Capt Awkward Challenges Our Redemption-Narrative Addiction

[jesse_the_k]

Captain Awkward is an advice-and-discussion site where I’ve learned a lot.

A recent post: “Rule Explainer: Why We Don’t Diagnose People Through The Internet,” does an outstanding job of demonstrating why armchair diagnosis is a Bad Idea.

Even if internet stranger diagnosing could be accurate and didn’t cause stigma, it would still be a bad idea. As soon as we distract ourselves from the harm the victim is experiencing and transfer that attention to trying to figure out the psychology of the perpetrator …who we conveniently don’t have access to and can’t question …we start leaving the victim behind. Because as soon as we start talking about a diagnosis, we start talking about a possible patient. This is because diagnoses should serve and help the patient, not everybody around the patient. And people who deliver diagnoses to patients should be people who are trusted and tasked with caring for that patient, with the informed consent and participation of that patient. And even if we, a bunch of internet commenters, actually were all doctors who diagnose such things, our ethics would still prevent us from diagnosing someone we’ve never met. And even if we were doctors who could prove our credentials and we improbably stumbled on the right answer and we decided to bypass the ethics and we could equip the bully’s victim with a bunch of literature about the bully’s conditions…

Why the fuck
did anyone decide
that the most important thing a victim of bullying could do
is to understand
and take care of the mental health of the person who is harming them?

Why is it even a thing we think people should do? Like, at all?

Why are we trying to solve the life problems of the person who didn’t write in?

And why do we think that’s the work of our community, to the point that people know the rule about diagnosing and we still have to remind everyone (including myself!) not to do it?

I have a theory about why (you knew I had a theory):

We are addicted to redemption narratives.

All this, plus the Parable of the Prodigal Son! This is why so many abusers get away with half-ass apologies!

https://captainawkward.com/2018/07/19/rule-explainer-why-we-dont-diagnose-people-through-the-internet/

Comments

[sonia]

Oh yeah! Thanks for linking. That is really well put.

I think there's a piece about pattern recognition that she touches on, and I still 100% agree about the no-diagnosis rule and the reasons for it, especially centering the victim.

In my practice I have the opportunity fairly often to say, "How about we bring the focus back to you," when someone starts analyzing someone who isn't in the room.

[jesse_the_k]

"How about we bring the focus back to you" is an excellent habit-buster.

It took me decades to understand how concern for the abuser can become a complete derail. Living through WisCon's uneven, lengthy, eventually useful dealing with habitual harassers finally made it clear.

[sonia]

Another way to look at the redemption narrative is that people reflexively identify with the person with more power/privilege (who is usually the abuser).

I'm guessing most people don't visualize the Prodigal Son as a person of color.

[niqaeli]

I have problems with Captain Awkward's column and comment culture both (which are better than many places in many ways and... not at all, in others), which is a major part of why I don't frequent the site. But the quoted section you share does very squarely hit on the fundamentals of a dynamic that is a major problem not only online but in general when we hear of misbehaviour secondhand.

[jesse_the_k]

It wasn't until I participated in WisCon's concom, age 50, that I began to understand the dimensions of the ubiquitous insistence on centering the abuser's experience.

Like the pungent Pervocracy article on "The Missing Stair," I hope that Capt. A's piece provides a cogent intro to the issue.

If you have the energy to discuss Capt A further, I'd love to learn more--but no obligation at all.

[cosmolinguist]

Reminds me of something great I read the other day about online trolls.

"The biggest mistake we ever made with trolls was making the question of abuse about how to placate and fix them instead of how to empower the people they hurt or manage your own well-being in the face of them."

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17561768/dont-feed-the-trolls-online-harassment-abuse

[jesse_the_k]

Oh my goodness that is a wonderful article! Thanks so much for telling me about it.

I can't not quote some of it:

Not only does this sort of ignorance [accepting the missing stair] function as a kind of tacit permission, but it also ignores the inherent threat of the troll’s true intent. What the troll, the stalker, and the abuser really want out of the situation is to feel powerful and in control. And they will not stop until they feel it. Therein lies the most horrible aspect of the “don’t feed” mantra: rather than doing anything to address the trolls, the more tangible effect is to silence the victim and the reality of their abuse, or worse, to blame them for it. For far too many who promoted this idea, the true goal was silence, to avoid facing what is happening and the impossible responsibility of it.

[cosmolinguist]

It's so good, isn't it? :)

[monanotlisa]

This is good, but actually hard to parse without context --

One thing stuck with me, though, as universal for this society: "We are addicted to redemption narratives." Yes! US-Americans more so than other Westerners, and it's a treacherous illusion.

[jesse_the_k]

I'm never happy walking the tightrope between copying-the-whole-article and finding-the-perfect-pull-quote. Any advice?

I think redemption narratives are baked into our society, thanks to the radical Protestants on the east coast, and the missionary Catholics on other sides.

[cosmolinguist]

US-Americans more so than other Westerners

Hm, I don't think I see this any less living in the UK than I did in the U.S.

[jesse_the_k]

Darn.

I had hoped that performative religiosity was one cause here in the states.