What actions are abusive?

And did Hauerwas’ actions rise to a level thereof?

Logan M. Isaac
Sep 7, 2018 · 6 min read
I don’t know WTF this is, but it’s probabaly not abuse.

There have been some very helpful discussions already on Facebook about the nature of what ocurred between me and Stanley Hauerwas on our phone call on November 3, 2016, which you can check out here. I’ve written this post with those specific concerns in mind. Hopefully this outlines some of the parameters around what I am calling abuse in this case.

The term “sexual abuse,” since it has been suggested I intentionally baiting clicks by suggesting that was in play, names the fact that “abuse” is a qualified subject. In other words, there is such a thing as “abuse” which does not rely upon the qualifier “sex/ual.” If this is true, than we need to agree on a working definition of abuse that includes sex/uality, but for which sex is not its only form. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that “abuse” occurs when a more powerful party that intentionally causes harm to a subordinate party. In this definition, power and politics are largely synonymous, but again, just for the sake of argument. I also am being deliberate in the use of intent because I take unintentional harm to be more like “misuse” of power.

Determining the type of abuse, then, would seem to be dictated by the benefit received by the more powerful party at the expense of the subordinate. If this is acceptable, then sexual abuse is when someone exploits some power they hold over another (social, financial, physical, etc.) in order to receive some sexual reward for themselves. This would mean that economic abuse is when someone exploits some power they possess over someone else in order to receive some economic benefit, et.

Rather than seeing this as slicing up a pie such that each piece is less and less significant, as though naming one undermines the legitimacy of another, we can see this as interrogating power such that we can name it more precisely in order to confront it more effectively. We’ll call this a typology, but maybe there’s a better word for it, I don’t know.

So what specific elements constitute abuse, based on the above working definition?

The EEOC outlines how harassment is unwelcome conduct which a victim is required to endure in order to remain employed, to include threats and intimidation. As opposed to Hostile Environment Harassment, Quid Pro Quo Harassment is any interaction that includes an explicit or implicit offer by a supervisor to a victim to either provide some benefit (a favor) or avoid some detriment (a threat) in exchange for some benefit (a favor) to the supervisor. This is why it may also be known informally as “an exchange of favors.”

Given the above, someone would be guilty of abuse if these three elements were present;

  1. The abusing party makes a suggestion of an exchange to a subordinate party, the Offer.
  2. The abuser desired some unmerited benefit from that offer, the Favor.
  3. The Offer carried a promise of a Reward to the person with less power, either to A) gain a Benefit, and/or to B) avoid a Detriment.

As for Hauerwas, you can check the audio yourself to see if you feel differently, but the three elements do seem to be operative. Before we get there, let’s lay out what he wanted based on the transcript. Before that, I can say pretty definitively what I wanted, so let me be transparent.

I wanted to complete the work of co-teaching a course with a prominent theologian that I had been working on since July of that same year. I wanted to advertise that course as much as possible, and Hauerwas and I have had multiple explicit conversations about the responsibility of influential Christians to use their celebrity status wisely, in ways that promote healthy congregations, and (in my vocation) de-escalate the inflammatory binaries consuming dialogue in the Church about military service. I wanted him there for these reasons, but also because the core of his oeuvre, and the foundation of the course itself, is virtue ethics. I wanted his picture on flyers because I knew his name and face draw a crowd and, before I ever put a single flyer up, he agreed both to the value of his notoriety and to the content of the flyers I created. I also wanted to teach this course again, not just for money and prestige but because I believe/d it can directly challenge the inflammatory binaries mentioned above, to which Hauerwas himself has contributed, that have demeaned a community of which I am a member.

According just to what we see in this converation, Hauerwas wanted to to allay the discomfort of Amy Laura Hall, another tenured faculty giving a course he was well known for giving in the past (“the war course”). There is no evidence that he truly believed taking the posters down would accomplish this, it sounded more like a demand or expectation from Hall that he just went along with. Assuming this, we can surmise that he wasn’t ultimately interested in taking the posters down, but in making “life in the Divinity School” less complex and the life of the Dean less complicated. Was what Hauerwas wanted merited? Did he earn or deserve the modicum of comfort he alludes to? Did he owe comfort or simplicity to Hall or Dean Heath? These may be the most difficult questions to settle, but they are important to consider.

So were the elements of abuse, as I’ve outlined them above, present in the phone call?

The Offer was repeated a several times, and you can tell by the If/Then format, which in American grammer often drops the “then.” His offer can be seen in statements like “if you want me involved at all, [then] don’t go after the Divinity School students,” “ if you want me involved” (then the posters needed to come down), and finally “if you don’t take them down, [then] you can kiss me goodbye.”

The Favor he sought for me to perform for him was to take the posters down, which I’ve outlined above is just pretext for his desire to have an uncomplicated life for Hall, the Divinity Shool (including himself), and the Dean. Maybe he imagined retirement (which he mentions) to be easy and uncomplicated, I don’t know. Whether this benefit he sought was merited is one question to consider, but also the method by which he sought to acquire that reward (threats, intimidation, etc.) is as well.

The Reward he was promising, based on his explicit offer, clearly involved his ‘involvement.’ It is hinted at by his statement “If you dont want me, I’ll be glad not to be there.” This is odd because, as a rhetorician, he is aware that one can groom (or “spin”) the conversation in such a way as to suggest that I was inviting his behavior or that he and I wanted the same thing. He expresses concern over whether he approved the flyers, which may have carried the benefit, to both of us, of smoothing over his and my relationship, but he does not weave that into his actual offer. On the contrary, the reward he is offering is to avoid some detriment, to keep from losing him. He knows his face and name are valuable; he and I have spoken about it before. He was reasonably aware that, as the POLSCI department chair would later tell me, “We only hosted it in the first place bc of Stanley.”


What do you think? Either the working definition of abuse needs finessing or it seems that Hauerwas’ actions fits the bill. Is there another way around it? Let me know by commenting above.

Logan M. Isaac

Written by

Veteran Author, Advocate, & Entrepreneur. My real passion is education; I love to teach almost as much as I love to learn. Founder, @CenturionsGuild & @PewPewHQ

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade