I’d like to propose, and repeat what many have said before me: the idea that when we construct liberatory, liberating, or transformational programming that intends to change the individual, liberate the individual, transform groups, transform society, we are inherently beginning a violent process.
I was on a call with a potential coach, healer, confidante, support, and the person, who is in the realm of leading liberation processes, let me know that I would be overwhelmed in the process of working with them and implied that this is necessary and expected for the process of liberation. My stomach turned as I left that interaction, as I reflected on my lack of desire to be physically led into overwhelm in order to liberate myself. My stomach turned as I reflected on my lack of desire to be liberated.
When we promise liberation – or even miracles some healers promise – and indeed, when we promise or even propose change of any kind, we begin a process that can have iatrogenic effects. What, pray tell, does iatrogenic mean? In my grad school days, my first dissertation mentor used to say this word all the time and though I switched mentors, I kept this word. Iatrogenic refers to the negative side effects that can happen when intervening in an attempt to create “positive” change. My mentor used it to refer to iatrogenic effects of researchers and service professionals working in communities. Complimentary ideas exist in many places, including the Tao Te Ching, which says something like “violence even well-intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself”. What is violence? Violence is “using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”. When we promise to transform, change, or liberate somebody, some group, or even all of humanity (yes, I am sure some of us are very committed to these lofty goaaaals), we are desiring to metaphorically “kill” or destruct the current person, group, or humanity. We may use some degree of force in order to induce that change, that transformation, that liberation. And yes, there are nuances here – as many people, groups, or perhaps humanity willingly consent to receive forceful changes to themselves. They desire to rid themselves of themselves so that they can become more of themselves. Makes so much sense, doesn’t it? Most of us have at some point consented to a forceful, aka violent, process because we desire to receive the positive benefits of the change that happens after the force has been applied. And there is nothing wrong with this. But what is the impact of receiving such a force – even if the force induces positive change? Well obviously, it is some level of harm.
When I left the call with the coach-healer-confidante-support and probably when I have left most calls with most therapists and folks who do emotional work, I leave with a deep and uncomfortable feeling that I have no desire to change. This may sound funny, but it is true. While the Western world of psychotherapy along with many cross-cultural systems of hierarchical healing would shake their heads at my lack of compliance with self-development, the psychology of human emotion validates my feelings. “The Righting Reflex” (learned during The Resilience Toolkit training founded by Nkem Ndefo) is a habit that many people have when attempting to support others that involves attempting to fix, change, or direct others. The Righting Reflex, though from a spirit of “helping”, can have the effect of invalidating and denigrating the receiver. In positioning oneself, one’s organization, or one’s system as the knower, changer, liberator, healer, transformer, you take the power away from the person or group that you are proclaiming to “help” and place the power into your own hands. In positioning yourself as the liberator rather than the person being the director of their own “liberation”, you position yourself as dominant. In simply using the language of liberation, change, and transformation even we can begin a violent process that implies that the self, group, or humanity needs to be destructed, dissolved, obliterated. So, of course, many of us respond to this by positioning “the people” as the leaders of any “change” work. And, obviously these ideas, that “the people” are to be the foundation of and leaders of any change process are central to many approaches to education, activism, community organizing, community psychology, liberation psychology, etc. But how are we applying it to the spaces that we are creating, leading, or dreaming of?
I am not saying that our work is not about liberation. I and we are balls of contradiction. I desire liberation for myself and for all of us, but at the same time I must be honest with myself that even the desire for liberation can be violent itself. Simply a belief can cut us off from love and connection, encouraging us to divide ourselves and to narrow-mindedly mow people down to get what we fervently desire. This is especially true for a belief in “liberation”. It is most certainly true for a belief in liberation. Because people will do whatever it takes to be free.
How utterly insane that liberation work can actually be profoundly disconnecting when we engage with it as if we are the holders of the power of liberation. Our work, at the end of the day may not (only) be about destroying, violently fixing, and changing absolutely everything. It may desire, at the end of the day for people, groups, humanity, to be deeply connected. So how do we center deep connection in this “liberation” work?
Perhaps, we must wield this word of liberation, transformation, change, healing so so carefully. We must know that it contains the power of violence and the power of freedom within it.
And we must continually think about what our work is even doing. How is deep connection being centered? So how do we engage with the complexities of our natural desire to constantly be liberating ourselves, while also acknowledging and minimizing the amount of violence we inflict? What if our work is not about liberating ourselves? What if our work is not about transforming ourselves or others? What if we could practice not doing, not interfering? What does it look like to accept people and groups where they are and create spaces that applaud them for who they are? I know what you might be thinking. Do we have to accept and applaud all people? That’s a question for you to answer, but I am interested in what happens when we think critically about when it is that we are needed and what we are needed for.
Within Raw Movement, we are not liberating anyone or working miracles on anyone. We are experimenting with co-creating a space where we feel comfortable and safe. We are not pushing ourselves out of our comfort zones. We are not striving for liberation. We are not trying to change ourselves. We are focusing on the space and creating space for the existing us we were born as. We are asking together: how do we design and build spaces that meet our needs for deep connection? We are doing by not doing. We are changing by not changing. We are creating space for us to be our rawest selves.
These ideas and questions are central to Raw Movement, an approach to inquiring about and experimenting with co-creating spaces of deep connection through collective (movement) practice. If you’re in the practice of creating grounding, deep connection, home, family, and desire to experiment with co-creating spaces of deep connection, find out more about Raw Movement at: www.rawmovement.org.
This writing is a part of my Conversations on Deep Connection series. If you’re also in the practice of creating grounding, deep connection, home, family and would like to get notified of new conversations, click here to get notified of new conversations.