Conflict is not abuse

(Copied from an old twitter thread, Apr 2022)

Oof, this book is a slog to get through. Not to mention the many fundamental flaws.

For example: the whole chapter about how she believes communication is overly restrictive today is written from a place of deep fear of messing up and an inability to read social queues. Thereby doing the thing she warns about in the book: overstating harm.

I can’t say the book is written from a neurotypical perspective because I don’t know that about the author. I would say though it is written assuming a neurotypical perspective and audience.

A lot of the difficulties she describes are common among various neurodivergencies but instead of exploring that she denies these perspectives as overly sensitive.

Her insistence of in-person talking over text communication also shows a generational divide. It’s understandable that she’s not super fluent in asynchronous communication but she doesn’t acknowledge this. Instead she generalizes her perspective and dismisses alternatives.

Another fundamental mistake is the assumption that conflict and abuse are a strict binary and mutually exclusive, as if both can’t exist simultaneously in messy overlaps and interconnections. A lot of the book is built on this assumption and therefore on very shaky ground.

And she continues to bring Israel and Palestine into this, for no good reason really, which I’m not qualified to unpack but the way she uses it and the discourse about it as an example in various places feels contrived at best.

I read this book since I was interested in learning more about the social dynamics around a lot of internet phenomena involving shunning after seeing it referenced in ContraPoints's video on cancelling.

There were some good insights in this book about the difference between conflict and abuse - one key distinction being that Abuse involves power over another. Another good one was that, when we are experiencing or witnessing Conflict, we need to move out of the tempting frame of determining who The Bad Guy is, and instead 1) look towards the situation in a more objective light, and 2) work towards mutual agreement of the Conflicted parties. Shunning while in conflict shuts the other party out as well as any potential for a fulfilling resolution.

Another key point was that, when attempting to resolve Conflict, it is a poor idea to use closed modes of communication like text messages or email. The loss of tone in these mediums makes it much easier for both parties to misinterpret each other and escalate tensions.

However, there were some parts of the book I found annoying. For instance, the chapter on queer family felt like a lot of weird conjecture with some kernels of truth. I don't get the criticisms she makes against what she calls "pro-natalists." Okay Sarah, you don't want kids, that's fine, but wanting kids or wanting to be a parent as a queer person doesn't mean you want the state to dom you. A lot of "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥" in that chapter.

I also overall felt that the book could have been a lot shorter and not have missed out on much nuance.

DNF, 25%

I wanted to like this so bad from the premise.

A lot of old person shouts at cloud. She has this whole thing where she thinks its ok to stalk people that don't want to talk to her. There's like an entire chapter on it.

A summary of her arguments:
lack of communication causes conflict
conflict leads to shunning as a first response
Interpersonal shunning, leads to the invocation of the state
Communication will resolve conflict
Abuse is bad, and that we often use the term when there's not a power imbalance
We should treat abuse and conflict diffently
* We have a responsibility to resolve conflicts in family and other social groups.

What get on my nerves is she doesn't really back up that shunning is happening, as a first response, her shunning model isn't one that matches any organisational behaviour research I know of, and infact individual relationships work differently than group dynamics.

Go read a book on non-violent communication rather than this.

Sarah Schulman's (@sarahschulman3) Conflict is not Abuse's thesis is in its title: those that overstate harm miss the benefits that can be gained from verbal conflict, negotiation, and empathy.

Schulman's argument starts with the self, moves to the relational, discusses conflict and abuse at the hands of the state, and concludes with the Israeli genocide upon the Palestinian people.

She defines abuse as someone inappropriately using the power they have over a victim and conflict in explicitly verbal terms and almost as debate or negotiation.

In the personal arena, Schulman starts an incredibly useful idea: negative fantasy. Schulman outlines the anxiety that causes individuals to assume they know the intent of another without asking them. The anxious individual then spins into negative fantasy or a daymare that causes them to make additional unfounded assumptions.

In interpersonal relationships, she discusses a mismatch of motivation. Individuals learn that the dichotomy of victim and perpetrator gives compassion to the victim and shunning to the perpetrator. Schulman suggests that individuals in a non-violent disagreement will take the role of victim to get the compassion that the role attracts. She concludes that a system of conflict mediation that provides compassion and understanding to both parties in a conflict would heal the individuals and the community involved.

Schulman argues that when individuals ask the state (police) to intervene in a conflict, they dole out punishment to the perpetrator that does little to help the victim. She also argues that individuals in a conflict will involve the state to enforce their will and the power of the state. She argues that a community around individuals in conflict is essential to produce real healing around conflicted individuals.

One of Schulman's most interesting points is that people who are victims of trauma and those who create trauma use the same tactic: claiming victimhood to avoid negotiation. Police will claim fear to justify the use of deadly force as traumatized people feel fear and claim victimhood to avoid pain.

Schulman's Conflict is not Abuse is an anti-authoritarian text that should help you understand the value of conflict negotiation so you can build it within yourself to avoid negative fantasy and within your community to strengthen it.