Weaponised good faith
Dec. 12th, 2018 07:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberettA few years back, CN Lester gave a talk at the University of Oxford on trans histories,[0] containing the first reading from their excellent book Trans Like Me.[1][2]
During that talk, as you'll see if you watch it, they demonstrated the technique of assuming good faith almost ad absurdum -- well past the point at which any reasonable person might conclude that their interlocutor was hostile or indeed malicious, they maintain openness and curiosity and inquiry.
Since then I have taken a number of Very Deep Calming Breaths and done a bunch more learning about effective ways to engage in Debate should one wish, out of a sense of pragmatism, to Change Hearts And Minds, and this is one of the best tools I have.
I dither, still, over whether I'm comfortable describing something I'm consciously weaponising as "good faith"; over whether it still counts as "engaging in good faith" if I'm really very sure that the other party is in fact prejudiced, or bigoted, or wrong; if in fact the "show of good faith" is not about being open to having my mind changed, but about it being the most effective way to change theirs. Over and over I'm coming down on the side of "yes, more or less", because if nothing else I'm keeping hold of the idea that people might, that people can, change; that people are not condemned to be for ever their worst selves. I dither, but this is where I land.
And sometimes, just occasionally, the result is incremental change. At the moment -- in a general climate of the most 2018 thing I've heard in at least a week or so -- incremental change is what I'm hanging onto. So: here we are.
[0] Content notes for the introductory speech containing misgendering (emphatically corrected by the audience), trans history including 1930s Berlin, and cis audience members asking... questions.
[1] Interestingly reviewed by DRMaciver and subsequently referenced in a discussion of queer life as combat epistemology; relatedly, I've set up![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png)
drmaciver_feed.
[2] I recently saw an analogy for gendered experience of self and proprioceptive sense of body that was new to me but which feels very compelling: how do you know if you're left- or right-handed? What happens when you try to use the "wrong" hand?
During that talk, as you'll see if you watch it, they demonstrated the technique of assuming good faith almost ad absurdum -- well past the point at which any reasonable person might conclude that their interlocutor was hostile or indeed malicious, they maintain openness and curiosity and inquiry.
Since then I have taken a number of Very Deep Calming Breaths and done a bunch more learning about effective ways to engage in Debate should one wish, out of a sense of pragmatism, to Change Hearts And Minds, and this is one of the best tools I have.
I dither, still, over whether I'm comfortable describing something I'm consciously weaponising as "good faith"; over whether it still counts as "engaging in good faith" if I'm really very sure that the other party is in fact prejudiced, or bigoted, or wrong; if in fact the "show of good faith" is not about being open to having my mind changed, but about it being the most effective way to change theirs. Over and over I'm coming down on the side of "yes, more or less", because if nothing else I'm keeping hold of the idea that people might, that people can, change; that people are not condemned to be for ever their worst selves. I dither, but this is where I land.
And sometimes, just occasionally, the result is incremental change. At the moment -- in a general climate of the most 2018 thing I've heard in at least a week or so -- incremental change is what I'm hanging onto. So: here we are.
[0] Content notes for the introductory speech containing misgendering (emphatically corrected by the audience), trans history including 1930s Berlin, and cis audience members asking... questions.
[1] Interestingly reviewed by DRMaciver and subsequently referenced in a discussion of queer life as combat epistemology; relatedly, I've set up
drmaciver_feed.[2] I recently saw an analogy for gendered experience of self and proprioceptive sense of body that was new to me but which feels very compelling: how do you know if you're left- or right-handed? What happens when you try to use the "wrong" hand?
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-12 10:51 pm (UTC)(Relevant aside: personal experience as So Very Left Handed. A handful of things have learned to manage with right rather than fight the cultural expectation. Musical instruments f'rex.)
I like this floor. It's not going anywhere.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-12 10:52 pm (UTC)like some of why I find this so compelling is that handedness also isn't a binary, right, in occasionally non-obvious ways thaaaaaaaat overlap with disability
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-12 10:58 pm (UTC)(I am feeling argumentative and don't know why, especially since afaict we are in broad agreement. Which I suspect means I've tripped a personal landmine and am Not Fit Company. Maybe best continued discussion...later.)
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-12 11:00 pm (UTC)sure thing. <3 regret SURPRISE FEELINGS.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:10 pm (UTC)And then somewhere in this thread I misstepped and it seems like you parsed something slightly different than I intended and I can't figure out what. Which doesn't bode well for putting any of the rest of my brain out into words either.
*sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:39 pm (UTC)Please remember that I am overwrought and sleepy and have just done an international move and was Very Anxious about PhD work yesterday, so misunderstandings on my end are not even remotely impossible <3
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 04:41 pm (UTC)