Are They Toxic, Or Are You Uncomfortable?
The waters of communication are muddy; jump in anyway
Keep up with Marigold Health, sign up for our monthly newsletter!
I hate when words start vibrating. You know — “buzzwords.”
Sorry.
But really; I feel like the buzzword trap door comes with the territory when we try to write about hot-button issues. I can’t not use them; culture decides the trend of colloquial word use, I’m just a millennial trying to keep up with the lingo. So here goes: We need to talk about this trend labeling people as “toxic” and/or “narcissists” and we need to understand what “cancel culture” is and what it is responding to because it is responding badly.
The same way far-right conservatives co-opted the word “triggered” from behavioral health jargon in order to belittle the very real phenomena of re-experiencing trauma, I understand that some readers may see someone criticizing cancel-culture as someone who is criticizing progressive work to remove problematic behavior from our communities. Believe me, I am trying to be your unproblematic fav, and we’ll get to the part about tone policing and gaslighting. Humor me and table that for now. We will get there. I am writing as a person with a laundry list of line-drawing and accountability efforts.
The word “toxic” has become synonymous with “unpleasant” or “rude,” and we may be using it to excuse ourselves from communicating during uncomfortable confrontations.
Also — and I really don’t want to spend too long on this, but have to say it — stop labeling people who are kinda into themselves to an annoying degree or that person you dated who was in an indie band and dumped you over text as narcissists. It’s a serious mental health disorder, called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and people with it deserve treatment. Categorizing it in everyday language harms people with and without the diagnosis; folks without it may not be allowed to grow (as we will discuss here) and, as with many severe mental illnesses, people with NPD will be vilified.
I am yearning for the days of old, where “you’re toxic” was just something Britney Spears once sang to me when I was five years old through a McDonald's happy meal walkman. But alas. Now when we say someone is “toxic,” we aren’t saying they did something wrong; we are implying that they are contaminated, that they are a threat to our health; poisonous to the core, and we will become sick if we continue contact after harm is inflicted. This is a grave oversimplification of the human condition most of the time — although exceptions can always be made in more extreme cases of abuse and neglect.
People aren’t “toxic,” and we are lying to ourselves if we believe we are not, at any given moment, a villain to someone in our lives. We paint people as two-dimensional caricatures when we label them absolutely one way or another, and that is usually a subconscious, honest defense mechanism to prevent us from having to do the labor of communicating. But we need to do it.
“He has imposed on me, but he has not injured me.”
-Jane Austen, “Emma”
If every person who hurt another person’s feelings was “toxic,” we all would be toxic; and if a person’s toxicity is a license to cut off communication, we would all be isolated, lonely, and unable to grow. It is an unpleasant reality because we try to be fundamentally good people — and I would wager that for the majority of the human population, we are; however, we are not immune to being hurtful to others. Difficult, uncomfortable situations can’t and should not be avoided; and being uncomfortable is not the same thing as being in danger. For those of us with emotional work to do, it can feel that way. For those of us with very real, very valid experiences where confrontation became unsafe and volatile, there is a neurological component to why we avoid vocalizing our problems. It’s easier said than done.
Harvard Business Review published an article on the issue of fight or flight responses to perceived threats, and specifically, how we can slow ourselves down and “override” our reflex to be defensive and fearful.
Note: The word “perceived” does not mean “fundamentally separate from reality,” as many people share identical perceptions of danger. It just means what any given individual in a given situation sees. We should be careful not to use the word “perceived” to discredit or diminish someone’s experience.
“Fight or flight” refers to our biological response in conflict; The sweating, the shaking, stuttering, running away, expression of anger — all of these are ways our bodies prepare us to deal with confrontation. The key is in learning to override that part of our brain in order to increase our ability to be logical and grounded. It is, above all else, a practice. Sometimes we are up to the task. Sometimes we are not. Both are okay, and not every problematic situation or behavior will be reformed at that moment, or perhaps ever. The skill lies in sussing out when there are opportunities for changed behavior and accountability, and when there is not.
Calling In vs. Calling Out
When there is an opportunity, people will:
- Express curiosity or a desire to listen to concerns about how they may have caused harm
- Ask honest questions
- Explain where they were coming from with “I statements,” which sound like, “For me, I felt that… “What I thought I was saying meant…” “I did not know what I said would be harmful”
- Additionally, sincere apologies sound like, “I am sorry I made you feel this way with my behavior,” “I am sorry I spoke this way, even though I didn’t mean anything by it, it is clear to me that it hurt you”
- Sincere expressions of confusion: “I know this upset you, I am just confused as to how; can you say more?
- Asking for ways to move forward/be held accountable: “What can I do to make sure this doesn’t happen again/preserve our relationship? What would growing from this look like?
We should practice looking for these responses as well as offering them when we cause harm. It can feel extremely personal when we are being held accountable. Someone once said to me to regard boundaries and accountability as an expression from another person that they wish to work on and preserve their relationship with us!
When there is not an opportunity for reconciliation, it sounds/looks like:
- Defense/deflection: “I’m sorry you took it that way, but obviously that’s not what I meant/said (intent does not cancel out impact!) This is my least favorite because “I’m sorry you feel that way” makes it about the hurt person not taking something well instead of the person being called in accounting for their actions
- Gaslighting: “You’re way too sensitive,” “That didn’t happen, that’s just how you perceived it,” “No one else ever had an issue with what I said/did, you’re the only one!”
- Absolutely ANY kind of threat of physical or emotional retaliation (this is where we begin drawing lines)
- Doubling down: Throwing in curse words, racist/sexist/etc slurs
- Unchanged behavior in the long term
Both of these lists can go on. Specifically, with the latter, there is a spectrum; some of these are annoying and disappointing, and others, like racial slurs, are violent and threatening. You may choose to persist with someone who is being defensive, but I would highly, highly recommend disengaging at the point of threats and aggression. I know the lines blur. Use your best judgment.
Let me be crystal clear: At the point where someone becomes violent in a physical or emotional way, the moment they make personal attacks and spew hateful rhetoric, you can disengage. And, honestly, if you choose to engage, you don’t have to be nice about it. We don’t need to be nice to racists, if that isn’t already clear.
And please don’t ever let someone being hateful and violent convince you that it is you who are intolerant. I tolerate people who think Rick and Morty is a personality trait, I don’t tolerate racists.
Anywho!
Catherine Aponte, Psy.D. says, “When you label someone as toxic, you are characterizing them in a negative way, giving yourself permission to dismiss, avoid, and criticize.” As we know, shame is the least effective way to collaborate to make a change.
Accountability is not about shame. Perhaps one of the best ways to characterize accountability is to view it through the model of restorative justice.
Restorative justice is a progressive, alternative approach to the current system of crime and punishment we have in both our personal relationships and on a larger scale, like in our criminal justice system. It may even be human nature at this point to feel more satisfied to see a person punished for something that they did that we find egregious, especially if we are the victim. For our purposes, we are going to avoid thinking in extremes; we’re going to focus on this model of restorative justice as a response to interpersonal conflict.
Restorative justice is a model that focuses on repairing harm rather than punishment for a “crime,” in this case, the crime of being harmed in a conversation or in a group. Instead of demonizing and distancing, posting a screencap of someone saying something messed up over Facebook in order to rally your friends to the cause for shame, restorative justice involves the person harmed and the person who inflicted harm to come together; the person who inflicted harm is held accountable by listening to the person harmed and being given the chance to resolve the issue. Together, the two (or more, depending on the situation) parties decide what is needed in order to move forward. Moving forward does not mean “forgetting,” it is as intentional a step as the airing of grievances because it involves a plan for long-term accountability through a commitment to changing the behavior in question. That’s what I’m arguing for; the commitment to a pattern of changed behavior through conversation, vulnerability, and honesty.
We have to think, again, about a few things when entering into this work of accountability and restorative justice:
- Do we have the emotional capacity to do this right now? Do the potential benefits outweigh what it will cost us emotionally and spiritually to engage with this?
- Sometimes, the answer to this is no. And it’s okay to pick your battles. You can’t do much good if you are not feeling equipped!
- Is this person/group in question accessible? Are they Chris Pratt or are they your colleague, friend, or weird uncle with a limitless nicknack collection who says pretty questionable things about Black Lives Matter at Thanksgiving?
- This is also a question of privilege. How are you leveraging yours? Is your uncle a matter of protecting your peace, or a choice to disengage?
- Sometimes we are not at a place yet where we can honestly say we don’t want punishment. Sometimes we really, really, really do, especially depending on the level of harm we have sustained. And you can’t shame yourself out of that feeling because you want to be progressive and understanding. It’s enough to know now, though, there is another way, and maybe it has better outcomes for everyone. Give yourself time to think about it.
Ok, So What Now?
The internet is littered with articles about breaking up with your best friends and nicknack uncles. And hey, sometimes you gotta say, “Sorry Uncle Bob, if you keep saying racist shit after I explain how it’s harmful, I can’t talk to you anymore.” And that’s just it; in that scenario, although perhaps somewhat undeserving, you’re giving Uncle Bob a chance to acknowledge that he’s saying some pretty messed up stuff and needs to not only stop but commit to changing his motivation for using the language he uses.
I am calling all readers to check themselves against all of these best practices as the harmer as well as the harmed. This process will lead to personal growth and genuinely changed patterns of behavior and enriched relationships. So, in the spirit of buzz-phrases: Do the work!
