Related Posts
Additional Posts in The Work-Life Bowl
Constantly resisting the urge to quit
Is it safe to go to a@rock climbing gym?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Rising Star
"if you don't aggressively agree with everything I say and think, you're invalidating me, and that makes you Evil And Insensitive"?
Rising Star
OP: Seems to be exactly what this article is saying, though. People get tired of being told what to think, feel, and do, even by those we otherwise agree with.
Rising Star
This thinking is a slippery slope. I haven't heard anyone say the though George Floyd's killing was justified. There is a lot of agreement nationally on steps that should be taken like mandating body cameras for officers, making it easier to fire officers with a record of brutality, and banning chokeholds. There is very low public support for defunding the police, which BLM has made the centerpiece of their movement. Those who are passionate about the movement seem entirely convinced they have the moral high ground and it's their duty to shame people into agreeing with them on everything. The same approach has been taken by liberals on other policy goals like Medicare for All and Universal Basic Income that also have very low public support.
Making this a "you're with us or you're against us" situation where anyone who doesn't voice full-throated support for the movement (including therefore defunding the police) is invalidating doesn't work. A democracy can't function if we all have to have the same view points across the board to avoid anyone's feelings being hurt.
Rising Star
Thanks for the explanation KPMG1. I dont see it that way, but I can appreciate your reasoning.
With respect to taking the position that neutrality is worse - another way of phrasing it, as supported by the research referenced, is that people often experience more harm from indifference or dismissal of their suffering than they do from the source of the suffering itself. Not just listening passively, but as the article discusses "You're overreacting" - which in the case of BLM, does get tied up in people saying things like "yeah the murder is bad but their reaction to it is out of proportion". Or minimizing their pain as not being special or noteworthy - "Everyone deals with that" or "All Lives Matter" - and there are many who see that statement as neutral, in that they of course mourn the death, they're clearly not pro police murder, its just that they're blowing up and exaggerating about it being a pattern.
Totally agree that there can be invalidation from both sides - as the article points out, its possible to sympathize with both sides of the couple - "Im not against you, why am I being attacked!!", followed by being told that you have no right to feel upset for being attacked. This absolutely can entrench the problem and disconnect further.
However its not a pure "both sides" in the situation, because there is, initially, one person in pain.
Honesty is more important than how your employees feel about your stance on a cause.
If you're against it, be against it.
If you're for it, be for it.
And if you're neutral be neutral.
Don't fake it. Your subordinates or those suffering may "feel better" in the short run, but nothing good comes from false pretenses in the long run.
Rising Star
The more we’ll intentioned people tell others to think as they think and do as they do or else their implicit enemies of the cause the more they are turning people off and harming their movement.
Rising Star
The responses to this article are really interesting to me, though not unexpected given we work in corporations where exactly that pattern of invalidation is reinforced regularly.
"If a person is in pain, and that pain is met with invalidation, it will damage the person further, and also damage the relationship and trust"
If a person said "I am hurting because my friend died" and your reaction was "So?" or "Maybe it was his own fault" or "They weren't that close a friend" - the invalidation of their pain would be hurtful, and damage your relationship with that person.
If you disagree, and *intend* to invalidate, then as Proviti 1 said, having the courage to do so honestly is better. It will still hurt the person and damage your relationship with them - maybe part of a sign that the relationship is not a healthy or functional one, with vastly different perspectives, and that its time for a parting of ways.
If you intend to support them, but your words and actions are invalidating, then it will hurt them and damage your relationship with the person.
Rising Star
I imagine you're feeling completely unsafe and unable to be yourself right now, and that's really exhausting.