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

by Sarah Schulman

The performative conceit at the root of this kind of assaultive action is the melodrama that email orders are a “last resort” in response to some horrible transgression. But the opposite is more likely true. Often a real conversation would illuminate nuances and correct misunderstandings. The real question is: Why would a person rather have an enemy than a conversation? Why would they rather see themselves as harassed and transgressed instead of have a conversation that could reveal them as an equal participant in creating conflict? There should be a relief in discovering that one is not being persecuted, but actually, in the way we have misconstrued these responsibilities, sadly the relief is in confirming that one has been “victimized.” It comes with the relieving abdication of responsibility. There is something in the person who hides behind email that wants these offenses to be true. They want to feel victimized. Then they don’t have to look at themselves critically or think about the other person with complexity. There is no guilt or responsibility if one is an email victim.