Responding to Abuse in Cooperative Groups

Yesterday I posted a blog about Conflict and Abuse, and last night I had some further thoughts about the dynamic I described toward the end, where Chris and Dale (my would-be protagonists) are in the same group, Chris does something that Dale labels abusive, and both want to remain in the group.

I wrote:
If Chris and Dale are in the same group, I agree that abuse should be treated differently from other forms of conflict in this way: I generally think it's reasonable (even important) that both Dale and Chris be expected to make a good faith effort to try to resolve interpersonal tensions between them—with group assistance if necessary—if they are unable to do so on their own. However, if Dale feels abused by what Chris did, and both want to remain in the group (which is the interesting case), then I would respect Dale's right to decline to engage with Chris. I might request that Dale consider engaging Chris with the group's assistance, but I would not require it. If Dale chooses not to engage with Chris in working through their trauma, the group will have to feel its way through any requests from Dale that Chris' opportunities in the group be limited as a consequence of Dale's abuse experience.

On the matter of how I, as a facilitator, would try to support Dale after understanding that they were triggered by Chris, I would begin the same way (by listening and acknowledging), independent of whether or not they labeled Chris' actions abusive.

Because of the potential I see for the previous paragraph to be misused, I want to explore it a little deeper. The phenomenon I'm worried about is where Dale employs the "abuse" label to avoid working out their reaction to Chris, claiming that they prefer to do this work solo (or perhaps with the help of an outside friend or counselor), yet nothing seems to change. While it's almost always better for the group to have people work through their distress—rather than allowing it to fester—it can be the wrong thing for the abused person's recovery, and it can be delicate knowing the right way to go in a given situation. 

Thus, I think it's OK that groups ask their members to try to work out any unresolved tension with other members, while allowing for the possibility that if a member reports feeling abused that this expectation may be waived. 

Upon reflection I want to further my recommendation: 

I am worried about Dale being the sole determiner of what constitutes abuse. Given that I am proposing group norms about how to respond to a report of abuse by one member in relation to another, the group is a stakeholder in the dynamic. Therefore it's appropriate, I believe, that it has a say in setting the standards for when their support gets activated.

Let's look at some examples. The caveats are that the group has the following agreements:
—Emotional expression is OK (though aggression is not).
—There is a Conflict Resolution Team (or its equivalent) established, whose primary task it is to help group members work through interpersonal tensions that they are not able to resolve on their own. Further, all members involved in unresolved conflict in the context of the group are expected to make a good faith effort to work it out, and cannot turn down an offer of help from the group if the team perceives that the tensions are leaking on the group.
—If a member claims that the actions of another member were abusive and does not want to engage with the person to work it out, that that request will be honored. (This is seen as an exception to the general agreement about conflict stated above).

(I understand that all groups do not have these agreements, but I recommend that they do and I'm trying in this blog to make a more nuanced and complete statement about what I recommend with respect to cases of abuse.)

Example 1
I think you'd get easy agreement that intentionally touching someone's body without permission constitutes abuse. (Obviously there's a wide gamut in how serious the violation can be, running all the way from a light touch on the shoulder to rape, but it's crossing a clear line nonetheless.) 

Example 2
More problematic is something like raising one's voice in a meeting. If Dale grew up in a family with an abusive parent who bullied their children with a dominant voice and threats of beatings, it would not take much to understand how Dale, as an adult, might experience a loud, angry voice from Chris as profoundly disrespectful and abusive. On the other hand, Chris may not be thinking about Dale at all (I'm not saying that's good, but it's understandable in the heat of the moment); they're just being their authentic self (they were raised in a family where people spoke loudly and expressed their feelings openly all the time; it was normal) and the group has a commitment to supporting emotional expression on topic. Now what?

If Dale is allowed to be the sole arbiter of what's labeled abusive, and chooses to not engage with Chris over their raised voice in a meeting—because the group policy allows that option when abuse is involved—imagine how frustrating that would be for Chris. They would have been labeled an abuser with no recourse. That can't be a good result.

• • •

Thus, I think it's appropriate that if Dale informs the group that they have been abused by Chris, that it automatically triggers a step where the group (or better yet, its designated committee, which is probably a quicker and more discreet way to handle it—I recommend that this task be given to the Conflict Resolution Team) reviews the situation and makes two assessments:

a) Is there group agreement that the alleged action is abusive? Mind you, this in no way invalidates Dale's experience—it's still abuse to them regardless of what the committee determines as a group standard in this instance. 

Here's how I imagine this working. The committee meets with Dale at their earliest convenience—without Chris being present—and hears them out about their feelings, their story, and its meaning, making sure to understand why Dale thinks what Chris did was abusive. After Dale is satisfied that the committee has heard them accurately, the committee asks if Dale is willing to engage directly with Chris to work through their reaction, in an attempt to resolve tensions, get agreements about future behavior, and to repair damage to relationship. In short, does Dale willing to waive the abuse clause that permits them to not engage with Chris, or do they want to invoke it?

If it is waived, then the matter can proceed as with any other conflict. If, however, Dale wants to steer clear of Chris—which is their right—then the committee needs to huddle (without Dale or Chris) and consider whether Chris' action was sufficiently egregious to be labeled abusive by the group. To be clear, this is not a simple deliberation. The committee will need to weigh:

•  Was the action sufficiently out of line in the context of group culture that there was an implicit understanding that it was abusive?

•  Is there any track record on this behavior, both in the group in general and with Chris in particular? If so, what did we do last time and what was our thinking? Was the outcome satisfactory or deficient? Have cultural norms shifted such that we might have a different answer today?

•  Could Chris have reasonably known that Dale might find their action abusive? Was Chris' behavior a pattern (and therefore likely to occur again without intervention) or unusual?

•  Are there extenuating circumstances that justify treating this instance as a one-off?

•  Is there any reason to believe that Chris was intentionally provocative?

•  What decision or action by the committee has the best potential for supporting and enhancing relationship among all parties: Dale, Chris, and the group?

b) How do we proceed if Dale won't engage with Chris? (This assessment can be skipped, of course, if Dale is willing to engage.) This has two paths: 

i) If the committee determines in the previous step that Chris' behavior was abusive, then it will communicate that to the group and honor Dale's request to not work with Chris to process it. Instead, the committee will take on laboring with Chris over their behavior, making sure Chris understands why the behavior is unacceptable, and doing their best to develop an agreement with Chris to not repeat it. This work may spell out what will happen if Chris does it again anyway. Depending on what the committee understands that Dale wants and what is seen as good for the group, it may ask Chris to apologize (perhaps to both Dale and group).

Any agreements arising from this work with Chris will be communicated to the entire group.

ii) If the committee determines that Chris' behavior was not abusive in the group context, it will nonetheless meet with Chris to make sure they know that Dale found Chris' behavior abusive (and why). They will explore with Chris ways they might voluntarily alter their behavior to be less triggering for Dale (and perhaps others like Dale) without changing their personality or their values. The point being that communication broke down with Dale and that's not a good thing. Based on Dale's response, could Chris achieve what's wanted in the way of fully expressing their views while being less triggering?

Here too, the committee will transmit to the group a summary of the outcome of their deliberation with Chris, including any agreements Chris makes about behavior changes, and any steps Chris is willing to take to repair relationships.

In short, this is shuttle diplomacy between Chris and Dale. While Dale may or may not be open to laboring with the committee (or its rep) on this, the committee should try. And even if Dale declines to work with the committee, the committee should still do what it can to work with Chris. Improvement and greater understanding in any direction—even if unilateral—is better than none.