault from property, because by your own admission your model makes no claim of fault. At most you can say that Alex is the immediate causal source of the problem.
Who ever claimed otherwise?