The Moral Maze: Who and what is 'toxic'?
Photo by Zach Savinar on UnsplashYesterday, I appeared as an expert “witness” on the BBC Radio 4 program, Moral Maze, in which we were discussing the concept of “toxic” workplaces and relationships. I appear toward the end of the show for 5-10 min talking about “toxicity” from the perspective of Socrates and the Stoics.
In my view, the term “toxicity” has pros and cons but overall it’s quite an unhelpful concept. On the positive side, it can help people to label their problem if that provides them with a common language that lets them connect with others who have encountered similar problems, as they may learn ways of coping. However, relying too much on the term “toxic” creates several problems:
It risks disowning agency by attributing our emotional response exclusively to the external environment, or actions of others, rather than attributing our stress, at least in part, to our own thinking, values, coping strategies, etc.
It lumps together a wide variety of different problems, in a confusing way, which range from overt sexual and racial abuse, and other unethical or even criminal behaviour, to covert or indirect inappropriate behaviour, such as passive aggression, or subtle discourtesy.
In some situations the “toxicity” may consist in actual harm to our interests, such as prejudice that interferes with our performance at work or limits our career progression. In most cases, perhaps, the harm takes the form of stress or emotional disturbance, which is largely, if not exclusively, cognitively mediated. To paraphrase Epictetus, it’s not the workplace that’s causing you stress but rather your opinions about it. The “toxicity” is perhaps best viewed, in such cases, as caused by the interaction between the external environment and our subjective thoughts and feelings. What one person experiences as intolerably disrespectful, for instance, another might welcome as directness. One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
However, the Stoics emphasized that only the ideal Sage is completely in control of his subjective feelings, and he (or she) is as rare as the Ethiopian phoenix. Maybe Socrates or Diogenes the Cynic were perfect sages, but, for instance, Marcus Aurelius isn’t sure we can ever know this for certain. The Stoics consider it foolish, therefore, to assume that other people are perfectly wise. As Marcus famously does at the beginning of Meditations book 2, we should prepare ourselves for the fact that people in general are flawed. We are all emotionally sensitive to certain triggers, whether we like it or not.
Perhaps surprisingly, therefore, the Stoics do not think we should be callous toward other people who complain of “toxic” workplaces or relationships. Epictetus tells his students to show empathy outwardly for the suffering of others, while inwardly reminding themselves that it’s due, largely, to their way of thinking about events. He tells his students “you are not Socrates”, but they should aspire to make progress in that direction, toward wisdom, by learning to take ownership for their own thoughts and feelings.
When we call a situation or relationship “toxic”, we’re typically alluding to the notion that it’s gradually harming us like a poisonous chemical — it’s like lead in the water. I think a better simile, though, would be that stress is like an allergic reaction. Poisons affect more or less everyone but not everyone has the same reaction to allergens — some people are more allergic to inappropriate behaviour at work than others. Allergies can go away over time, or they may get worse. It’s our own body that’s harming us, though, through its reaction to the allergens in our environment. If you’re mildly allergic, you might be able to deal with the symptoms. If you’re highly allergic to something, though, it makes sense to either remove the cause or avoid the situation, even if other people don’t have the same reaction. As Epictetus tells his students, if there’s a little smoke in your house, live with it, but if there’s too much smoke for you, you would probably be better to leave. Of course, if we know people are allergic to something, especially if it’s a common allergy, it would be respectful to remove it. Some restaurants avoid using peanuts altogether; others warn diners that there could be traces of peanut in their food. (Peanut allergies can make people very sick or even kill them.)
In a workplace, the person most responsible is, of course, the person in a leadership position, as they have most control over the environment. The show didn’t touch on this but under the Health and Safety at Work act, incidentally, British employers actually have a legal obligation to assess and prevent risks to the mental health of their employees caused by workplace stress and issues such as bullying or harassment, and so on.
A good leader, or CEO, will recognize that people will experience certain factors as “toxic” because of their individual character, and also because of social norms. It would be foolish and unrealistic to expect employees to, like Diogenes the Cynic, transcend all social norms, e.g., and be impervious to even the worst insults. We should set standards for appropriate behavior, therefore, based on social norms, while simultaneously recognizing that the harm caused is, typically, mediated by our thinking, which could be different. People have different levels of emotional resilience and what is appropriate in one setting, or acceptable in one culture, may be quite different from the norm in another.
Does that mean that Stoicism is victim blaming? No. Epictetus clearly states that those ignorant of Stoicism blame others for their problems. Those who are partially-educated blame themselves. However, the wise blame neither themselves nor others for their problems. They view their stress as due to the interaction between their subjective values and external events, but their values are determined by nature and nurture, such as genetics and cultural norms. We can, theoretically, change our acquired beliefs, and ascend to the emotional resiliency of a Socrates or Diogenes, but that’s an aspirational goal. The Stoic Sage is like the individual equivalent of a “Utopian” society — we’re not there yet! Even Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, did not claim to be perfectly wise or resilient.
In psychotherapy, or coaching, if someone arrives at the first session complaining of a “toxic” relationship or workplace environment, the first thing we always have to do is ask them to go beyond that label, and describe much more specifically what is happening and how they are responding. That leads to a multi-factor conception of what is causing their stress — it’s due to a combination of things. They usually have direct control over some aspects, indirect control over some, and no control over others. Change inevitably requires taking more responsibility for the aspects under our direct control: our own thoughts and actions.
The Moral Maze[Episode listing from the BBC Radio 4 website.]
The allegations about Gregg Wallace’s behaviour on set have been described as being part of a "toxic environment". Once primarily used to describe plants, arrows and chemicals, “toxic” - which is defined as “poisonous” – only relatively recently started being applied to workplaces and people: parents, siblings, neighbours, exes and co-workers.
Those who have experienced a toxic work culture or colleague might describe a deterioration in their personal and professional well-being – the causes of which may be difficult to define – or prove – on their own. While sexual harassment, racism, and bullying should be clearly understood, a toxic environment may involve more subtle things at play: a lack of trust, unrealistic expectations or an atmosphere of negativity. Here, employees might point to a power-dynamic in which they feel infantilised and gaslit by their bosses.
But is the debate around “toxic” environments or people helpful? What are we to make of a term which hinges on how an aggrieved person feels rather than the defined behaviour of the perpetrator? Is that an important redress for those who have for too long suffered in silence? If a boss sets a negative tone in an office, due to their own pressures and stresses, does that make them “toxic”? When does an off-colour joke become “toxic”? Some psychiatrists think that labelling something or someone as “toxic” risks writing off certain behaviour or people, rather than confronting them and dealing with it.
What should – and shouldn’t – we be prepared to accept in a workplace or in a relationship? Is it possible to detoxify cultures like the entertainment industry, which thrives on the egos of the “talent”? Can people change? When is it OK to cut off a “toxic” relative?
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panel: Sonia Sodha, Konstantin Kisin, Matthew Taylor and Anne McElvoy
Thanks for reading Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life! This post is public so feel free to share it.
