So if y’all have been here for more than a minute or two, you know that I love a good can of worms. I see a can of worms, I pop the top off that baby and check her out.
In a recent trip to a used bookstore, I found this, which looks like a wormy can indeed:
But I figure, if someone wrote this book they’re either going to be extremely wrong or have some really interesting things to say.
Much to my amusement and amazement, the introduction of the book is talking a lot about queer theory, abuse, harm (all things that are my areas of expertise), and Palestine. Couldn’t have timed this one better, I guess. Worth noting that it’s from 2016, so a lot has changed as far as the global perception of that conflict (understatement).
It is worth noting here that the author does not deny the reality of abuse or the harm of abuse, but clarifies that she's talking about a different thing. A different thing that is when stuff that is not abuse is treated like abuse and that rhetoric and mindset is used to justify subsequent actions.
For screen-reading compatibility and ease, the text is as follows:
In this book, I bring fifty-seven years of living and thirty-five years of writing to a critical conclusion: that from the most potent potential for intimacy between strangers, to intimate domestic moments between lovers, to the claims of the state on its citizens, to the geopolitical phenomena of mass murder, we witness a continuum. Namely, false accusations of harm are used to avoid acknowledgment of complicity in creating conflict and instead escalate normative conflict to the level of crisis. This choice to punish rather than resolve is a product of distorted thinking, and relies on reinforcement of negative group relationships, when instead these ideologies should be actively challenged. Through this overstatement of harm, false accusations are used to justify cruelty, while shunning keeps information from entering into the process. Resistance to shunning, exclusion, and unilateral control, while necessary, are mischaracterized as harm and used to re-justify more escalation towards bullying, state intervention, and violence. Emphasizing communication and repair, instead of shunning and separation, is the key to transforming those paradigms.
Fuckign. Yes. (Emphasis added is mine.) Her particular example here is the resistance to the silence imposed from above regarding the AIDS epidemic, and how those protests were treated as active harm by the government and punished as such.
This is exactly the shit I've been thinking about for the last few days to an uncanny degree.
She goes on to talk about how Part One of the book is about distinguishing between conflict and abuse, starting within households and relationships and expanding to the realm of the state, then going on to "trying to understand how the police became the arbiters of our relationships" (YES!!!!! HOW???), and exploring these concepts in historical context.
Then on to summarize what she's doing in part 2, and this hit me like a water balloon on a hot day:
Once this relationship between overstating harm and the Abuse by the state is established, I start to unravel some of the reasons why people are compelled to escalate. The centerpiece of this dynamic is the role of "bad" groups in encouraging bullying and shunning instead of peacemaking. Escalation is the key consequence of refusing to problem-solve or negotiate, and it demands our attention as a central obstacle to peace and justice.
But then I really want to linger on this last paragraph here. The rest is putting into words insights that I think I've already had. This last one is bringing up something that I have literally never thought of before.
In Chapter Five, I examine how Traumatized behavior and Supremacy ideology resemble each other, how both produce distorted thinking that seeks unreasonable levels of control over other people and does not tolerate self-criticism or difference. I propose a release of the stigma around recognizing mental illness, distorted thinking, and anxiety, and suggest that they be publicly and commonly recognized as contributing sources of this intolerance and control. And I try to look at cultural denial of these manifestations of distorted thinking as a strategy for the enforcement of dominance.
This. This feels like it might be cooking with fire. This is an extremely interesting thought and I think it bears a lot of exploration. It feels true, which means I'm going to be extremely critical of it going forward as I read and see how well it passes stress tests.
I've literally only read the introduction so I can't recommend this book or anything, but I can tell y'all I am Paying Attention. Listening, Learning, Etc.
