"It is easy to cast blame, but it is perhaps time the Order accepted responsibility for their teachings, and their arrogance, and come to recognize that perhaps we are flawed."
―Zez-Kai Ell
On our Friday Hangout last week (28/09/2018) the group assembled discussed the following topic:
“Discipline in the Jedi Community, and the Act of shunning”
To briefly explain what shunning is; it is an act of act of social rejection, and emotional distance, through the means of social exclusion. In the context of religious practice, particularly in Christian Sects with significant cultural autonomy (Amish communities for example), it is a formal decision by a community, though often decreed by Elders or other authority figures, to cease interaction with an individual or a group. Often, these actions have many rules and guidelines, and can be deeply damaging to a person raised in a community that then shuns them. Shunning is largely characterised by the enforced dissociation of a member from other members of their community, however, it may also include far more antagonistic psychological behaviours, but those are not important at this part of discussion. Often, the goal of shunning is twofold:
1. To rectify what are perceived as maladaptive behaviours of a member. By removing them from their immediate support network; the act of shunning is intended to influence, encourage, and coerce the expected and accepted behaviours from the member. The intent is also to dissuade unaccepted behaviours from members by providing a demonstratable disincentive; a consequence for unaccepted behaviours.
2. To remove the influence of the perceived problem member from over other members in a community. By isolating the member, it allows for the opportunity to discredit and dis-empower such a member; often through oblique or exact criticism of that individuals’ behaviours or what they advocate, without them having the ability to provide retort. For groups built around key behaviours or ideological precepts, and where membership roles have defined criteria, shunning may be justified in the context of limiting damage to the community.
Understandably, this approach to punitive and corrective behaviour is often seen as abusive and an example of relational aggression, indeed, it more often leads to terrible unintended consequences rather than achieves the intended goal. Of-course, Shunning is approved of, if on times regretfully, by the group engaging in the shunning. Conversely, the shunning is often disapproved of by the target of the shunning. The members subjected to shunning will of course all respond differently, and the act of shunning has been known to cause psychological and relational trauma. The act is often polarising and rarely, if ever, leads to a mutually beneficial outcome; indeed, the divorcing of the parties becomes the most positive outcome.
However, with that said, most civil societies in some form practice what could be called shunning:
- Restraining orders or peace bonds.
- Court injunctions to disassociate.
- Medical or psychological instruction.
In these cases, however, they are all to the benefit of the individual. A restraining order is placed to protect the victim from their abuser. Court injunctions to disassociate are ordered to remove a person from intimidation or coercion. Those suffering from addiction are often instructed to remove parties from their lives who might provide temptation. Note, however, these are examples where it is to the benefit of the individual, not the community or the leadership of a group.
It is at this junction I now wish to discuss the Jedi community, and how we, as a community practice shunning. First, I would point out a distinction from the shunning I have just discussed, and what I intend to mean by shunning in the Jedi community. Within communities such as the Amish community; membership is often essential for personal security, safety, or health, as this is an example of where people are born into a community and thus their support comes from that community. As such, under such circumstances, shunning can be incredibly traumatic, disrupt lives, and be destructive to important familial relations.
In contrast; to become a Jedi is voluntary, and the rules of behaviour are often clearly set out prior to one joining the community. The expectations are outlined and set when one finds an online group, or an offline chapter, and you intend to join. Similarly; the Jedi group one joins is rarely your only source of support. Rarely is membership of an online group an essential source of personal security. As such, before we continue, we must be wary to not conflate the trauma of shunning in traditional communities, with the sort of practices I am about to discuss regarding the Jedi community. With that said, I shall now outline what shunning behaviours, and acts of social exclusion, one can observe in the Jedi community.
As a community, we have long recognised that our formation, our genesis, was primarily if not solely in the realm of the internet. Jedi Role-players recognised the power of the lessons of the Jedi, and began to extrapolate lessons from the fiction, or looked towards what sources inspired Lucas and the other writers responsible for the Star Wars expanded universe. Our reliance on forums, and what methods of control available to a forum admin has also coloured our approach to disciplining “trouble” members. Similarly, it has shaped the boons and benefits provided to those who are seen to have earned them:
1. Temporary bans have characterised what is considered the softer approach, and permanent bans as the hardest punishment. However, temporary bans often lead to the person never returning, and they do not fulfil their objective: How can a person grow into a contributing member, or have the support to find solutions to their problems if they are isolated from the community?
2. Punitive measures have often involved the notion of “humility”. A person loses their rank until they demonstrate they are worthy of it again, or they must undergo some form of training to “save” their rank. This carrot and stick approach, however, makes the rank important rather than actual change, learning, and growth important.
3. Rank has often been used as the gateway to being permitted to teach, take an apprentice or apprentices, or be a member of the council. All regardless of demonstratable third party qualifications. Thus, unless a person is willing to tow the party line, they are easily silenced by being denied rank. This allows leadership to easily silence and disempower critics, dissenting voices, or contrarian thinking, until their views vocally change. This is not a method based on education and learning, but a difference in power between parties.
However, the above are all symptoms, or the answers to issues created by the nature of internet forums that we have failed to grow pass:
1. Troublesome members, or “Trolls” are easily banned, and given no further mind. Often, this was the only approach for an admin in those heady days of EZ-Boards and Yahoo Groups.
2. Forums demand a structure of denial. In structuring a forum, one often had to layer the various degrees of being a Jedi (I.E Knight, Master) into sub-forums, and behind permission masks. One would only get greater access to material when one was granted access. This of course is controlled by the administrator and could be arbitrary in its nature. This also meant that the authority of an order was always invested in an admin who was often the de facto master or was given a position of importance by the head of teaching due to their need for the administrator’s skills. A council could have de jure power, but the de facto power over the orders home was within the hands of one or two people, creating an unfair power relationship.
3. Being the first, rather than the best and most able, became the key component of teaching structures and ranking in Jedi communities. Authority was often invested in the person who decided to just “Do it” and create the foundation for the community, rather than those who might in fact be the better teachers. Similarly, time in, and personal relationships with the founders or old guard are often factors in promotion; regardless of whether one has passed the key “concrete” trials such as written tests, or interviews.
These are only some of the underlying causes of what creates “Problem” people in the Jedi Community. If a person is banned at one place, they can find themselves blacklisted, and unable to gain traction elsewhere. Similarly, the act of banning can silence them; they may be unable to demonstrate their side of the issue, and thus remain labelled as “trouble”. I dislike name dropping, but I would use Hannigan as a well-known example. His troubled time in the Jedi community is aptly described in the synopsis of American Jedi, in which he appears, as a “trolling lifestyle” by some reviewers. It is something he has worked hard to overcome (although he still rubs a number of people from his past the wrong way) but I know of several times he was banned, and it is something I suspect the Jury of Public opinion will never truly forget. However, Hannigan is just one example of where people have been let down by our community simply because the easy thing to do was discard them as trolls.
I have seen several orders brought down by the founder abandoning the path, or leaving their creation, and failing to have empowered others to take over. I have seen several denied promotions despite being fit for the role, because their competency was a threat to the founder. Similarly, I have witnessed a number being denied promotion despite passing all the tests and trials put before them, because the council felt they were not ready; that some aspect of their character was inadequate. Something that makes the process of tests entirely arbitrary. Conversely, I have seen some invested with power undeservingly because they had skills essential to the online running of the group, and the matter hand waved by the council or the founder.
This is what we must now explore. The dark truth is that the online roots of the Jedi Community have some very rotten roots indeed. People had power because they started forums and websites. People were given power because they were willing to write lessons and were more prolific than others. People were promoted because of personal relationships, or because of the desire to grow the community over developing the quality of the community. Therefore, our means of discipline continues to be banning (be it temporary or permanent) or denying people promotion and creating glass ceilings to limit the power and influence of those who go against the grain. Most, if not all, Jedi communities are still wrestling with this poor organisation and managerial practice.
Communications is essential
Banning, in most communities, has long been the last straw as it should be. However, it is often because as Jedi we have a commitment to our beliefs in redemption, growth, and forgiveness. Yet; it is a self-fulfilling practice. Often, a person is warned about their behaviour, but not talked to about their behaviour. They are expected to change their behaviour because a consequence is placed before them: a potential ban. They are expected to become more Jedi like, and adhere to the rules, and seek to grow. We engage them in a one-sided conversation; it is not a discussion, but a dressing down. This creates an attitude of an inside and outside group. The individual is not welcomed to be a more constructive member of the group, but rather encouraged to moderate themselves to please the community. As discussed above as well, temporary banning creates its own issues. How can a person grow and become a constructive member if they are isolated, and removed from guidance to become one? Similarly, it demotivates them from engaging with the community, because they are forced to spend time away from it. This can damage connections they had begun to make in the community, and the time away can create negative sentiments towards the community; absence makes the heart grow fonder is rarely true with an online forum.
Alethea Thompson posted this on the Armonia FaceBook page on 26/09/2018, and it grants us an insight into the issue this lack of dialogue with “problem” people presents:
The problem with people, is they think it's very simple to hide who they are from a community (social or physical)- instead of actually seeking to change and improve who they are. But worse yet, is that in trying to hide it from the world- you're missing out on how the world can help you.
If you're addicted to drugs, you need outside help. It's not something that can be done easily on your own.
If you're an abuser, you need help. It's a lot easier when you have people around you that insist upon you developing moral integrity.
If you're emotionally hurting, you need help. Outside insight and good social interactions can jolt your system into seeing new things available to you.
If you're being abused, you need help. Strong individuals that know how to get you out of those situations exist, and they can assist you with finding resources.
There's no such thing as an enemy- only people who present a challenge for you to overcome or people who support you in the battle.
The final part is what is most integral to this discussion; who are we, as members of the community in these issues? Are we actively communicating with “problem” people to seek why they are “problem” people? Many talk of the Jedi path as one of acceptance and redemption, but often we react to people who cause trouble with punitive and corrective actions. We often treat the symptoms without treating the cause; why has a person who has otherwise been a positive or least quiet part of the community begun acting out? Similarly; is it not feasible that troubled person come to the community, and instead of helping them find a solution to the causes of their troubles, we instead support them to tolerate their troubles and not act to do something about them.
As Jedi we have a duty to each other as we do to others. Just because one aims to be a Jedi, and is striving to be a Jedi, does not absolve them of being in a dark place. Having progressed as a Jedi does not prevent someone, in time, when vulnerable and struggling from lashing out or acting in an out of character way. Before banning, the threat of banning or any form of censure is even considered, we must as a community consider something much more effective; a conversation. We must also recognise that punishment is ineffectual compared to rehabilitation; if we do not invite people to be a part of the community, and work with them to be part of the community, they will continue their way. In the hangout on Friday I discussed an analogy which is used in some martial arts circles:
“If you hit a black-belt hard enough in the head; they become a brown belt. Hit them again; they become a purple belt. Hit them enough and they will be a white belt.”
This is very true with regards to life as well though, and rank among the Jedi; a Jedi Master is only as masterful as his reserves of energy to deal with problems. No matter how capable, unflappable, and composed someone might be; they will always have something that can shake them. Enough of that in a short space of time, can bring down even the most capable of us. This being the next lesson; we are reactionists to problems. We react, rather than pro-actively, attend to individuals causing issues. We are finally made aware of issues when the person becomes a “problem” rather than when something could have truly have been done about the issue. This is true of every level of involvement, and investment, in our community. People are not a problem, but when they cause a problem, it is a symptom that they are struggling with problems of their own.
With that said, we do have the other side of the coin. We do have internet trolls, studies indicate that those most likely to be internet trolls are high scorers in two traits; psychopathy and sadism. Similarly, that trolls have lower affective empathy, and psychopathy moderates their cognitive empathy (Sest, N., and March, E., 2017). Cognitive empathy refers to the capacity understand others’ emotions. Whereas affective empathy refers to the capacity experience, internalize, and respond to those emotions; put one’s self in another person’s shoes to say it another way. We do sadly have people who simply engage in behaviours to hurt others via their words and actions online. However, we have studies which suggest that trolling leads to negative emotional outcomes for trolls. Similarly, the internet makes it difficult for any one to recognise the human being on the other side of the screen. The internet dehumanises us all and makes some behaviours more prevalent. Overall, the key is education, and rehabilitation. Next week we shall look at the solutions to the organisational problems that perpetuate issues in our community, however, for today we shall finish on tips for how you can better understand the online world and not contribute to problem behaviours. These were suggested by Davis, T. (2016) in an article titled “Six Tips for Reading Emotions in Text Messages” which, though expressly designed for texting are more than applicable to forums and message systems such as Discord.
1. Assume good intentions:
Test is a difficult medium for communicating emotion. We lack many of the cues we have when talking to a person via video or face to face. Unless the text expressly states an emotional content such as “I am sad” then do not assume the emotional content of the writer. It is better to assume the writer has written with good intentions to simply convey a message. Assuming or reading anger or other emotions into text can be the cause of unnecessary arguments.
2. Practice being aware of your own unconscious bias:
All people have unconscious biases that lead to different conclusions being drawn from the same information. This includes the ability to interpret other emotions; even presented with all the information of facial expression and vocal tone. Try to remember that unconscious biases affect our interpretations; the anger we detect in a text or a post might be anger that we are projecting onto the material.
3. Explore, and analyse, the words themselves:
The words, and lexicon, people use about a topic can reflect the emotional content. An approach to understanding emotions in text is the “bag-of-words” method: essentially study each word, that describes an emotion, individually. By looking at the nature of each word, we might be able to figure out the prominent emotional content of a message.
4. Never presume you know the emotional content of the writer:
Written information is generally incomplete, and often missing essential content with regards to fully understanding the writer. As human beings we often to seek to fill in information we lack, or to try to intuit connections between the information we do have. We automatically start thinking about how we would feel in the situation the writer is describing. Unfortunately, there are significant individual differences in how people feel in any context, and the emotions that emerge are dependent on individuals’ experiences. As such; never be afraid to ask for clarity, rather than presume you have understood the picture fully.
5. Research and apply theories of emotion:
We all have a theory of emotion; not just academics and psychologists. Individuals have individual concepts of where emotion emerge, and what they mean, based on their individual experiences of these emotions. It is important to study researched theories, however, consciously exploring our own assumptions about emotions can help us relate to the emotions of others. Do we experience our emotions as discrete, and separate, experiences or are our emotions all inter-related? Understanding our emotional content is the foundation to understanding those of others.
6. Seek out more information
Never be afraid to seek more information from the person you are communicating with. You will never receive answers, if you never ask questions. If you require clarity; ask for clarity. Similarly, remember it is a two ways street; always be open to answering questions about your responses. Never guess; always ask, is the mantra here.
Next week we shall be discussing various ways organisations can change their structure, and employ methods, that will help avoid creating “problem” people. I hope the topic of today has made you think more deeply about how we as a community work with people. However, I’d like to end on a positive note; we are a community that values forgiveness and kindness. As long as we honour those values we are a strong, and valuable, community no matter the problems we struggle with.
CITATIONS
Sest, N., and March, E. (2017). Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences. 119. 69-72.
Davis, T., (2016) Six Tips for Reading Emotions in Text Messages. Retrieved September 30, 2018, from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/six_tips_for_reading_emotions_in_text_messages