Political organizing is not therapy
and political organizing cannot meet your emotional, relational needs
Wreckerism refers to the phenomenon of cancel culture tactics being directed at a political organization, either from outside or from within the organization. One of the typical ways that wreckerism plays out is through emotional and relational expectations and demands to feel seen, heard, and validated. Not only do wreckers want to feel seen, heard, and validated, but they expect their expressions of pain and grievance to be welcomed and held in political organizing spaces, regardless of how unprocessed, unclear, or disorganized they are. They expect their expressions of pain and grievance to be welcomed and held regardless of whether they are communicating responsibly, owning their side of the conflict, allowing for sincere disagreement, or expecting things that were never offered. Wreckers don’t actually need to present coherent critiques or accusations, a feeling is enough. And if this feeling isn’t given unlimited time, attention, patience, and validation by the political organization, then the political organization is understood to be causing further harm.
Attempts to replace cancel culture tactics with less destructive ways of addressing conflict in political organizing spaces often increase this dynamic rather than divest from it. It’s taken as a given that emotional and relational needs should not only be welcomed in political organizing spaces, but centred. The axiom the personal is political has lead us to believe that the reverse is equally true: the political is now personal. We draw from strategies of communication used in intimate relationships like romantic partnerships and close friendships and apply them to the organizing space. We disregard the reality that organizations are already strapped for time and resources, and expect long drawn out conflict resolution processes that resemble couples therapy. And worse than that, we don’t even hold people to the standards suggested by couples therapists in navigating conflicts in intimate relationships; we allow people to behave in ways that would be destructive even in intimate relationships in the context of political organizing.
The political organization you are a part of cannot meet your intimate, emotional, and relational needs for attachment, feeling unconditionally loved, being given the time and space to be messy in communication, and seeking validation and witnessing for the intense pain you carry. Because we live in a context of such extreme alienation and increasing isolation, people very often do not have their relational and emotional needs met. Because we have encouraged involvement in political organizing through the perks of decreased alienation and increased social contact, we have created the confused situation in which some people primarily relate to political organizing through a desire to meet unmet relational and emotional needs. Because so many people are emotionally immature and don’t have basic skills for sorting through their emotional experience, and because people think political organizations have the responsibility of meeting their emotional experience as is, we get extremely messy, time consuming situations in which someone who is basically having a tantrum is holding hostage and preventing the important political work of political organizations.
Unpopular opinion but it is not appropriate to show up to a political organization with unprocessed emotions expecting that your emotions will be resolved by everyone at the org holding space and listening to you until you feel better. This is irresponsible relating in any relational context and it is absolutely not what political organizations are for. And at this stage in history when things are as dire as they are, we can no longer afford to enable and allow this behaviour. It prevents us from doing our work. Critiques and grievances should be expressed to political organizations only after the person giving them has done the work to get clarity about what they are saying and why. The primary purpose of giving critiques and expressing grievances to a political org should be either about ensuring that the org is able to effectively meet its stated goals, or to ensure that everyone involved in organizing is treated with respect to their human rights, personal safety, and dignity.
There’s an acronym common in Al-Anon circles that I think is useful here. Before saying something THINK — is what you are about to say true, helpful, inspiring, necessary and kind?
Is what you are saying true? And I would add to this, is it clear and specific. If you are making an accusation that an orgaization is racist or sexist, for example, you need to be clear and specific about what you understand to be the behaviours or policies expressing the racism or sexism you are accusing the org of. This specificity is necessary to determining the truth of the accusations. Serious accusations cannot be grounded in feelings and vague general statements. If you are making an accusation you need to be clear and specific so that the organization can determine if they agree with your assessment of the situation. Racism, sexism, sexual harassment, and other forms of bigotry, harassment, and prejudice are not just vibes. We can and should point out the specific behaviours and policies that we are challenging.
Is what you are saying helpful? Does this feedback further the ability of the org to meet its stated goals? Or are you trying to take over an organization by steering it in an entirely different direction? Would your time and energy be best used by attempting to make an org align itself with your specific political strategies and visions or would it be better to compromise, allow disagreement, and perhaps move on to a different org or start something new if you want to focus on political strategies that do not align with this orgs stated goals? Do you have to destroy this org because it isn’t exactly what you want it to be? Otherwise, is your critique or grievance helpful in the sense that it is about protecting the safety and dignity of yourself or others in the face of dehumanization or violence? Or, are you expecting people from different contexts and cultures who you encounter in political orgaizing spaces to adopt your exact worldview, values, and cultural norms? Ultimately, is your grievance helping the org or taking away from it? If it ends with the annihilation of the org’s reputation it definitely wasn’t helpful.
The I is for inspiring which I think they just added to make the acronym work. But I do think there is something to be said here about tone. Wreckers insist that it is acceptable to show up with any tone, to express anger in any way, and that yelling and name calling are not off limits. Any suggestion that people show up responsibly and express their emotions respectfully and with a degree of calm is framed as “tone policing” and violent. In reality, we can and should have expectations and boundaries around how we are treated during conflict. It is not acceptable to throw a tantrum when we are upset. It is not acceptable to scream or call people names. And in a political organizing space, it is not acceptable to bring your unfiltered emotions and essentially use other people as punching bags. Your critique or grievance should be well processed before you show up to the meeting you so that you can express yourself clearly and in a responsible, respectful way. Perhaps your feedback can actually be about inspiring the org to more effectively meet its goals or more effectively embody its principles. This approach, rather than condemning others, can be a collaborative attempt to make the organization more effective.
Is what you are saying necessary? Political organizations run primarily on unpaid or low paid labour. Political organizing is a labour of love in which people who are already ground down by capitalism, squeeze out time and energy from their stretched thin lives in order to struggle for a better, more just world. Time is one of the most precious resources of a political organization. When bringing critiques or grievances, it’s important to consider if it’s really necessary to do so. Is your critique or grievance important enough to justify taking up the time and energy of a group of people and diverting time and energy away from the political work the org is trying to do? Is it really that important? Or — is it possible that you are starved for attention and deeply long for the experience of being listened to and taken seriously? Those are totally normal emotional needs for a human being to have, but it is not the job of a political org to meet those needs. It is best to meet those needs in your interpersonal relationships or with a therapist.
Is what you are saying kind? Wreckers and other true believers in social justice orthodoxy would scoff at this. Do you guys remember some time in the 2010s when social justice orthodoxy tried to make “nice privilege” a thing? The idea was that people who are nice have privilege over those who are rude or disrespectful (and apparently can’t help but be so due to their experiences of oppression — an extremely infantilizing and condescending position to take). The expectation that people be kind and respectful is now conflated with “whiteness” and racism, as if only white people hold the value of being kind and respectful (a racist position to take). Anger can be expressed responsibly, without contempt, and without attack. Yes, even oppressed, marginalized, and traumatized people can learn to communicate anger, disagreement, and conflict in respectful, generous, and kind ways. You don’t have the right to treat your fellow organizers like shit. If you can’t control your behaviour you need to get support in regulating and sorting through your feelings before you bring the feedback.
We need to get better at stopping wreckers in their tracks by saying no to inappropriate attempts to use political organizing spaces as therapy or to meet emotional and relational needs that should be met in intimate relationships. The emotional processing needed to clearly and responsibly state specific grievances cannot happen at a meeting. That is emotional hostage taking; it is expecting a room full of people to play therapist as you fumble through your intense emotions to find out what it is you are actually trying to say. You need intimate relationships with friends, partners, and comrades in which you can process emotionally so you can show up to the meeting with clarity and responsibility. And you might need a therapist too, if your emotions feel enormous and destabilizing.
Yes we are all and always emotional, relational beings. But we are capable of organizing our lives so that we bring different levels of emotion to different contexts. What we share with a partner isn’t the same as what we share with an acquaintance and that is okay. We have somehow allowed ourselves to become confused about the role of political organizing spaces in our lives. The role of political organizing in our lives is to use our energy along with others in strategic and organized ways to change things materially in the world. The social contact, the dating experiences, the emotional connections we might find in organizing spaces are perks but they are not the purpose or point of political organizing spaces. Political organizations are not there to validate us, witness us, help us emotionally, or meet our attachment needs. There are many other contexts where we can and should get those needs met. In organizing spaces we need to show up ready to do political work. Part of that is using time and resources appropriately and effectively toward shared political goals, and communicating in boundaried, and responsible ways within the scope of the organization.
Announcements
If you need to reach me, dms on instagram are not the best way to do it. I will log on about once a week to check dms and share things to my stories, but if you want me to promote some political work you are doing, or if you need to get in touch with me for some reason, the best way to reach me is through email: clementinemorrigan@protonmail.com.
There is a new episode of Fucking Cancelled! If you’ve ever wondered why the government can’t seem to do anything about the cost of housing, it’s because it would go directly against their interests: most of them are landlords and the rest are landowners, and journalist Isaac Peltz can prove it. Our guest today has been pissing off government lawyers across the land with their pesky Access To Information requests about the assets of politicians and their uncomfortable viral videos about chronic landlordocracy. We chat about why it’s important to get this information into the hands of working class voters, gonzo journalism in the age of social media, and why leftists need thicker skins if we plan on winning a future worth living in.
I am a writer, zinester, and literary punk based in Montreal, Canada. I have been making zines since the year 2000 and have probably made more than 100,000 hand stapled zines over the course of my career. My best selling zine, Love Without Emergency, has sold more than 11,000 copies, and I have many other zines besides that. I write essays, literary nonfiction, and philosophy, and am known for my unflinching approach to deep and difficult topics, as well as my accessible, down to earth use of language. I am known for my work on many topics including surviving incest and other forms of trauma, trauma informed polyamory, bisexual women’s sexuality, opposing cancel culture on the left, and finding compassionate, non-punitive approaches to ending the cycle of violence. I have a podcast with my partner Jay Lesoleil called Fucking Cancelled where we develop our thinking on how to build a robust, effective left that doesn’t eat itself alive, and where we’ve had the pleasure of interviewing many important thinkers and writers. I have published six books over the course of my career, Rupture, The Size of a Bird, You Can’t Own the Fucking Stars, Trauma Magic, Fucking Magic, and Sexting. I sometimes teach workshops on various topics. This substack is a huge archive of my writing, a place where I am regularly and consistently producing new writing, and one of the main ways I support myself as an independent, underground writer. Thank you for being here. As well as the archive, make sure you explore my bibliography, my body of work, and the list of interviews I’ve done. Thank you for your support of my work.
I am looking for a literary agent and publishers who are excited about unconventional, underground writing. If this is you, or you have any leads, please get in touch.
