Book PDF: Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair (PDF)
Summary article: https://archive.is/BGt5k
Hello current, upcoming, and prospective JETs. As a fellow ALT and Redditor, it is hard not to notice that many people who flock to the ALT-related subs are seeking advice on bullying, abuse, harassment, and other situations.
Of course, one of the challenges and rewards of this job is conducting your professional life in another language with colleagues whose cultural ideas of politeness or conflict resolution or what food is acceptable to heat up in the office microwave (and so on) may often differ radically from your own.
Another challenge of this experience that is not always a part of the job (speaking as a prefectural ALT) is dealing with your fellow ALTs, who, like your Japanese colleagues, come from diverse backgrounds and have varying levels of social aptitude.
All of this is to say: You will not always agree with or have a good time with these people. Sometimes you will have conflicts with coworkers and community members. An dsometimes, unfortunately, abuse may occur, too.
As you navigate or prepare to navigate this exciting and occasionally fraught social and cultural landscape, it is incredibly valuable to have a clear understanding of the distinction between "conflict" and "abuse." Luckily, there is an eminently readable book that brilliantly explores the distinction between "conflict" and "abuse": Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair (PDF)
You can also read an article about the book and the situation that led Sarah Schulman (who has decades of experience as an intersectional LGBTQ and sexual violence activist) to write it here: https://archive.is/BGt5k
The TL;DR:
- For abuse to occur, an actual power imbalance must be present.
- By mislabeling "conflict" as "abuse," we victimize and disempower ourselves.
- Mislabeling "conflict" as "abuse" can actually create harm where there was none.
Good excerpt from that article:
The book’s central insight is that people experiencing the inevitable discomfort of human misunderstanding often overstate the harm that has been done to them — they describe themselves as victims rather than as participants in a shared situation. And overstating harm itself can cause harm, whether it leads to social shunning or physical violence.
Schulman argues that people rush to see themselves as victims for a variety of reasons: because they’re accustomed to being unopposed, because they’re accustomed to being oppressed, because it’s a quick escape from discomfort — from criticism, disagreement, confusion, and conflict. But when we avoid those uncomfortable feelings, we avoid the possibility of change. Instead, Schulman wants friends to hold each other accountable, ask questions, and intervene to help each other talk through disagreements — not treat “loyalty” as an excuse to bear grudges.
My gloss:
We (especially Americans, I believe) often live in a context where the zeitgeist encourages us to overstate harm. This often when we automatically label any situation in which we feel uncomfortable, unheard, unseen, or disagreed with as "toxic" or "abusive." Often, this can feel empowering: We tell ourselves we are standing up for ourselves and calling it like we see it.
However, labeling a situation in which we feel uncomfortable as "toxic" or "abusive" when no power imbalance actually exists between the two parties is actually disempowering. That is because it severely limits how we can respond. When we label something "abuse," the abusive person becomes beyond our reach: They are toxic and abusive and therefore bad and cannot be reasoned with. The only power we have in this situation is to shun the person and (often) to convince other people to shun them. We have no tools for repair, for recourse, for discourse at our disposal.
By recognizing when a situation is a conflict, and not abuse, we actually give ourselves more power to reckon with the thing that is making us uncomfortable. If we can understand that a person we are in conflict with does not have meaningful power over us, we can feel safe in approaching them and dealing with them. we can open up a whole new realm of possibility: Mutual understanding. Dialogue. Self knowledge. Growth. Connection. Choosing to not care about them.
Example:
A middle schooler won't stop saying sexually suggestive words at an ALT or in their presence. The ALT may say: "This is sexual harrassment! I'm being abused!" The only solution to the problem, in this situation, is to get the child to stop saying those words–the child, in other words, has all the power to stop or continue the "abuse." The ALT feels like they do not have any power to rectify the situation. There is no escape.
In reality, though, the ALT is an adult and the ALT's perceived "abuser" is a child. Children do not have any real power over adults.* Adults, and especially teachers, however, have plenty of power over children. Therefore, this is not abuse. It is a conflict, and the ALT has power (though not necessarily the power) to resolve it. Often, even just recognizing the perceived abuser's actual lack of power is enough to resolve a conflict. The ALT can say: This is a child. They don't know what they're doing, and it doesn't matter, so I won't bother reacting to it anymore because nothing terrible can come of it. Or: I am an authority figure and therefore can assert my power (nonabusively) in this situation.
Anyway, this is too long. I'm curious what y'all think. Have you read this book? Do you want to read this book? How much power do you feel like your JTEs have over you? What about your foreigner colleagues?
*(If you are saying to yourself, "But metaandpotatoes, what about the hit box-office smash The Hunt/Jagten, in which Kojima Hideo's beloved Mads Mikkelsen plays a small-town Danish kindergarten teacher whose entire life is ruined by a child accusing him of sexually assaulting her!" please DM me, I want to be your best friend, we have so many amazing things to talk about)
by metaandpotatoes