Rejecting disposability culture

Relationship Skills Part 1

I have been reading Dean Spade’s new book, Love in a F*cked-Up World. It is about pursuing justice in relationships and treating each other well so that we can find joy and work together for justice in the world.

Spade spends a substantial portion of the book debunking “dominant culture’s scripts” that lead us astray from being in right relationship with each other. One of these scripts is disposability culture. Disposability culture labels people as good or bad and encourages harsh and simplistic judgments of others. This idea of disposability is linked to capitalism as it supports the ranking of people that is required to exploit others. We are kept in line by the fear that we will be judged to be bad and cast out.

According to Spade, the polar extremes of how we treat each other in disposability culture are minimization of harm (don’t make a big deal out of it) versus punishment of the harm-doer (I never want to speak to them again, and our group should shun them, too.). I have seen both of these common responses play out in groups and organizations, often because we are lacking the skills and insight to handle these situations in a more compassionate and constructive way.

Minimizing harm is a form of denial and normalizes certain hurtful behaviors. For example, people of color may be expected to ignore microaggressions in the workplace and told to have a thicker skin. Trans people may be told to tolerate being misgendered. A woman may voice a great idea, but it is ignored until a male colleague repeats the same idea.

Punishment, the converse, may be based on swift judgment of another person’s behavior and be disproportionate to the error made. It may at first seem that punishment is not applicable in a workplace setting, but in fact traditional management often punishes people, with the ultimate punishment being termination for people who aren’t able to meet expectations. Coworkers may dismiss or refuse to collaborate with the judged person. Punishment of people with more positional power can take the form of public shaming, e.g. calling out on social media.

Neither of these stances allow for learning or accountability. They do not recognize nuance, and they do not allow for mistakes. Spade comments, “When we default to these two extremes, we miss what is in the middle—accountability. Accountability is when we assess impact and come up with right-sized responses to it. We acknowledge that someone has been hurt; we think about why that happened, how to prevent it from happening again, and how to attempt repair.”

This type of approach seems very needed in today’s world. Rather than casting out a nonprofit staff member who makes an ignorant and harmful comment, or brushing off the impact of that comment on the person who was targeted by it, how can we look at and then change the conditions that led to the harm? Can there be room for both people who are “on the same team” to find a pathway to ensure that the harmful behavior is not repeated and that the organization does not suffer from one or both employees leaving? If so, our organizations and our movements for justice will be stronger and our united energies can be focused on external threats and opportunities for change.

This type of learning and repair is challenging and takes time and intention. Establishing a learning culture within organizations and appreciating staff members who bring relevant skills in facilitating learning and accountability rather than blaming and burying conflict is a start.