Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair

by Sarah Schulman

When I think about it deeply, I can see multiple moments in each day when I have the option to act hurt, to act put-upon, to be offended, to make accusations. Anyone can point to any little thing and turn it into a moment of outrage simply by calling it so. There is an arbitrary element to rejection. I remember I once said to a friend, “You know, I was thinking about going to San Francisco for a week.” “What do you mean, You know?” she said, incredulous, offended. “How am I supposed to know?” Of course I meant you know like uh, um. But she needed to construct me as someone doing something bad to her. Assuming. And of course this made any fun conversation about San Francisco impossible, because now I was wrong. At any conflicted moment that is available to interpret one’s self as somehow transgressed, there is often the option of not seeing it that way. Or of asking the other person what they mean. There are all different kinds of choices. Many, many times a day we could say yes instead of saying no, or find something interesting or revelatory or enlightening instead of offensive. To talk instead of shun. Of course, to always respond this way is problematic because then we never stand for anything on our own. But while recognizing that for socially marginalized or demeaned people, exclusion and silencing are everywhere and must be addressed, we still have choices about how to understand each other.