Before I launch off into what will hopefully be a productive work day (I really need more of those, but the body, mind and heart are where they are, and I know short-term patience here with those will have long-term payoff, so I’ve been trying to to push too hard or be too hard on myself), I want to put some thought into the position of the other and the dynamics at play, given that I do have a limited toolset to do so, and I think it will help me with a more balanced view that may bring more acceptance.
The rules of this game are:
- Not priviliging those needs over my own position or needs or subjecthood
- Not getting too personal, or assessing or assigning motive or internal state or feelings based on personal qualities or information or coping style, just looking at what any reasonable person might experience given the context.
- Focusing on context.
My first time around this territory I spent a great deal of time in ambiguity, way too much, and since that experience I educated myself more in a necessary search for understanding and to try to resolve my pain. One thing I did much better more recently was to proactively reduce ambiguity, and also map my own experience from my own position and embodiment where that ambiguity persisted, to allow myself more trust in and more of an authority position over it rather than look as often to external definitions.
But context inevitably plays a role, and in archetypical terms, there are some predictable ways people may experience the tensions these create. There is some literature on it, which does well to address more formal, black/white scenarios, but these could use more translation into more grey zone scenarios, where context, power, and the resulting tensions deserve more nuanced mapping, in my opinion.
Section 1: Starting Places
A. The positioning of the other in the group as a trust figure, via credentials and built trust, without attending authority or power to manage the group as a whole or to design or enforce policy or standards beyond their own program.
The effect: When other leaders became unreliable or structure became unclear, community members relied on her for support and guidance.
Another effect: anyone in that situation would probably feel a lot of tension of absorbing that, especially if they cared about community, but also lack of control in effecting outcome.
A third effect: when support comes from other places, ie if Position A has thoughts on the matter or is actively assessing the structure, and feels drawn to the other, Position B may begin to feel more “seen” or validated in a way that can establish a feeling of mutuality, regardless of positioning in an amorphous, blurry context, like there’s another in the room with them.
B. The other’s sheer competence. I believe that when people have developed strong skills and have talent, fulfillment and pride comes from using them well, and indeed people with those skills are in fact encouraged to do so across context.
The effect: even when role definition is murky or defined variously across advertising, the professionalism, competence and clarity still stand out and build trust, especially in context where those qualities do not exist elsewhere. It also makes them vulnerable to being held to a higher standard, if they operate at a higher (or at least, different, given that personal style can vary and some styles are better for some learners than others) standard that signals an accompanying ethos to begin with.
Another effect: possibly feeling more isolated in an organization which does not support or echo the full scope of that professionalism, even if one is resourced with stronger echo and reinforcement elsewhere.
Additonally: a context advertising trust and safety, and soliciting the vulnerability that requires a ethos/framework of care, without any such structural framework being in place. However, respect for things like “when in Rome…” makes intervention difficult if one wants to respect “local culture.” But to my understanding, the “when in Rome” is more applicable to supporting grassroots endeavors or decolonization frameworks than to for-profit businesses which have no real accountability structures in place.
C. An organization which has some strong competencies or identity or affiliative components, and does provide some degree of interesting, useful content and growth opportunity, and also a high level of support, a community of care, and also more lax rules.
Effect: Very permissive context which allows for a lot of shaping of group dynamics, expression of identity, resonance, belonging, and recognition by individuals and leadership.
Another effect: when rules are lax, people need to rely more on improvisation or relying on external sources for guidance, and the organization may or may not support those ways of doing things
A third effect: such an organization can also provide shared frameworks of understanding which can be stretched to “explain everything” especially when power structure remains obscured by an ethos of equality.
D. Professional codes which may not adequately address all of the many conflicts and pressures someone may face while operating in this sort of “grey zone” arena.
Effect: further isolation and improvisation needed
Another effect: lots of pressure to manage situations which arise individually when support and guidance is not available, especially in light of any organizational politics or affiliations which must be managed also in a way that preserves professional identity in relation to community or business concerns etc. Others who may be consulted along the way may not have easy answers, or answers which rely more on what’s need to check boxes, rather than to actively manage the situation.
A third effect: a lot of cumulative tension arising from all of that.
And yet another effect: the person in position A in the relationship also scans for guidance and safety, and forms ideas about where support is from the more ambient environment, like the other’s other proximity to external affiliations, even when these may not in fact be not playing as active a role in guiding or supporting the relationship.
side note: I think this was the other’s strongest hand to play when things came into question.
E. This is a really big one: visibility concerns, and what each person needs for safety actively conflicts with what the other needs. This is where it gets archetypical.
Effect: So this is where I think everything came to a head. Position A wants visibility and transparency about the relationship in the context to feel like there was legitimacy and support, while also not wanting to become posterized or “gaymous” by the organization, just more low-key but supported simply as two people enjoying love within community. Also of course to stop others from approaching the other romantically. Additionally, this visibility would allow for Position A to experience more authentic friendships, possibly, if there could be openness; it would feel less like hiding something from others who may later feel betrayed if confidences are shared, or if they share their own feelings about the other with Position A. Position B had attending pressures around this in terms of community perception and evaluation – by groups run, by more official clients, by others with professional competencies who may have legitimately questioned the involvement and timing, and even by leadership running an organization where the person in position B’s professionalism, positioning as a credentialed trust figure which lent legitimacy to the organization, image and even whose romantic availability might have been considered brand assets. This comes right into conflict with relationship pressures.
So if visibility eventually occurs more dramatically and is another area which requires improvisation to manage, and all of the attending concerns are not explored, the effect can be really hard; while Position A may be feeling more secure and legitimate as a result, Position B may find themselves in a bind of increasing discomfort and exposure and scrutiny. Suddenly Position B is forced to view the relationship, which may previously have been happily in a bubble of its own, through sobering new lenses via community exposure, and begin to closely monitor responses, question many things about it, get community blowback or the spectre of it, and experience a sense of growing discomfort, and uncertainty about how kosher it in fact was. Position A gets scrutiny too, but it’s less evident in that moment. Tensions internal and external continue to rise, and, more or less inevitably, everything breaks down, confusingly and dramatically. Both people seek safety after the breakdown; Position B retreats into professional role, quickly wanting to “undo” the scrutiny and engages in signaling and resumes prior position, to stabilize. Position A also wants to stabilize, but has no comparative positioning within community to retreat to, no aegis, and far less ability to control narrative and public framing even of one’s own position as loyalties flow naturally to Position B. Additionally, while Position B establishes safety, Position A loses it as the community scrutiny becomes evident and intrusive, and there is no true organizational recourse or management beyond organizational framing in the interest of organizational stability, collapsing the “issue” to Position A’s individual issues, problems, trauma reenactment, or lack of enlightenment or ability or will to “do the work.” This becomes another site of improvisation, and pretty inevitably leads to temporary or permanent exit without active intervention to preserve her place. Any intervention is much less likely to occur when Position B seeks safety through distance, is strongly supported by leadership and group, and there is nobody else to stabilize, or no real place for Position A to occupy within the limitations of the organization.
F. More about the inevitable breakdown: with all of that missing structural support, both people, in assessing why things are the way they have become, and suddenly feel so unsafe for both, search for explanations, which can also involve the other’s or even one’s own personal qualities or history in an attempt to explain why things got or feel so bad. AKA structural misattribution, which goes both ways.
Effect: personal attacks or hurtful comments about each other in an attempt to locate the problem and navigate the cycles of distancing and search for safety and reassurance, and lots of confusion and searching and uncertainty about what is happening and why, while also just feeling like things are off and not working. Confusing especially when feelings for the other have become strong.