WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM
A generative project about the world we want to see, the change we want to make, and the ways we might show up in our movement for social justice.
WHAT IS THIS PROJECT?
Hey, Meg here.
This video above explains what my current understanding of this project is. As I mention in the video everything is emergent and I will be learning along with all of you.
My hope is that this project will be something that can continue to serve to remind us that we're all on the same team. That as we build this new world (and leave behind the old one) we need to continue to come into alignment and integrity with the world we are trying to build with an eye to not just what we are building but how. How can we do this work in a way that is dignified, humane, loving, generous, kind, caring, and healing.
I'll be posting new offerings every Monday, Wednesday Friday. I'll send them to you directly, at 9am pt / 12pm et the next day if you want them in your inbox. Sign up below :)
This video above explains what my current understanding of this project is. As I mention in the video everything is emergent and I will be learning along with all of you.
My hope is that this project will be something that can continue to serve to remind us that we're all on the same team. That as we build this new world (and leave behind the old one) we need to continue to come into alignment and integrity with the world we are trying to build with an eye to not just what we are building but how. How can we do this work in a way that is dignified, humane, loving, generous, kind, caring, and healing.
I'll be posting new offerings every Monday, Wednesday Friday. I'll send them to you directly, at 9am pt / 12pm et the next day if you want them in your inbox. Sign up below :)
GET THESE OFFERINGS IN YOUR INBOX
New offerings will be posted every M, W, F.
I'll send you an email the following day at 9am pt / 12pm et with all the info if you sign up below :).
New offerings will be posted every M, W, F.
I'll send you an email the following day at 9am pt / 12pm et with all the info if you sign up below :).
Offerings are organized with the most recent at the top.
Please note all these offerings are essentially drafts. They have not been edited for typos/grammar (which will be plentiful).
Please note all these offerings are essentially drafts. They have not been edited for typos/grammar (which will be plentiful).
Liberatory Theology - Aug 19
On Being is one of my favorite podcasts. It interviews such profound and interesting people on incredibly meaningful and vital questions. I have found so much grace, space, and richness in the conversations I've listened to on that podcast.
One episode that I listened to pierced my heart. It felt like the speaker was articulating a longing that was very much a longing of my own. This was Ruby Sales an activist and leader in the civil rights movement. Ruby shared a story of asking a profound question, "Where does it hurt?" and the great unraveling and reveal that comes from asking that question.
Towards the end of the podcast she spoke to this idea of a liberatory theology, a theology that speaks to Americans, including white Americans in a way that speaks to their pain and gives them something to look towards.
This was the piece that struck my heart. That make me say, "Yes, this, this is what I've been searching for too, this is what I want long for too." The whole interview is incredibly worth listening to and I've pulled out this quote below, and want to leave you with that.
"I really think that one of the things that we’ve got to deal with is that — how is it that we develop a theology or theologies in a 21st-century capitalist technocracy where only a few lives matter? How do we raise people up from disposability to essentiality? And this goes beyond the question of race. What is it that public theology can say to the white person in Massachusetts who’s heroin-addicted, because they feel that their lives have no meaning because of the trickle-down impact of whiteness in the world today? What do you say to someone who has been told that their whole essence is whiteness and power and domination, and when that no longer exists, then they feel as if they are dying? Or they get caught up in the throes of death, whether it’s heroin addiction — I don’t hear any theologies speaking to the vast amount — that’s why Donald Trump is essential, because although we don’t agree with him, people think he’s speaking to that pain that they’re feeling.
So what is the theologies? I don’t hear anyone speaking to the 45-year-old person in Appalachia who is dying of a young age, who feels like they’ve been eradicated, because whiteness is so much smaller today than it was yesterday. Where is the theology that redefines for them what it means to be fully human? I don’t hear any of that coming out of anyplace today.
There’s a spiritual crisis in white America. It’s a crisis of meaning. We talk a lot about black theologies, but I want a liberating white theology. I want a theology that speaks to Appalachia. I want a theology that begins to deepen people’s understanding about their capacity to live fully human lives and to touch the goodness inside of them, rather than call upon the part of themselves that’s not relational. Because there’s nothing wrong with being European-American. That’s not the problem. It’s how you actualize that history and how you actualize that reality. It’s almost like white people don’t believe that other white people are worthy of being redeemed."
This makes me want to take a full breath and say, "Yes."
One episode that I listened to pierced my heart. It felt like the speaker was articulating a longing that was very much a longing of my own. This was Ruby Sales an activist and leader in the civil rights movement. Ruby shared a story of asking a profound question, "Where does it hurt?" and the great unraveling and reveal that comes from asking that question.
Towards the end of the podcast she spoke to this idea of a liberatory theology, a theology that speaks to Americans, including white Americans in a way that speaks to their pain and gives them something to look towards.
This was the piece that struck my heart. That make me say, "Yes, this, this is what I've been searching for too, this is what I want long for too." The whole interview is incredibly worth listening to and I've pulled out this quote below, and want to leave you with that.
"I really think that one of the things that we’ve got to deal with is that — how is it that we develop a theology or theologies in a 21st-century capitalist technocracy where only a few lives matter? How do we raise people up from disposability to essentiality? And this goes beyond the question of race. What is it that public theology can say to the white person in Massachusetts who’s heroin-addicted, because they feel that their lives have no meaning because of the trickle-down impact of whiteness in the world today? What do you say to someone who has been told that their whole essence is whiteness and power and domination, and when that no longer exists, then they feel as if they are dying? Or they get caught up in the throes of death, whether it’s heroin addiction — I don’t hear any theologies speaking to the vast amount — that’s why Donald Trump is essential, because although we don’t agree with him, people think he’s speaking to that pain that they’re feeling.
So what is the theologies? I don’t hear anyone speaking to the 45-year-old person in Appalachia who is dying of a young age, who feels like they’ve been eradicated, because whiteness is so much smaller today than it was yesterday. Where is the theology that redefines for them what it means to be fully human? I don’t hear any of that coming out of anyplace today.
There’s a spiritual crisis in white America. It’s a crisis of meaning. We talk a lot about black theologies, but I want a liberating white theology. I want a theology that speaks to Appalachia. I want a theology that begins to deepen people’s understanding about their capacity to live fully human lives and to touch the goodness inside of them, rather than call upon the part of themselves that’s not relational. Because there’s nothing wrong with being European-American. That’s not the problem. It’s how you actualize that history and how you actualize that reality. It’s almost like white people don’t believe that other white people are worthy of being redeemed."
This makes me want to take a full breath and say, "Yes."
What happened? - July 27
"You have to be taught the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence. And in the religious sense, in the moral sense, you can say in the bosom of every human being, there is a spark of the divine. So you don’t have a right as a human to abuse that spark of the divine in your fellow human being.
We, from time to time, would discuss if you see someone attacking you, beating you, spitting on you, you have to think of that person, you know, years ago that person was an innocent child, innocent little baby. And so what happened? Something go wrong? Did the environment? Did someone teach that person to hate, to abuse others? So you try to appeal to the goodness of every human being and you don’t give up. You never give up on anyone." ~ John Lewis
Here is something I believe.
Every person, every adult that you see, was at some point (one can only hope) a joy-shrieking 5 year old running around chasing a bug, or the icecream truck, or a sibling around. And that child wasn't born hating. Wasn't born with a vengeful heart. Wasn't born with the capacity to do violence in any unique way that I was not.
So what happened? What happened that made it possible for that young one to turn into someone who could inflict violence upon another person. Turn them into someone capable of beating a protestor, locking children into cages, clearcutting a forest, etc etc. What makes someone capable of doing those things? What happened to that young one that made that adult human so different or so unfathomable to me.
My first thought is trauma. This person must have experienced terrible suffering at the hand of another. And sadly, that is inevitably true for many. I think there is so much profound trauma we never know, big and small. We are starting to have narratives and stories around the big traumas. But I'm unconvinced it takes a big level trauma to cause lasting and serious damage, or to reorient someone away from their humanity.
A few years ago I was told a story by a friend who was a camp counselor. She helped facilitate at a camp where they took 3rd and 4th graders for a week to a peace-making camp. For many kids, this was the first time away from home for more than one night, in a setting full of strangers, in the woods. And she had a camper once who was homesick the whole day. Crying, wouldn't eat, they tried every trick in the book and nothing. They never let kids call home because they know that makes it worse but they didn't know what else to do. So this tear-stained 10-year old gets on the phone to his parents and tells them how home sick he is. And is dad tells him to, "man up."
That can change a person.
This isn't to say, "anyone who has ever done something like this has created the feds secret police. Not at all. Humans are WAY more resilient than that. But it is to say that I think our society is full of these moments. These moments where our emotional needs are denied or made wrong. And that those accumulate and add up.
And then we add the layer on that we have a society where if you don't work you don't live a dignified life. Where if you have a family, you better have a job to provide for them or it is going to be a rough and almost impossible road. And under these conditions, the most important thing for so many people, is to keep their job. To do their job, so they can keep their job.
These are the simple and monstrous conditions that make it possible for monstrous things to happen. Denial of emotional needs and connections, trauma, and a society that requires people to work, no matter what, in order to provide for themselves and their families.
How can we remove these conditions? How can we change it so that more people aren't put in situations where these types of actions are even fathomable. What happens when we remember, that there isn't anything unique about these people. They were children just like us. And we could have been just like them.
We, from time to time, would discuss if you see someone attacking you, beating you, spitting on you, you have to think of that person, you know, years ago that person was an innocent child, innocent little baby. And so what happened? Something go wrong? Did the environment? Did someone teach that person to hate, to abuse others? So you try to appeal to the goodness of every human being and you don’t give up. You never give up on anyone." ~ John Lewis
Here is something I believe.
Every person, every adult that you see, was at some point (one can only hope) a joy-shrieking 5 year old running around chasing a bug, or the icecream truck, or a sibling around. And that child wasn't born hating. Wasn't born with a vengeful heart. Wasn't born with the capacity to do violence in any unique way that I was not.
So what happened? What happened that made it possible for that young one to turn into someone who could inflict violence upon another person. Turn them into someone capable of beating a protestor, locking children into cages, clearcutting a forest, etc etc. What makes someone capable of doing those things? What happened to that young one that made that adult human so different or so unfathomable to me.
My first thought is trauma. This person must have experienced terrible suffering at the hand of another. And sadly, that is inevitably true for many. I think there is so much profound trauma we never know, big and small. We are starting to have narratives and stories around the big traumas. But I'm unconvinced it takes a big level trauma to cause lasting and serious damage, or to reorient someone away from their humanity.
A few years ago I was told a story by a friend who was a camp counselor. She helped facilitate at a camp where they took 3rd and 4th graders for a week to a peace-making camp. For many kids, this was the first time away from home for more than one night, in a setting full of strangers, in the woods. And she had a camper once who was homesick the whole day. Crying, wouldn't eat, they tried every trick in the book and nothing. They never let kids call home because they know that makes it worse but they didn't know what else to do. So this tear-stained 10-year old gets on the phone to his parents and tells them how home sick he is. And is dad tells him to, "man up."
That can change a person.
This isn't to say, "anyone who has ever done something like this has created the feds secret police. Not at all. Humans are WAY more resilient than that. But it is to say that I think our society is full of these moments. These moments where our emotional needs are denied or made wrong. And that those accumulate and add up.
And then we add the layer on that we have a society where if you don't work you don't live a dignified life. Where if you have a family, you better have a job to provide for them or it is going to be a rough and almost impossible road. And under these conditions, the most important thing for so many people, is to keep their job. To do their job, so they can keep their job.
These are the simple and monstrous conditions that make it possible for monstrous things to happen. Denial of emotional needs and connections, trauma, and a society that requires people to work, no matter what, in order to provide for themselves and their families.
How can we remove these conditions? How can we change it so that more people aren't put in situations where these types of actions are even fathomable. What happens when we remember, that there isn't anything unique about these people. They were children just like us. And we could have been just like them.
Iron Law of Institutions - July 15
I was introduced to this concept recently called the Iron Law of Institutions. Wiki summaries it as such
"The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."
I'll use myself as an example, as someone who has absolutely fallen prey and is still held back by the reality of this 'iron law'.
I'm a social justice facilitator. My mission within that work is to advance the causes and goals of social justice. To end homophobia, to dismantle racism, to put an end to poverty, the climate crisis, exploration, discrimination, etc. My 'institution' in this case I think of as social justice land, the world and ecosystems where fellow social justice activists, educators, and avid supporters are.
Within this understanding of the iron law of institutions, it posits that I care more to be held in high esteem by other social justice people, than I do at being effective as furthering the cause of social justice. That I would rather be seen as a 'good social justice person' than be someone who is not seen as a good social justice person, but who is incredibly effective at advancing the cause of social justice.
I know this has been true for me. I know it is still true for me. I know that it holds me back.
And this gets extra tricky when your work and livelihood becomes wrapped up in your field or institution. What if I was an incredibly effective social justice educator, but I was doing the work in ways that people in my field didn't like or appreciate. I was centering whiteness, giving ally-cookies, prioritizing intent over impact, coddling oppressors, giving people a pass. What if I was doing all of that and it was working, it was incredibly effective at achieving outcomes that all in the field would agree are the very advancements that we are trying to achieve within social justice. But the way I was doing that, people in my field found repulsive.
I wouldn't get hired. I would be a pariah. I would be vilified and isolated by the people within my movement. My career could be shut down because the people in my ecosystems that are the ones that hire me right now, would no longer hire me.
So instead of being effective, I am incentivized both internally (because I want people to like me) and externally (by a pressure to stay employable) to appease and appeal to those in my group, rather than prioritize the effectiveness of moving the movement forward.
I believe that as long as this 'iron law' is true within social justice spaces, we will be held back by our want to be popular, righteous, or seen as good within our movements. That prioritization will come at the expense of the very causes we are wanting to advance.
Reflection:
How do you see the 'iron law of institutions' popping up in your life?
"The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution."
I'll use myself as an example, as someone who has absolutely fallen prey and is still held back by the reality of this 'iron law'.
I'm a social justice facilitator. My mission within that work is to advance the causes and goals of social justice. To end homophobia, to dismantle racism, to put an end to poverty, the climate crisis, exploration, discrimination, etc. My 'institution' in this case I think of as social justice land, the world and ecosystems where fellow social justice activists, educators, and avid supporters are.
Within this understanding of the iron law of institutions, it posits that I care more to be held in high esteem by other social justice people, than I do at being effective as furthering the cause of social justice. That I would rather be seen as a 'good social justice person' than be someone who is not seen as a good social justice person, but who is incredibly effective at advancing the cause of social justice.
I know this has been true for me. I know it is still true for me. I know that it holds me back.
And this gets extra tricky when your work and livelihood becomes wrapped up in your field or institution. What if I was an incredibly effective social justice educator, but I was doing the work in ways that people in my field didn't like or appreciate. I was centering whiteness, giving ally-cookies, prioritizing intent over impact, coddling oppressors, giving people a pass. What if I was doing all of that and it was working, it was incredibly effective at achieving outcomes that all in the field would agree are the very advancements that we are trying to achieve within social justice. But the way I was doing that, people in my field found repulsive.
I wouldn't get hired. I would be a pariah. I would be vilified and isolated by the people within my movement. My career could be shut down because the people in my ecosystems that are the ones that hire me right now, would no longer hire me.
So instead of being effective, I am incentivized both internally (because I want people to like me) and externally (by a pressure to stay employable) to appease and appeal to those in my group, rather than prioritize the effectiveness of moving the movement forward.
I believe that as long as this 'iron law' is true within social justice spaces, we will be held back by our want to be popular, righteous, or seen as good within our movements. That prioritization will come at the expense of the very causes we are wanting to advance.
Reflection:
How do you see the 'iron law of institutions' popping up in your life?
Dehumanization - July 13
Dehumanization according to MW:
Definition: "the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities."
Sentence example: "the consequences of systematic dehumanization of one racial group in a society can be horrific."
Racism is deeply connected to this process dehumanization.
Racism taught me to see black people as inherently different from me. Taught me a host of negative stories of black and brown people. Taught me to fear them, to believe that they were so different from me that they had no concern for me, that they were separated from me for my own safety, etc. Segregation is a partner to dehumanization, as it is so much easier to continue to believe those messages of dehumanization, when you do not have evidence to the contrary all around you.
Dehumanization is part of what I am working to unlearn. Stories that dehumanize black and brown people that fool and convince my brains into thinking that a black child is actually someone much older that a women is more emotional, a black man much more of a threat.
Re-humanizing black and brown people, is part of my journey, part of what I believe is necessary to get to a more beautiful world. For us to be able to really see each other as who we are. A little kid playing with a water gun. A young person trying on different clothing and hair styles. A parent who wants to be loving to their children. An adult getting back on their feet. Seeing these people as people, not so different from me, relating to them as other flawed, emotional, capable, beautiful beings, that is the healing of a wound.
This process has for me required building up my muscles and propensities for humanization and allowing the dehumanizing muscles and propensity towards dehumanization to atrophy. I began to notice the stories and insidious ways I was dehumanizing people and began to offer myself new stories, new ways to see the same person or the same interaction.
But the process has been made more complex, often by my social justice community. For as I have continued to build my humanizing muscles for groups of people that I was taught to dehumanize by society, I have continuously been confronted and invited into opportunities to dehumanize a new sets of people.
When I was at the women's march after Trump was elected I remember seeing sign after sign talking about his (orange) skin, his (stupid) hair, his (tiny) hands. There were signs comparing him to animals. These are cornerstones of dehumanization. Exaggerating and focusing on body parts. Using language that compares someone or a group to animals. And these messages were everywhere. And they were being used as a way to identify, "Who are my people," who are the people who think like me, believe like me, who I can trust."
I believe that Trump has done unconscionable acts. I believed his election was going to bring almost nothing but harm to the country at large and to so many communities I deeply cared about, am part of, and am connected to. But the way 'we' my community was expressing our hurt, our outrage, our indignation, was through dehumanization.
Think of a community, a conversation, or a relationship. Imagine for a moment there is a sphere within which that community, conversation, or relationship lives. And all the energy passed between people in that community, conversation, or relationship happens within that sphere. When we reach out and offer help, we bring helping energy into that sphere. When we bring judgement we bring judgemental energy into that sphere. When we bring honesty we bring more truth energy into that sphere.
When we show up or take actions that dehumanize each other, we bring more dehumanization into that sphere.
I want to see radical transformation of the world away from dehumanization. I want to see the end of the types of ills and horrors that so often seem to be accompanied or proceeded by a process of dehumanization.
I cannot decrease the amount of dehumanization in the sphere, by redirecting it towards other targets. It may look, feel, or appear different. And it is, it's being enacted against different individuals. And those individuals may have more power, prestige, safety, they may be more worthy of vilification. And it is still bringing and keeping dehumanization in the system.
INVITATION:
Look for dehumanizing language (name calling, comparison to animals, monsters, other non-humans) in the rhetoric around you.
Definition: "the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities."
Sentence example: "the consequences of systematic dehumanization of one racial group in a society can be horrific."
Racism is deeply connected to this process dehumanization.
Racism taught me to see black people as inherently different from me. Taught me a host of negative stories of black and brown people. Taught me to fear them, to believe that they were so different from me that they had no concern for me, that they were separated from me for my own safety, etc. Segregation is a partner to dehumanization, as it is so much easier to continue to believe those messages of dehumanization, when you do not have evidence to the contrary all around you.
Dehumanization is part of what I am working to unlearn. Stories that dehumanize black and brown people that fool and convince my brains into thinking that a black child is actually someone much older that a women is more emotional, a black man much more of a threat.
Re-humanizing black and brown people, is part of my journey, part of what I believe is necessary to get to a more beautiful world. For us to be able to really see each other as who we are. A little kid playing with a water gun. A young person trying on different clothing and hair styles. A parent who wants to be loving to their children. An adult getting back on their feet. Seeing these people as people, not so different from me, relating to them as other flawed, emotional, capable, beautiful beings, that is the healing of a wound.
This process has for me required building up my muscles and propensities for humanization and allowing the dehumanizing muscles and propensity towards dehumanization to atrophy. I began to notice the stories and insidious ways I was dehumanizing people and began to offer myself new stories, new ways to see the same person or the same interaction.
But the process has been made more complex, often by my social justice community. For as I have continued to build my humanizing muscles for groups of people that I was taught to dehumanize by society, I have continuously been confronted and invited into opportunities to dehumanize a new sets of people.
When I was at the women's march after Trump was elected I remember seeing sign after sign talking about his (orange) skin, his (stupid) hair, his (tiny) hands. There were signs comparing him to animals. These are cornerstones of dehumanization. Exaggerating and focusing on body parts. Using language that compares someone or a group to animals. And these messages were everywhere. And they were being used as a way to identify, "Who are my people," who are the people who think like me, believe like me, who I can trust."
I believe that Trump has done unconscionable acts. I believed his election was going to bring almost nothing but harm to the country at large and to so many communities I deeply cared about, am part of, and am connected to. But the way 'we' my community was expressing our hurt, our outrage, our indignation, was through dehumanization.
Think of a community, a conversation, or a relationship. Imagine for a moment there is a sphere within which that community, conversation, or relationship lives. And all the energy passed between people in that community, conversation, or relationship happens within that sphere. When we reach out and offer help, we bring helping energy into that sphere. When we bring judgement we bring judgemental energy into that sphere. When we bring honesty we bring more truth energy into that sphere.
When we show up or take actions that dehumanize each other, we bring more dehumanization into that sphere.
I want to see radical transformation of the world away from dehumanization. I want to see the end of the types of ills and horrors that so often seem to be accompanied or proceeded by a process of dehumanization.
I cannot decrease the amount of dehumanization in the sphere, by redirecting it towards other targets. It may look, feel, or appear different. And it is, it's being enacted against different individuals. And those individuals may have more power, prestige, safety, they may be more worthy of vilification. And it is still bringing and keeping dehumanization in the system.
INVITATION:
Look for dehumanizing language (name calling, comparison to animals, monsters, other non-humans) in the rhetoric around you.
Paradoxes - July 2
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." Niels Bohr
The other day I mentioned my deep belief in situationalism. Now I want to offer a perhaps paradoxical belief of mine.
I deeply believe that the stories that we have that shape our world, the lens we use to filter our interactions, relationships, self, and the world around us, may be one of the most important things. It changes everything. That when we have a story that the earth is an endless resource there for the taking, we relate to it as such. If we have a story that says we belong to the earth and therefore must give it care and in return will receive it's abundance, we will relate to it as such.
And for me as someone who teaches and preaches social justice, that these stories individuals have on the world are some of the most profound things that I could ever hope to change or influence.
And yet in my post on situationalism, I said that we often get distracted by personality and character in our work to try to make positive social change. How do I reconcile these?
Well I believe they may be profound truths and therefore qualify as opposites that are simultaneously true.
I also believe that to an extent, they are complimentary and cyclical. When we change the conditions under which someones lives, experiences the world, experiences us, we make it more possible for them to change their stories and narratives. When we change the stories, we change the internal conditions of the mind through which they experience the world.
I deeply believe that the stories that we have that shape our world, the lens we use to filter our interactions, relationships, self, and the world around us, may be one of the most important things. It changes everything. That when we have a story that the earth is an endless resource there for the taking, we relate to it as such. If we have a story that says we belong to the earth and therefore must give it care and in return will receive it's abundance, we will relate to it as such.
And for me as someone who teaches and preaches social justice, that these stories individuals have on the world are some of the most profound things that I could ever hope to change or influence.
And yet in my post on situationalism, I said that we often get distracted by personality and character in our work to try to make positive social change. How do I reconcile these?
Well I believe they may be profound truths and therefore qualify as opposites that are simultaneously true.
I also believe that to an extent, they are complimentary and cyclical. When we change the conditions under which someones lives, experiences the world, experiences us, we make it more possible for them to change their stories and narratives. When we change the stories, we change the internal conditions of the mind through which they experience the world.
Situationalism - July 1
Until a few years ago I had never heard of the term "situationalism," but once I heard it I immediately recognized it as a core belief I had been carrying for years. While there is a whole field of situationalism in phycology and ethics I'm not going to go into all of that right now. Mostly, because I don't know it.
Instead I am going to share briefly how situationalism is one of the core beliefs that underpins how I think about social justice and social change making.
What I mean when I say situationalism, is the idea that actions and behaviors are far more often dictated by situation and circumstance rather than personality or character.
Think about a kiddo that you know. You ever been around that kiddo when they're hungry, tired, need to poop? They are tiny monsters. Are they actually monsters? Is that their inherent personality? No. And because kids have a really tight turn around time (often) after these conditions are changed we can see that. We don't get duped into believing it's an inherent part of their personality. We attribute it to the situation or conditions that they are under and then we try to address those conditions.
I see adults in my life able to hold this truth when it comes to children, "Oh, she must be really tired," or their partners, "I know you get really grumpy around 10pm, maybe you should go to sleep and we'll talk in the morning," but when it comes to behaviors and actions of people we don't hold dear or other adults, we loose that tendency to look for conditions and instead start attributing behavior to personality traits.
For now I want to offer just a small example of situationalism that I encountered recently. I was talking to a friend for almost an hour about her trying to make social justice-oriented change within their organization. We talked about all these barriers she's experiencing. Such-and-such doesn't get it. These people are scared of change, etc. Towards the end of our conversation we talked about the team within the organization that was trying to make these changes. It went something like this:
Me: "How often does your team meet to talk about these issues."
Them: "Two hours every two weeks."
Me: And if you identified the perfect thing to do in your next meeting, if you were able to identify an action step everyone was on board with, thought was a good idea, and believed in, and that action step required 2-3 hours of work from everyone at the meeting that week to implement, how hard would it be for people to find 2-3 hours?"
Them: "Really hard, we're all so strapped for time already."
And that's where I stopped and realized, "Well shit, that should have been my first question."
You know those parking lot puzzle games, where you're trying to get a car to move out of the parking lot? You have to have space within that system to move the car out of the lot. You have to have free space to move into, to take up, for others to take up, in order to have any movement within the system at all.
And we can sometimes get so blinded by focusing on "How do I get that person to move." or "How do I convince that person it's really important to move," before we even ask ourselves, do they have space to move?
If we identify the perfect action step in this meeting, will anyone have time to act on it? And if not, then perhaps that more than the action step itself, needs to be addressed.
I believe we often attribute to willpower, personality, and beliefs, what can be explained by conditions and circumstance. And not only explained but can often more readily be changed by addressing conditions and circumstance. This latter part, I believe, is a key to a more impactful and broader social justice movement. That we can change the actions/behaviors of people, including the actions/behaviors that we find abhorrent, not by addressing or focusing on personality, but by addressing and focusing on conditions.
REFLECTION
What do you think of this idea of situationalism?
When are you able to say, "that person is acting like that because of these conditions," and when do you find yourself saying, "that person is acting like that because it's who they are."
Instead I am going to share briefly how situationalism is one of the core beliefs that underpins how I think about social justice and social change making.
What I mean when I say situationalism, is the idea that actions and behaviors are far more often dictated by situation and circumstance rather than personality or character.
Think about a kiddo that you know. You ever been around that kiddo when they're hungry, tired, need to poop? They are tiny monsters. Are they actually monsters? Is that their inherent personality? No. And because kids have a really tight turn around time (often) after these conditions are changed we can see that. We don't get duped into believing it's an inherent part of their personality. We attribute it to the situation or conditions that they are under and then we try to address those conditions.
I see adults in my life able to hold this truth when it comes to children, "Oh, she must be really tired," or their partners, "I know you get really grumpy around 10pm, maybe you should go to sleep and we'll talk in the morning," but when it comes to behaviors and actions of people we don't hold dear or other adults, we loose that tendency to look for conditions and instead start attributing behavior to personality traits.
For now I want to offer just a small example of situationalism that I encountered recently. I was talking to a friend for almost an hour about her trying to make social justice-oriented change within their organization. We talked about all these barriers she's experiencing. Such-and-such doesn't get it. These people are scared of change, etc. Towards the end of our conversation we talked about the team within the organization that was trying to make these changes. It went something like this:
Me: "How often does your team meet to talk about these issues."
Them: "Two hours every two weeks."
Me: And if you identified the perfect thing to do in your next meeting, if you were able to identify an action step everyone was on board with, thought was a good idea, and believed in, and that action step required 2-3 hours of work from everyone at the meeting that week to implement, how hard would it be for people to find 2-3 hours?"
Them: "Really hard, we're all so strapped for time already."
And that's where I stopped and realized, "Well shit, that should have been my first question."
You know those parking lot puzzle games, where you're trying to get a car to move out of the parking lot? You have to have space within that system to move the car out of the lot. You have to have free space to move into, to take up, for others to take up, in order to have any movement within the system at all.
And we can sometimes get so blinded by focusing on "How do I get that person to move." or "How do I convince that person it's really important to move," before we even ask ourselves, do they have space to move?
If we identify the perfect action step in this meeting, will anyone have time to act on it? And if not, then perhaps that more than the action step itself, needs to be addressed.
I believe we often attribute to willpower, personality, and beliefs, what can be explained by conditions and circumstance. And not only explained but can often more readily be changed by addressing conditions and circumstance. This latter part, I believe, is a key to a more impactful and broader social justice movement. That we can change the actions/behaviors of people, including the actions/behaviors that we find abhorrent, not by addressing or focusing on personality, but by addressing and focusing on conditions.
REFLECTION
What do you think of this idea of situationalism?
When are you able to say, "that person is acting like that because of these conditions," and when do you find yourself saying, "that person is acting like that because it's who they are."
BIG Boundaries - June 29
Boundaries are something that I didn't really learn about until my mid-twenties. In a society and culture adverse to conflict, that orients towards keeping up appearances, that doesn't know how to disappoint people while remaining in connection to them, it's no wonder we all struggle so much with boundaries.
Brene Brown is one of my favorite teachers on boundaries. She defines boundaries as, "What's okay and what's not okay." Beautiful, simple, and fucking hard to do. To tell someone what's okay and what's not okay. To say, "I would love to hang out but could it be just us and you leave your boyfriend at home?" To say, "It's not okay when you text me after 6pm and I've gone home for the day, that keeps my brain in work mode and I'm not able to turn off for the evening." To say, "I'm really hurt, I need some space and I'll message you when I'm ready to reconnect."
A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a few friends, and we were talking about how do you make generous assumptions of people? How do you interact with people from a place of good faith and see their actions through a lens of generosity?
I think it starts with boundaries.
This video below contains so many gems about boundaries and I think has so much to teach us in the social justice movement.
"When we don’t set boundaries, we let people do things that are not okay or get away with behaviors that are not okay, then we are just resentful and hateful."
Brene Brown is one of my favorite teachers on boundaries. She defines boundaries as, "What's okay and what's not okay." Beautiful, simple, and fucking hard to do. To tell someone what's okay and what's not okay. To say, "I would love to hang out but could it be just us and you leave your boyfriend at home?" To say, "It's not okay when you text me after 6pm and I've gone home for the day, that keeps my brain in work mode and I'm not able to turn off for the evening." To say, "I'm really hurt, I need some space and I'll message you when I'm ready to reconnect."
A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a few friends, and we were talking about how do you make generous assumptions of people? How do you interact with people from a place of good faith and see their actions through a lens of generosity?
I think it starts with boundaries.
This video below contains so many gems about boundaries and I think has so much to teach us in the social justice movement.
"When we don’t set boundaries, we let people do things that are not okay or get away with behaviors that are not okay, then we are just resentful and hateful."
Resentment is a shite feeling. We cannot be generous with people we are resentful of. And, resentment is a gateway to contempt. And it is so easy to lose touch with the humanity of people for whom we feel contempt. So what is the alternative? How do we avoid resentment and contempt?
Brene has guidance here, which is
B-I-G
- What BOUNDARIES need to be in place for me to stay in my
- INTEGRITY and make the most
- GENEROUS assumptions about you.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Are you building up any resentment relating to this social justice movement? Any people, relationships, or narratives you're resenting?
What boundaries do you need to be setting so that you can move out of that space and towards your integrity?
Who are you able to make generous assumptions of? And why?
For me this is just the start of the conversation as it brings up more questions that I want to consider and more rabbit holes I want to go down. What does it mean to make generous assumptions of people actively causing harm and trauma? How does emotional labor relate to boundary setting? What can generous assumptions unlock for us in this movement? All questions for another day :).
Brene has guidance here, which is
B-I-G
- What BOUNDARIES need to be in place for me to stay in my
- INTEGRITY and make the most
- GENEROUS assumptions about you.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Are you building up any resentment relating to this social justice movement? Any people, relationships, or narratives you're resenting?
What boundaries do you need to be setting so that you can move out of that space and towards your integrity?
Who are you able to make generous assumptions of? And why?
For me this is just the start of the conversation as it brings up more questions that I want to consider and more rabbit holes I want to go down. What does it mean to make generous assumptions of people actively causing harm and trauma? How does emotional labor relate to boundary setting? What can generous assumptions unlock for us in this movement? All questions for another day :).
Building Our Technique - June 26
This is borrowed directly from my Friday Email sent on June 26.
Whenever you are a beginner at something you are clumsy. You are new. And you are not going to be able to do what those who have been practicing much longer than you can do.
There is a methodology when it comes to weight lifting that says you need to get down technique and form before you add weight. You have to be able to hold your form and know what that form should feel like before you start to increase the weight you’re lifting.
I’ve been thinking about that a lot when it comes to social justice.
Last week a friend of a friend was mentioning that they didn’t know how to give their boss feedback about her racism and the ways she treats employees. My first question was, “How much feedback have you ever given your boss? How many boundaries have you set with her?” Of course it’s scary to give your boss feedback about racism, you’ve never given your boss feedback about things that bother you before. You haven’t had to practice that exchange or engagement. And you haven’t seen how your relationship changes from that exchange. In this country, racism isn’t a light thing to talk about, to surface, to bring up. It’s a heavy weight. And as such I believe it’s important to lift that weight, to talk about it, to give feedback to your boss.
And I think it’s important to know that when we give feedback when we practice setting boundaries, we are building muscles and capacities that can be used to lift those heavier weights. We can build technique and that can help us when we encounter the more challenging content.
REFLECTION:
What abilities do you want to have? What are ways to build your technique before adding weight or by starting small?
Whenever you are a beginner at something you are clumsy. You are new. And you are not going to be able to do what those who have been practicing much longer than you can do.
There is a methodology when it comes to weight lifting that says you need to get down technique and form before you add weight. You have to be able to hold your form and know what that form should feel like before you start to increase the weight you’re lifting.
I’ve been thinking about that a lot when it comes to social justice.
Last week a friend of a friend was mentioning that they didn’t know how to give their boss feedback about her racism and the ways she treats employees. My first question was, “How much feedback have you ever given your boss? How many boundaries have you set with her?” Of course it’s scary to give your boss feedback about racism, you’ve never given your boss feedback about things that bother you before. You haven’t had to practice that exchange or engagement. And you haven’t seen how your relationship changes from that exchange. In this country, racism isn’t a light thing to talk about, to surface, to bring up. It’s a heavy weight. And as such I believe it’s important to lift that weight, to talk about it, to give feedback to your boss.
And I think it’s important to know that when we give feedback when we practice setting boundaries, we are building muscles and capacities that can be used to lift those heavier weights. We can build technique and that can help us when we encounter the more challenging content.
REFLECTION:
What abilities do you want to have? What are ways to build your technique before adding weight or by starting small?
June 24
at the "Why would someone ever feel the need to put a rainbow bumper sticker on their car?"
"How could anyone possibly treat children like that?"
"What could ever drive someone to be a cop?"
"How could someone ever vote for a man like that?"
A few years ago I started noticing how many times people would "ask" these types of questions. In workshops, in conversations in my life, people were often making statements but in the form of questions. Exasperated questions.
Questions that reflected an opinion, an emotion, a positionality. They communicated the view point of the speaker. And they were often said when the expected was response wasn't to engage with the question, but instead to agree, to connect, to say, "I know right!?"
I started getting curious about these exasperated questions. And I started to wonder, what if we took them seriously?
What if, instead of saying, "Why are you being so annoying right now?" we actually inquired, "Why are you being so annoying right now?" What if we got curious about our exasperated questions?
Truly, why do some people feel the need to put rainbow bumper stickers on their car? How could someone vote for a person like that? What is the gap in our understanding? What makes that action by that person completely reasonable?
There is a short quote in this long interview of Charles Eisenstein with Oprah which I cannot find at the moment, so I will do my best to paraphrase. But it is something to the effect of, when we judge it is because we lack understanding, because when we understand fully, there is no judgement. We understand that if we were them, in those conditions, we would do the exact same thing.
And for me, that's where exasperated questions become a tool. A tool of curiosity a way that our system is reminding us to look, to be curious, to reflect on what's going on here. When we slow down enough to notice that we are asking an exasperated question, we might find ourselves at a doorway to deeper understanding. And who knows where that might lead.
INVITATION:
See if you can listen for the exasperated questions in your world this week. What do you hear?
"How could anyone possibly treat children like that?"
"What could ever drive someone to be a cop?"
"How could someone ever vote for a man like that?"
A few years ago I started noticing how many times people would "ask" these types of questions. In workshops, in conversations in my life, people were often making statements but in the form of questions. Exasperated questions.
Questions that reflected an opinion, an emotion, a positionality. They communicated the view point of the speaker. And they were often said when the expected was response wasn't to engage with the question, but instead to agree, to connect, to say, "I know right!?"
I started getting curious about these exasperated questions. And I started to wonder, what if we took them seriously?
What if, instead of saying, "Why are you being so annoying right now?" we actually inquired, "Why are you being so annoying right now?" What if we got curious about our exasperated questions?
Truly, why do some people feel the need to put rainbow bumper stickers on their car? How could someone vote for a person like that? What is the gap in our understanding? What makes that action by that person completely reasonable?
There is a short quote in this long interview of Charles Eisenstein with Oprah which I cannot find at the moment, so I will do my best to paraphrase. But it is something to the effect of, when we judge it is because we lack understanding, because when we understand fully, there is no judgement. We understand that if we were them, in those conditions, we would do the exact same thing.
And for me, that's where exasperated questions become a tool. A tool of curiosity a way that our system is reminding us to look, to be curious, to reflect on what's going on here. When we slow down enough to notice that we are asking an exasperated question, we might find ourselves at a doorway to deeper understanding. And who knows where that might lead.
INVITATION:
See if you can listen for the exasperated questions in your world this week. What do you hear?
June 22
This weekend I watched I Am Not Your Negro for the first time.
It is an incredible movie. If you haven't watched it yet, I truly would highly recommend it. I believe it's an incredibly important movie.
It is heartbreaking, at times graphic in the depictions of the graphic violence (often lynchings) against people of color and specifically black people in America. The ways the movie threads images of the civil rights movement and moment with the protests in Ferguson was incredible. Watching it from the vantage point of the last month of protests and police brutality it was a stark reminder of just how much of a legacy this moment has.
A lot of people right now, I think particularly white people are finding themselves asking, "What is mine to do?"
For a while now I have had this suspicion that there is something underneath hatred. That hatred, superiority, supremacy, discrimination, may not in fact be the root cause but instead may sit above and eschew the root cause. They are horrific symptoms but not in fact the essential problem.
Baldwin in I Am Not Your Negro seems to come at this same conclusion. The most distilled way being the quote at the heart of this clip.
It is an incredible movie. If you haven't watched it yet, I truly would highly recommend it. I believe it's an incredibly important movie.
It is heartbreaking, at times graphic in the depictions of the graphic violence (often lynchings) against people of color and specifically black people in America. The ways the movie threads images of the civil rights movement and moment with the protests in Ferguson was incredible. Watching it from the vantage point of the last month of protests and police brutality it was a stark reminder of just how much of a legacy this moment has.
A lot of people right now, I think particularly white people are finding themselves asking, "What is mine to do?"
For a while now I have had this suspicion that there is something underneath hatred. That hatred, superiority, supremacy, discrimination, may not in fact be the root cause but instead may sit above and eschew the root cause. They are horrific symptoms but not in fact the essential problem.
Baldwin in I Am Not Your Negro seems to come at this same conclusion. The most distilled way being the quote at the heart of this clip.
REFLECTION:
Do you think it's possible that there is something under racism, that racism is actually a symptom of something else?
How do we start to look for that?
Do you think it's possible that there is something under racism, that racism is actually a symptom of something else?
How do we start to look for that?
June 19
How deep does the hate go?
I was having a conversation with a friend this morning and we were talking about there is very little separation in many spaces we are a part of between someone's ideology and their belief system and who they are. We no longer separate the 'evil that you think' or the 'harmful beliefs you have' from the idea that 'you are evil'.
And I was reminded of a number of stories of people who are on the extremes of hateful and harmful beliefs. People who are neo-nazis or members of the KKK. There is a documentary called "White Rage" which is a movie by a documentary film maker Deeyah Khan. Deeyah is a woman of color, a muslim, who seeks out the white nationalists and neo-nazis who are sending her death threats and invites them to talk to listen to them and then to share her experiences with them as well. The movie is intense to say the least.
There is a specific man who came to mind in my conversation with my friend this morning. This man is a leader within the national socialist (neo-nazi) movement. And at some point Deeyah is talking to him and they are talking about his beliefs and desires for a white ethno-state and how they would need to deport all muslims. And she asks him, "Would you deport me? I am a muslim, would you deport me." And you watch this man start to squirm. Later in the movie he calls her and tells her that he is retiring from the movement, and that part of the reason he's leaving is because of his friendship and personal connection with her.
She asks him again, would you deport me?
And he says no. (If you want to see this exchange skip to minute 50 or so in this movie.)
And I find myself wondering seeing this, how deep does this hate go?
There is another similar story of Daryl Davis, who is a black man who has conversations with members of the KKK and who has a collection of KKK robes from all the members who have left after he became friends with them. At the time of this articles publication, he had over 200 robes.
I share these stories to say that sometimes it feels like the more aggressive, the more vitriolic, the more intense someone's hatred goes, the deeper it must be, the more fundamental it must be, the more it must just be part of who they are.
But these accounts hold the possibility that these beliefs are fragile. Not that they aren't violent or harmful. But that they are fragile. They can sometimes crumble under the weight of a single friendship. Why? Why are they so fragile? For me, there is a piece at the end of the documentary that offers some insight there too. A former neo-nazi talks about how when he sees people in the movement now, all he sees is their suffering. He says that it's so much easier to say, "I hate jews" than it is to say, "I'm afraid no one is going to like me." "That I am unloveable." And we'll get into that more, another day.
REFLECTION:
What questions does this bring up in you?
What would it mean if these beliefs were more vulnerable and fragile than we think?
I was having a conversation with a friend this morning and we were talking about there is very little separation in many spaces we are a part of between someone's ideology and their belief system and who they are. We no longer separate the 'evil that you think' or the 'harmful beliefs you have' from the idea that 'you are evil'.
And I was reminded of a number of stories of people who are on the extremes of hateful and harmful beliefs. People who are neo-nazis or members of the KKK. There is a documentary called "White Rage" which is a movie by a documentary film maker Deeyah Khan. Deeyah is a woman of color, a muslim, who seeks out the white nationalists and neo-nazis who are sending her death threats and invites them to talk to listen to them and then to share her experiences with them as well. The movie is intense to say the least.
There is a specific man who came to mind in my conversation with my friend this morning. This man is a leader within the national socialist (neo-nazi) movement. And at some point Deeyah is talking to him and they are talking about his beliefs and desires for a white ethno-state and how they would need to deport all muslims. And she asks him, "Would you deport me? I am a muslim, would you deport me." And you watch this man start to squirm. Later in the movie he calls her and tells her that he is retiring from the movement, and that part of the reason he's leaving is because of his friendship and personal connection with her.
She asks him again, would you deport me?
And he says no. (If you want to see this exchange skip to minute 50 or so in this movie.)
And I find myself wondering seeing this, how deep does this hate go?
There is another similar story of Daryl Davis, who is a black man who has conversations with members of the KKK and who has a collection of KKK robes from all the members who have left after he became friends with them. At the time of this articles publication, he had over 200 robes.
I share these stories to say that sometimes it feels like the more aggressive, the more vitriolic, the more intense someone's hatred goes, the deeper it must be, the more fundamental it must be, the more it must just be part of who they are.
But these accounts hold the possibility that these beliefs are fragile. Not that they aren't violent or harmful. But that they are fragile. They can sometimes crumble under the weight of a single friendship. Why? Why are they so fragile? For me, there is a piece at the end of the documentary that offers some insight there too. A former neo-nazi talks about how when he sees people in the movement now, all he sees is their suffering. He says that it's so much easier to say, "I hate jews" than it is to say, "I'm afraid no one is going to like me." "That I am unloveable." And we'll get into that more, another day.
REFLECTION:
What questions does this bring up in you?
What would it mean if these beliefs were more vulnerable and fragile than we think?
June 17
I once was at a retreat called The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, which was hosted by Charles Eisenstein, who wrote a book by the same name.
During the retreat at different points, Charles would mention things that were part of this more beautiful world. The ability to drink water from any stream without fear of pollution or contamination. The ability to walk around anywhere on earth at any time without fear for your personal safety.
When he described these things, it felt like he was asking me to stretch far into my creative imagination while simultaneously inviting me to get in touch with desires I scarcely knew were there.
So often in social justice spaces and conversations we talk about what we do not want. We want an end to racism, an end to homophobia, and end so sexism and so on. We talk about how hard the world is and try to shine a light on the unnecessary suffering all around us. And this makes sense to do. We do want to describe what we don't want. And we also often need to make people aware of the true reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
However, I think far too infrequently in the 10 years I've been deep in social justice work, I have been invited to imagine the truly just future that I am working towards. What does it look like? What smells are all around? What can you hear when you step outside your front door? What is normal and even boring there that is scarcely imaginable in this world?
Today's offering is an invitation. An invitation to take two minutes and to write down, what is it that is true in that beautiful, actualized, just world.
There are many worlds and iterations perhaps between now and that fully realized world. But skip all those and go straight to that beautiful world. The one where justice has been done, wounds healed, and peace achieved. Take two minutes and live there for a moment, and write down the things that are true.
What comes up for you? Let me know, and I'll share mine with you.
During the retreat at different points, Charles would mention things that were part of this more beautiful world. The ability to drink water from any stream without fear of pollution or contamination. The ability to walk around anywhere on earth at any time without fear for your personal safety.
When he described these things, it felt like he was asking me to stretch far into my creative imagination while simultaneously inviting me to get in touch with desires I scarcely knew were there.
So often in social justice spaces and conversations we talk about what we do not want. We want an end to racism, an end to homophobia, and end so sexism and so on. We talk about how hard the world is and try to shine a light on the unnecessary suffering all around us. And this makes sense to do. We do want to describe what we don't want. And we also often need to make people aware of the true reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
However, I think far too infrequently in the 10 years I've been deep in social justice work, I have been invited to imagine the truly just future that I am working towards. What does it look like? What smells are all around? What can you hear when you step outside your front door? What is normal and even boring there that is scarcely imaginable in this world?
Today's offering is an invitation. An invitation to take two minutes and to write down, what is it that is true in that beautiful, actualized, just world.
There are many worlds and iterations perhaps between now and that fully realized world. But skip all those and go straight to that beautiful world. The one where justice has been done, wounds healed, and peace achieved. Take two minutes and live there for a moment, and write down the things that are true.
What comes up for you? Let me know, and I'll share mine with you.
June 15
Today's offering is a short (395 words) article by my friend Sam Killermann called "-Isms Not -Ists". I'd highly recommend you give it a read and then pop back here for more thoughts on it (if you want).
https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2019/04/isms-not-ists/
I was introduced to social justice as a movement (or movements) to end 'isms' like racism, sexism, etc. That these -isms are systems of oppression much bigger, broader, and deeper than any individual harm can. But yet so often in our social justice movements, we focus on the who.
We ask questions like, "Is that person racist?" rather than questions like, "Why is that person racist? What conditions create racists?"
We focus on punishing individual actors for being "racist" rather than focusing on investigating and interrogating the systems that put those ideas, words, notions, actions into their minds in the first place.
I believe these types of actions come from wanting to further the movements of social justice, however, I think they are often a distraction or they are what we know how to do rather than what we need to do.
To look at the conditions that create racism, to end the mindsets and stories that make our society so full of racism, that is big work. That is work we often don't know how to do.
This short 1 minute video describes how this plays out, how we end up simply identifying the most proximate culprit and focusing our attention and energy there.
We don’t know how to end racism or to heal the deep socio/political/emotional/psychological trauma and conditions that create and keep racism alive.
But we do know how to shame people. We do know how to say, "That person is doing something wrong and should be punished." We do know how to call out individual 'bad actors' and make examples of them. We know how to attack the symptom, but not how to address the cause.
And unfortunately, as Sam supposes in his article and as I agree, that attacking the symptom often distracts us from actually addressing the cause. And not only does it distract us, but that often we find ourselves believing that we are addressing the cause when we are only addressing a symptom.
This offering doesn't have a solution, instead, I hope it might serve to raise our awareness of when we are attacking the symptom and not the cause. To remind ourselves that the rash is not the problem, it is what causes the rash that needs our attention the most.
REFLECTION:
How does -isms vs. -ists show up in your life?
https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2019/04/isms-not-ists/
I was introduced to social justice as a movement (or movements) to end 'isms' like racism, sexism, etc. That these -isms are systems of oppression much bigger, broader, and deeper than any individual harm can. But yet so often in our social justice movements, we focus on the who.
We ask questions like, "Is that person racist?" rather than questions like, "Why is that person racist? What conditions create racists?"
We focus on punishing individual actors for being "racist" rather than focusing on investigating and interrogating the systems that put those ideas, words, notions, actions into their minds in the first place.
I believe these types of actions come from wanting to further the movements of social justice, however, I think they are often a distraction or they are what we know how to do rather than what we need to do.
To look at the conditions that create racism, to end the mindsets and stories that make our society so full of racism, that is big work. That is work we often don't know how to do.
This short 1 minute video describes how this plays out, how we end up simply identifying the most proximate culprit and focusing our attention and energy there.
We don’t know how to end racism or to heal the deep socio/political/emotional/psychological trauma and conditions that create and keep racism alive.
But we do know how to shame people. We do know how to say, "That person is doing something wrong and should be punished." We do know how to call out individual 'bad actors' and make examples of them. We know how to attack the symptom, but not how to address the cause.
And unfortunately, as Sam supposes in his article and as I agree, that attacking the symptom often distracts us from actually addressing the cause. And not only does it distract us, but that often we find ourselves believing that we are addressing the cause when we are only addressing a symptom.
This offering doesn't have a solution, instead, I hope it might serve to raise our awareness of when we are attacking the symptom and not the cause. To remind ourselves that the rash is not the problem, it is what causes the rash that needs our attention the most.
REFLECTION:
How does -isms vs. -ists show up in your life?
June 12
"Beatings will continue until morale improves" ~ Unknown
This quote (while graphic) really summarizes a way that I've tried to make change in my life for a long time.
It's never worked.
I've never managed to beat myself up into feeling or doing better. I've never managed to shame myself into centered action. I've never managed to judge myself out of judgement.
For me, I have come to see many of my actions as adding energy into a system. And so when I can (which is far from all the time) I consider the question, is this type of energy the type that I want to increase in that system? If I want to produce a result that engenders trust, then I have to bring a trusting energy to the system. If I want to see an increase of connection, then I have to bring connection into that system.
When I started to work with tech companies, many of my friends would roll their eyes and say, "Ugh tech bros right!?" And at first I thought it was harmless, but more and more I realized, wait. On a deep level, I hope that my work is about inviting people to humanize each other, to see people as deeply human, to really listen and connect with their experiences, to hear and internalize their struggle. And I realized that if I was inviting the 'tech bros' to start to humanize people, groups, systems they are so cut off from, if I wanted them to really listen, to internalize the message, I needed to show up in that way for them. I needed to humanize them, I needed to be willing to listen and see them. I needed to be bringing the energy that I wanted to invite them to embody into my interactions with them.
REFLECTION:
What does this offering bring up for you?
This quote (while graphic) really summarizes a way that I've tried to make change in my life for a long time.
It's never worked.
I've never managed to beat myself up into feeling or doing better. I've never managed to shame myself into centered action. I've never managed to judge myself out of judgement.
For me, I have come to see many of my actions as adding energy into a system. And so when I can (which is far from all the time) I consider the question, is this type of energy the type that I want to increase in that system? If I want to produce a result that engenders trust, then I have to bring a trusting energy to the system. If I want to see an increase of connection, then I have to bring connection into that system.
When I started to work with tech companies, many of my friends would roll their eyes and say, "Ugh tech bros right!?" And at first I thought it was harmless, but more and more I realized, wait. On a deep level, I hope that my work is about inviting people to humanize each other, to see people as deeply human, to really listen and connect with their experiences, to hear and internalize their struggle. And I realized that if I was inviting the 'tech bros' to start to humanize people, groups, systems they are so cut off from, if I wanted them to really listen, to internalize the message, I needed to show up in that way for them. I needed to humanize them, I needed to be willing to listen and see them. I needed to be bringing the energy that I wanted to invite them to embody into my interactions with them.
REFLECTION:
What does this offering bring up for you?
June 10
CONTEXT
There are so many roles to play in the movement for liberation and social justice. While it can sometimes feel like there is only one way to show up, there are so many different and vital ways to contribute. I spent years thinking that I was not really contributing towards social justice because I was not a 'front-lines' type activist. I still struggle with that idea, even years later.
One of my favorite models is from Deepa Iyer from SolidarityIs and Building Movement Project, it highlights so many different and beautiful contributions that folks can make to a movement for liberation and social justice and situates that within an ecosystem of change making.
CONTENT
I am going to share the image from Deepa Iyer and share a few reflection questions on the model that Deepa suggests. Deepa provides a longer set of reflection questions which you can find here.
There are so many roles to play in the movement for liberation and social justice. While it can sometimes feel like there is only one way to show up, there are so many different and vital ways to contribute. I spent years thinking that I was not really contributing towards social justice because I was not a 'front-lines' type activist. I still struggle with that idea, even years later.
One of my favorite models is from Deepa Iyer from SolidarityIs and Building Movement Project, it highlights so many different and beautiful contributions that folks can make to a movement for liberation and social justice and situates that within an ecosystem of change making.
CONTENT
I am going to share the image from Deepa Iyer and share a few reflection questions on the model that Deepa suggests. Deepa provides a longer set of reflection questions which you can find here.
Weavers: I see the through-lines of connectivity between people, places, organizations, ideas, and movements.
Experimenters: I innovate, pioneer, and invent. I take risks and course-correct as needed.
Frontline Responders: I address community crises by marshaling and organizing resources, networks, and messages.
Visionaries: I imagine and generate our boldest possibilities, hopes and dreams, and remind us of our direction.
Builders: I develop, organize, and implement ideas, practices, people, and resources in service of a collective vision.
Caregivers: I nurture and nourish the people around me by creating and sustaining a community of care, joy, and connection.
Disruptors: I take uncomfortable and risky actions to shake up the status quo, to raise awareness, and to build power.
Healers: I recognize and tend to the generational and current traumas caused by oppressive systems, institutions, policies, and practices.
Storytellers: I craft and share our community stories, cultures, experiences, histories, and possibilities through art, music, media, and movement.
Guides: I teach, counsel, and advise, using my gifts of well-earned discernment and wisdom.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
What role(s) do you feel comfortable and natural playing, and why?
What role(s) make you come alive, and why?
Are there any differences between these two responses for you to explore?
MY FURTHER REFLECTION
Something I wanted to add is that I think some of us are also supporters of folks in these roles. It takes a whole community, both those who are easily identified doing this work but also their friends, family, loved ones who are supporting, encouraging, and nurturing them to show up fully in their role.
And that not everyone needs to be in this model. It is okay for some people not to have their central focus be working and showing up for justice and liberation. We need so many people outside of this model to be the wonderful humans that they are in the world, the parents, the cooks, the artists, the mail carriers, farmers, video-game-designers, the everyone. What I love about this model is it's expansiveness and way of showing how so many roles are necessary and beautiful and so very different. And because of the current moment/headspace that I'm in when looking at it, it's feels important to add that you don't need to show up anywhere on this model in order to be a wonderful, vital part of your community, ecosystem, and world.
Experimenters: I innovate, pioneer, and invent. I take risks and course-correct as needed.
Frontline Responders: I address community crises by marshaling and organizing resources, networks, and messages.
Visionaries: I imagine and generate our boldest possibilities, hopes and dreams, and remind us of our direction.
Builders: I develop, organize, and implement ideas, practices, people, and resources in service of a collective vision.
Caregivers: I nurture and nourish the people around me by creating and sustaining a community of care, joy, and connection.
Disruptors: I take uncomfortable and risky actions to shake up the status quo, to raise awareness, and to build power.
Healers: I recognize and tend to the generational and current traumas caused by oppressive systems, institutions, policies, and practices.
Storytellers: I craft and share our community stories, cultures, experiences, histories, and possibilities through art, music, media, and movement.
Guides: I teach, counsel, and advise, using my gifts of well-earned discernment and wisdom.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
What role(s) do you feel comfortable and natural playing, and why?
What role(s) make you come alive, and why?
Are there any differences between these two responses for you to explore?
MY FURTHER REFLECTION
Something I wanted to add is that I think some of us are also supporters of folks in these roles. It takes a whole community, both those who are easily identified doing this work but also their friends, family, loved ones who are supporting, encouraging, and nurturing them to show up fully in their role.
And that not everyone needs to be in this model. It is okay for some people not to have their central focus be working and showing up for justice and liberation. We need so many people outside of this model to be the wonderful humans that they are in the world, the parents, the cooks, the artists, the mail carriers, farmers, video-game-designers, the everyone. What I love about this model is it's expansiveness and way of showing how so many roles are necessary and beautiful and so very different. And because of the current moment/headspace that I'm in when looking at it, it's feels important to add that you don't need to show up anywhere on this model in order to be a wonderful, vital part of your community, ecosystem, and world.
June 8
CONTEXT
Today's offering is a section of text from Emergent Strategy from adrienne maree brown. I couldn't find adrienne reading this but do want to connect you to a short video of her talking so you can connect these words to her voice more directly.
I find listening to words rather than reading them helps me internalize and comprehend the text, I asked my partner to read the section of text, which you can listen to here.
After the section there are two short questions for reflection. I invite you to write down your thoughts, share with me via email, or talk them out with someone if you can and want to.
----------
CONTENT
"When we are engaged in acts of love, we humans are at our best and most resilient. The love in romance that makes us want to be better people, the love of children that makes us change our whole lives to meet their needs, the love of family that makes us drop everything to take care of them, the love of community that makes us work tirelessly with broken hearts.
Perhaps humans' core function is love. Love leads us to observe in a much deeper way than any other emotion. I think of how delightful it is to see something new in my lovers' faces, something they may only know from inside as a feeling.
If love were the central practice of a new generation of organizers and spiritual leaders, it would have a massive impact on what was considered organizing. If the goal was to increase the love, rather than winning or dominating a constant opponent, I think we could actually imagine liberation from constant oppression. We would suddenly be seeing everything we do, everyone we meet, not through the tactical eyes of war, but through the eyes of love. We would see that there's no such thing as a blank canvas, an empty land or a new idea--but everywhere there is complex, ancient, fertile ground full of potential.
We would organize with the perspective that there is wisdom and experience and amazing story in the communities we love, instead of starting up new ideas/organizations all the time, we would want to listen, support, collaborate, merge, and grow through fusion, not competition.
We would understand that the strength of our movement is in the strength of our relationships, which could only be measured by their depth. Scaling up would me going deeper, being more vulnerable and more empathetic.
What does depth require from us, from me? In my longing for depth I have been re-rooting in the earth, in myself and my creativity, in my community, in my spiritual practices, honing in on work that is not only meaningful but feels joyful, listening with less and less judgment to the ideas and efforts of others, having visions that are long term."
REFLECTION
What is this section of texting offering you?
What re-roots you? When you are spiraling, what helps you come back? And what does that re-rooting make possible?
Today's offering is a section of text from Emergent Strategy from adrienne maree brown. I couldn't find adrienne reading this but do want to connect you to a short video of her talking so you can connect these words to her voice more directly.
I find listening to words rather than reading them helps me internalize and comprehend the text, I asked my partner to read the section of text, which you can listen to here.
After the section there are two short questions for reflection. I invite you to write down your thoughts, share with me via email, or talk them out with someone if you can and want to.
----------
CONTENT
"When we are engaged in acts of love, we humans are at our best and most resilient. The love in romance that makes us want to be better people, the love of children that makes us change our whole lives to meet their needs, the love of family that makes us drop everything to take care of them, the love of community that makes us work tirelessly with broken hearts.
Perhaps humans' core function is love. Love leads us to observe in a much deeper way than any other emotion. I think of how delightful it is to see something new in my lovers' faces, something they may only know from inside as a feeling.
If love were the central practice of a new generation of organizers and spiritual leaders, it would have a massive impact on what was considered organizing. If the goal was to increase the love, rather than winning or dominating a constant opponent, I think we could actually imagine liberation from constant oppression. We would suddenly be seeing everything we do, everyone we meet, not through the tactical eyes of war, but through the eyes of love. We would see that there's no such thing as a blank canvas, an empty land or a new idea--but everywhere there is complex, ancient, fertile ground full of potential.
We would organize with the perspective that there is wisdom and experience and amazing story in the communities we love, instead of starting up new ideas/organizations all the time, we would want to listen, support, collaborate, merge, and grow through fusion, not competition.
We would understand that the strength of our movement is in the strength of our relationships, which could only be measured by their depth. Scaling up would me going deeper, being more vulnerable and more empathetic.
What does depth require from us, from me? In my longing for depth I have been re-rooting in the earth, in myself and my creativity, in my community, in my spiritual practices, honing in on work that is not only meaningful but feels joyful, listening with less and less judgment to the ideas and efforts of others, having visions that are long term."
REFLECTION
What is this section of texting offering you?
What re-roots you? When you are spiraling, what helps you come back? And what does that re-rooting make possible?
