2024-09-30

OK, I expressed the intention on 2024-08-03 to write about non-possessive collaboration. I've not done that. Instead I've been

• attending the “Gathering of Tribes”
• doing a lot of work on the RegenCHOICE idea
• keeping up and developing contacts old and new

But right now, what seems to be ready to be expressed is more to do with belonging, again. This was prompted partly by going to the very recent open days at the Commons Hub Brussels (good place, go investigate!) and Jes's piece on philosophies and belonging (some great stuff there under the heading rewilding philosophy.)

Quite often, in the circles I move in, questions come up about codes of conduct, and what to do when people behave outside those codes. Well, what are codes of conduct for, anyway? At a first guess, so that people feel respected, safe, not threatened, and able in turn to behave responsibly. Surely, we want our physical as well as online spaces to be places where people behave respectfully, and certainly not abusively. So, what kind of behaviour belongs in those spaces? And what kind of behaviour, if carried out repeatedly, means that the person behaving in those unacceptable ways needs to be removed or excluded from the space?

I often hear about exclusion, that's common. There may be some warning process or not, but people get kicked out eventually, from jobs and positions of responsibility as well as from social spaces. The range of behaviour that “we will not tolerate” varies a little, but i see much common ground. It's to do with our values, and our values are … I won't try to fill in the blank, the devil is in the detail.

Occasionally I hear the opposite. We should never just exclude people. They need understanding and acceptance; to be gently talked round, out of the behaviour that upsets, damages, hurts, wounds, or violates others. We should assume good intent — but sometimes people have conscious bad intent, sometimes people lie and cheat, and what are we supposed to do about that?

So, we have two conflicting principles here. And it's not possible, in my view, to choose between them. On the one hand, it is very good in itself for people to feel safe, not threatened or harrassed. But what, exactly, are the conditions in which they feel unsafe? I have some experience of conflicting safety rules here. Sometimes there is no way that everyone can simply feel safe, without some changes. If it's demands, like “these are the demands of A” and “those are the demands of B”, sometimes those simply cannot be reconciled. (And don't we just see that in wars, even the one going on right now?)

The challenge as I see it comes when one “side” (as conflicting “sides” do appear in these situations) simply insists that their feelings of safety is more important than the other side's feelings of safety. There are limits, of course. I'm not suggesting that if someone says “I only feel safe if you are dead” that their opinion needs to be considered seriously.

There is another issue here. The people who tell others about the conditions for their feeling safe are usually the vocal ones. What about the silent ones, who are too afraid even to voice the conditions of their feeling safe?

There are no simple behaviour rules that can automatically solve these issues. It needs something much more deeply human: a mutual ability and willingness to listen to the fears of the other side, and where they come from; for both “sides” to hear each other well. And for those acting in bad faith to be exposed through extensive dialogue, not through appearances, so-called lie detectors, etc. And for all concerned to be willing to learn, not just about the other, but about themselves.

That's what I really dislike about codes of conduct. The insidious dangers are a lack of willingness to listen, to understand, to learn. And that, to me, defines the boundaries of where I belong. Maybe to a comfortable behavioural code (to reduce stress) but to a group of people who know each other well enough, deep enough, to see through deep projections and lies, whether those lies are to others or to oneself, or the projections are onto or imposed by oneself; a group committed in their hearts to listen and to seek understanding of the other, in return for being listened to, respected, taken seriously, and maybe (if lucky) understood … and maybe that would be more creative than if everyone is so well-aligned?

September is traditionally a bad month for me, as it restimulates the trauma (see e.g. this) of going to the hell of boarding “prep school” from 7 to 12, where I did not belong at all. This month has been a great start towards dissolving the impact of that trauma.