I hesitated a bit before saying this? I thought it might add a little bit of clarity, so I figured I’d bring it up.
(Sorry it got long; I’m still not sure what to cut.)
There are definitely some needs-conflicts. Between (often distant) people who, in the face of this, feel the need to cling to the strong reassurance that “this could not possibly happen to them”/”they will definitely be protected from this,” and would feel reassured at seeing Strong Condemning Action as soon as possible...
...and “the people who had this happen.” Who might be best-served, if they absorbed that there is always some risk of this sort of shit happening to people. For them, it would probably be best if they felt their truth was genuinely heard, and took away some actionable lessons about what to avoid, without updating their personal identity to “victim” TOO much. And in the future, embraced connections that made them more robust against attaching to this sort of thing in the future.
(“Victim” is just not a healthy personal identity in the long-term, for most people.)
Sometimes, these needs are so different, that it warrants having different forums of discussion. But there is some overlap in these needs (working out what happened, improving reporting, protecting people from cultish reprisals), and I’m not sure that separation is always necessary.
My read of the direction Anna seems to be trying to steer this is “do everything she can to clearly hear out people’s stories carefully First.” Only later, after people have really really listened, use that to formulate carefully considered harm-reducing actions.
Understanding the issue, in all its complexity, before working on coming up with solutions? I feel pretty on-board with that.
...I admit, I initially chaffed a bit? I have some memories of times Anna has leaned a bit more into the former-group’s needs. Some of her attempts to aim differently this time, have felt a little awkward.
I did also get an “ordering other people to ignore politics and be vulnerable” vibe off this, which put my armor up to around my ears. (Something with more of a feel of… “showing own vulnerability to elicit other’s vulnerability,” would have generally felt more natural to me? I think her later responses cycled to this, a little).
...but I’m starting to think that even the awkwardness, is its own sort of evidence? Of someone who is used to wielding frame control, trying to put it aside to listen. And I feel a lot of affection, in seeing it show that she’s working on this.
I hesitated a bit before saying this? I thought it might add a little bit of clarity, so I figured I’d bring it up.
(Sorry it got long; I’m still not sure what to cut.)
There are definitely some needs-conflicts. Between (often distant) people who, in the face of this, feel the need to cling to the strong reassurance that “this could not possibly happen to them”/”they will definitely be protected from this,” and would feel reassured at seeing Strong Condemning Action as soon as possible...
...and “the people who had this happen.” Who might be best-served, if they absorbed that there is always some risk of this sort of shit happening to people. For them, it would probably be best if they felt their truth was genuinely heard, and took away some actionable lessons about what to avoid, without updating their personal identity to “victim” TOO much. And in the future, embraced connections that made them more robust against attaching to this sort of thing in the future.
(“Victim” is just not a healthy personal identity in the long-term, for most people.)
Sometimes, these needs are so different, that it warrants having different forums of discussion. But there is some overlap in these needs (working out what happened, improving reporting, protecting people from cultish reprisals), and I’m not sure that separation is always necessary.
My read of the direction Anna seems to be trying to steer this is “do everything she can to clearly hear out people’s stories carefully First.” Only later, after people have really really listened, use that to formulate carefully considered harm-reducing actions.
Understanding the issue, in all its complexity, before working on coming up with solutions? I feel pretty on-board with that.
...I admit, I initially chaffed a bit? I have some memories of times Anna has leaned a bit more into the former-group’s needs. Some of her attempts to aim differently this time, have felt a little awkward.
I did also get an “ordering other people to ignore politics and be vulnerable” vibe off this, which put my armor up to around my ears. (Something with more of a feel of… “showing own vulnerability to elicit other’s vulnerability,” would have generally felt more natural to me? I think her later responses cycled to this, a little).
...but I’m starting to think that even the awkwardness, is its own sort of evidence? Of someone who is used to wielding frame control, trying to put it aside to listen. And I feel a lot of affection, in seeing it show that she’s working on this.
There’s also the need to learn from what happened, so that when designing organizations in the future the same mistakes aren’t repeated.