The Good (and Bad) of Good Faith
Often when we discuss what it means to operate in good faith, it is framed as something akin to civility or goodwill. In recitations of Democratic Socialists of America’s Guidelines for Respectful Discussion,* good faith is always mentioned but rarely accurately defined. This is unhelpful, as the topic of good faith comes up over and over during contentious discussions. I would argue that many common unquestioned definitions of good faith and bad faith are simply incorrect, making it impossible to encourage and enforce operating in good faith in a meaningful way.
Some of the most foolish, objectionable, and false statements I’ve ever heard were made in total good faith. Wild exaggerations, conspiratorial thinking and bigotry can all be expressed in good faith, which is to say sincerity, a quality at the heart of what good faith actually is. Good faith is meaning what you say. Bad faith is saying things you may not mean with the intent to be disruptive or get your way without having to reveal your actual motives.
For example, many objections to transformative leftist policies are offered in bad faith. A centrist may claim to support Medicare for All but sadly lament that it is too expensive. Behind the moaning about cost is an objection to raising taxes on the wealthy. Attacks on Bernie Sanders may be framed in terms of “electability” when in fact the capitalist detests policies that undermine their beloved free market or threaten their unearned wealth.
Republican Steve King is operating in bad faith when he decries anti-semitism- he is a massive bigot who only cares about Israel insofar as Israel abets his hatred of Muslims. But he is operating in good faith when he espouses wildly racist beliefs about white people being replaced by non-white immigrants. He believes the latter sincerely.
The principle of good faith is deeply important but it must not be isolated from other community agreements.
In my own DSA chapter we’ve had some very difficult discussions around disability and accessibility. Proposals to increase accessibility via things like online voting and livestreaming meetings were offered in good faith, accompanied at times with very sharp comments about the injustices disabled people face and a desire not to replicate them in our chapter (and the observation that we often do). Objections were raised in good faith, centering around security issues and feasibility (In the age of doxing and infiltration, security is a valid concern, and online voting is also minimally compatible with floor amendments and votes). There were hurt feelings on both sides, but vanishingly little insincerity. The community agreements that were ignored or infringed on included “Use I statements” (a variety of sweeping declarations were made), “Respect others differences and backgrounds” (opponents of the proposals at times did not adequately consider why a disabled person or disability activist might approach the issue with high passion and a vulnerability to harm), and “oops ouch” (wounds opened were left that way).
There were many contentious, vitriolic and even traumatic conversations before, during and after the DSA National Convention. Accusations of factionalism, ill intent, and dishonesty flooded online forums. What would motivate people to make such crazy accusations? Well, the simplest explanation is that the accusations were true–to a point. Thankfully there are but few bad actors to contend with, but they do exist. So, again, the contentious, alarming, ugly arguments were largely made in good faith. People believed in their platforms and felt connected to their caucuses, were wounded when attacked and sincere in their pain and anger. The issue, as ever, was the pileup of other problems and violations. In the heat of prolonged debate exaggeration, overreaction, and paranoia creep in; criticism is felt as attack and counter-attacks are launched; the concept of Why Am I Talking retreats into oblivion. Real actions transform into grim mythology. The true beliefs of caucuses and individuals are denounced, and the denunciations are repeated and heard and misheard and repeated until, like the result of millions of DNA replication errors, what’s left is mutated and pitiful, unrecognizable to the authors.
This process renders good faith irrelevant. Which is not to say operating in good faith is unimportant; it is critically important. Honesty and sincerity are foundational to meaningful debate and organizational growth and development. But good faith must be nested within other principles and agreements. Assuming good faith requires its flip: not assuming bad faith, yet taking someone at their word does not mean you have to like their word. Conflict is not avoidable and at times is in fact necessary. There are few villains yet there is a lot of bad behavior. This isn’t a failure to operate in good faith, it is a failure to be measured, kind, deliberative, understanding, and know when to quiet. Easily a third of this trauma could be avoided by observing Why Am I Talking? Just as valuable is knowing when to step up or step back. In the absence of official progressive stack, we should internalize it. Conflict may not be abuse, but part of respecting other people’s differences and backgrounds is acknowledging that some communication styles may come across as scary or mean (also, sometimes people are mean). Without fetishizing civility or becoming hall monitors, we can nonetheless deeply feel our responsibilities to each other and our organizations.
The value and utility of good faith emerges from and is buttressed by the other community agreements that we frequently state but rarely examine in detail. It is not the absence of good faith that poisons our discussions; good faith is abundant, common to the kind and unkind, the quiet and the loud, found in the advancement of the commonest thoughts and the most alienating, foolish and destructive proposals. But good faith only shines when we uphold everything else.
*If you aren’t familiar with DSA’s community agreements (common in many other left spaces as well), here are the official ones. Many chapters have supplemented them with other guidelines such as “Use I statements” and “Oops ouch.”
- Assume good faith in your fellow comrades
- Know whether you need to “step up” or “step back”
- Please ask yourself “Why Am I Talking?” (W.A.I.T.)
- Please recognize and respect others’ feelings, background, and cultural differences
- We have “one mic” so do not interrupt or speak while others are talking
- Respect the facilitator when they use Progressive Stack
- Have a sense of humor
