![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marnanightingale(With thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nindulgence for the image of meta as a sort of very very slow game of whack-a-mole)
So I said awhile back that I might write something about passive-aggressive behaviour.
Specifically, passive-aggressive behaviour in the context of recent discussions about "niceness" in fandom, because, you know, inevitably it comes up in these discussions.
First of all, some things that passive-aggressive behaviour is not:
Passive-aggressive behaviour is not, in fact, nice. Nor is it polite, or kind, or any other good thing.
Passive aggressive-behaviour is not a group or social behaviour. It is not a characteristic of Brits, US Southerners, Canadians, Women, or any other group. It is an individual problematic behaviour which can be expressed through any set of cultural norms.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is not a high degree of concern for manners or formality or a thin skin or a desire to avoid giving hurt or offence.
Passive aggressive behaviour is not any refusal to engage with a person on the terms they demand -- with apologies to the "I'd rather people just insult me to my face" crowd, I'm sorry, but even to make you feel happy and comfortable, both in themselves things I acknowledge as valid, I'm not tossing several years of anger management therapy out the window. 'Cause really, that was NO FUN and I'm not doing it again.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is also not easily and simply detectable, especially online.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is the term used to describe behaviour that is passive in expression but is aggressive or malicious in intent.
In other words,
1) In order to know that somebody's behaviour is passive-aggressive, you need some evidence as to the intention behind it. Just seeing how they behave in a single interaction isn't enough. Maybe they really DON'T care.
2) The behaviour must be a) an active and dishonest attempt b) to give a misleading impression c) to your detriment or somebody else's.
3) People being polite to your face is in fact not definitive evidence that they are being nasty about you behind your back, even if they are known to disagree with you. Maybe they are also being polite about you behind your back. Maybe they are being less tactful but just as kind. Maybe, and this is in fact very likely, maybe they aren't talking about you at all.
All that said, you know what? Passive aggressive behaviour is a real and a bad thing, that can do real and lasting damage to relationships and communities.
Fortunately, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it. Not easy. It can actually be very hard. Just simple:
Take people at their word.
No, seriously. That's it. Took me YEARS to learn, and even more years to realise just how well it works, but that's it. It's not EASY, but it is simple. Passive aggressive behaviour depends, for its success, on co-opting you, and you don't actually have any obligation to play.
And here's the best bit; you don't have to KNOW it's passive aggressive behaviour for it to work. Because taking people at their word is, withal, a good thing, usually.
Consider the possible event trees:
A) They are in fact being knowingly and wilfully passive aggressive: well, they're screwed, aren't they? They said they'd be happy to sit there in the dark, you've left them to it, you haven't been sucked in, and they can go get a candle themselves or not, their choice. Bet they don't try that on you again in a hurry. If they try to tell you later that you should have known, just keep asking them HOW you were supposed to know. As an added bonus, you've made yourself just that least bit less vulnerable to the behaviour in future. It DOES take two, this particular dance of dysfunction; if you can't learn not to go gulping after the bait, real or perceived, no amount of improvement in the people around you is ever going to solve the problem.
B) They're not actually being passive aggressive, they're just indecisive or not thinking clearly. Fine. No problem. They will now find it convenient to clarify their thoughts, and you've given them the space to do so in. You don't have to do backflips, and they can clarify themselves later. Everyone wins.
C) They're actually happy to sit there in the dark. Maybe they're sleepy. Or getting a headache. Or they just don't much care either way, and are happy for you to do what you like about the light. Maybe they actually are terminally mellow. Everyone wins again.
Accusing people of passive aggressive behaviour, on the other hand, is a guaranteed lose. If you're right, you'll never prove it, and they get even more chances to be misunderstood, persecuted and abused.
On the other hand, if you're WRONG, they can't prove that either, and you've just given someone who wasn't actually trying to do you harm a small but real and festering grudge. Rightly, even. There is in fact nothing more annoying than someone insisting you tell them how you really feel when you just did.
Yes, one may smile and smile and be a villain. One may also, just, you know, be in a good mood.
(ETA: I should probably say just to cover my arse that while I can't actually stop anyone from taking this as unlimited license to overliteralise obvious polite social formulae such as 'if you don't mind', if you do that, don't tell 'em I sent you, please.)
nindulgence for the image of meta as a sort of very very slow game of whack-a-mole)So I said awhile back that I might write something about passive-aggressive behaviour.
Specifically, passive-aggressive behaviour in the context of recent discussions about "niceness" in fandom, because, you know, inevitably it comes up in these discussions.
First of all, some things that passive-aggressive behaviour is not:
Passive-aggressive behaviour is not, in fact, nice. Nor is it polite, or kind, or any other good thing.
Passive aggressive-behaviour is not a group or social behaviour. It is not a characteristic of Brits, US Southerners, Canadians, Women, or any other group. It is an individual problematic behaviour which can be expressed through any set of cultural norms.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is not a high degree of concern for manners or formality or a thin skin or a desire to avoid giving hurt or offence.
Passive aggressive behaviour is not any refusal to engage with a person on the terms they demand -- with apologies to the "I'd rather people just insult me to my face" crowd, I'm sorry, but even to make you feel happy and comfortable, both in themselves things I acknowledge as valid, I'm not tossing several years of anger management therapy out the window. 'Cause really, that was NO FUN and I'm not doing it again.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is also not easily and simply detectable, especially online.
Passive-aggressive behaviour is the term used to describe behaviour that is passive in expression but is aggressive or malicious in intent.
In other words,
1) In order to know that somebody's behaviour is passive-aggressive, you need some evidence as to the intention behind it. Just seeing how they behave in a single interaction isn't enough. Maybe they really DON'T care.
2) The behaviour must be a) an active and dishonest attempt b) to give a misleading impression c) to your detriment or somebody else's.
3) People being polite to your face is in fact not definitive evidence that they are being nasty about you behind your back, even if they are known to disagree with you. Maybe they are also being polite about you behind your back. Maybe they are being less tactful but just as kind. Maybe, and this is in fact very likely, maybe they aren't talking about you at all.
All that said, you know what? Passive aggressive behaviour is a real and a bad thing, that can do real and lasting damage to relationships and communities.
Fortunately, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it. Not easy. It can actually be very hard. Just simple:
Take people at their word.
No, seriously. That's it. Took me YEARS to learn, and even more years to realise just how well it works, but that's it. It's not EASY, but it is simple. Passive aggressive behaviour depends, for its success, on co-opting you, and you don't actually have any obligation to play.
And here's the best bit; you don't have to KNOW it's passive aggressive behaviour for it to work. Because taking people at their word is, withal, a good thing, usually.
Consider the possible event trees:
A) They are in fact being knowingly and wilfully passive aggressive: well, they're screwed, aren't they? They said they'd be happy to sit there in the dark, you've left them to it, you haven't been sucked in, and they can go get a candle themselves or not, their choice. Bet they don't try that on you again in a hurry. If they try to tell you later that you should have known, just keep asking them HOW you were supposed to know. As an added bonus, you've made yourself just that least bit less vulnerable to the behaviour in future. It DOES take two, this particular dance of dysfunction; if you can't learn not to go gulping after the bait, real or perceived, no amount of improvement in the people around you is ever going to solve the problem.
B) They're not actually being passive aggressive, they're just indecisive or not thinking clearly. Fine. No problem. They will now find it convenient to clarify their thoughts, and you've given them the space to do so in. You don't have to do backflips, and they can clarify themselves later. Everyone wins.
C) They're actually happy to sit there in the dark. Maybe they're sleepy. Or getting a headache. Or they just don't much care either way, and are happy for you to do what you like about the light. Maybe they actually are terminally mellow. Everyone wins again.
Accusing people of passive aggressive behaviour, on the other hand, is a guaranteed lose. If you're right, you'll never prove it, and they get even more chances to be misunderstood, persecuted and abused.
On the other hand, if you're WRONG, they can't prove that either, and you've just given someone who wasn't actually trying to do you harm a small but real and festering grudge. Rightly, even. There is in fact nothing more annoying than someone insisting you tell them how you really feel when you just did.
Yes, one may smile and smile and be a villain. One may also, just, you know, be in a good mood.
(ETA: I should probably say just to cover my arse that while I can't actually stop anyone from taking this as unlimited license to overliteralise obvious polite social formulae such as 'if you don't mind', if you do that, don't tell 'em I sent you, please.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:43 am (UTC)Aren't all relationships dysfunctional, sooner or later or most likely both?
Date: 2006-01-06 02:51 am (UTC)OTOH, also our own bits of health, so.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:02 am (UTC)But as you say: yes.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 05:14 am (UTC)Re: A swift and egregious non sequiter
Date: 2006-01-06 04:25 am (UTC)So.
Here's the thing: Everytime I see that icon above, (as opposed to just the quote*) I wonder: What's the story behind it? Would you care to explicate? I'm assuming it's something fannish, but if personal, never mind. Not the time or place and all that.
*The quote itself never made much sense to me: After all, I can imagine, say, Dear Friend X falling off her meds and joining a revolutionary group that plans A Better Brighter 9/11. And I can imagine X confiding the same to me, and me going off and either (a) Quietly organizing an intervention or (b) Turning her over to the Powers that Be, depending on the circs. When it gets down to betraying one's country or one's friend, unless either one is completely appalling, all the options suck.
Re: A swift and egregious non sequiter
Date: 2006-01-06 04:53 am (UTC)It's a quote from EM Forester, and it was quoted in Cambridge Spies, which I rather suspect you would dislike, but maybe not.
I appreciated it because it took four people I despise (MacLean, Philby, Burgess and Blunt), and made them human and likeable and even men one might cry for and STILL showed that -- and how -- they became evil by a remarkable small twisting of a great many good things about them.
One might say that the use of the quote was a masterpiece of irony, in context. It reverberates through the story.
When it gets down to betraying one's country or one's friend, unless either one is completely appalling, all the options suck.
Yes.
I use it to remind me that both tribalism AND nationalism have their limitations, and there aren't any easy answers, if that makes sense.
Sort of the extreme Cliff's notes of Shards? hits many of the same places for me.
Re: A swift and egregious non sequiter
Date: 2006-01-06 05:15 am (UTC)It was like a miniature movie, and intrigued me.
Legitimate conflicting loyalties do make for the most frightful tragedies, don't they? Great literature and horrible life.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 05:47 am (UTC)That works in more than one way, too. Me, I find that it can explains a lot to think in terms of "fandom of origin" issues, too.
Taking people at their word? Revolutionary. I once worked at a company where they did not only that, but it was policy to give people the benefit of the doubt. It was one of the best places I've ever worked.
[Here via link from
no subject
Date: 2006-01-08 08:45 pm (UTC)Did you get to see Paul as Hamlet in 2000? Just curious.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:29 am (UTC)May I link to this in my journal?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:42 am (UTC)I know you're not blaming the victim- it's just about trying to safeguard your own sanity :)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:42 am (UTC)I'm NOT blaming the victim here. I'm just saying, hey.
Stop, Drop and Roll, you know?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 05:17 am (UTC)I confess to a preference for Miss Manners, who points out that there are certain circumstances in which etiquette may be eschewed. Potentiall life-threatening problems are one of them.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 12:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:20 am (UTC)Mind, there are also times it can cause one no end of trouble...
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:42 am (UTC)This post is an eye-opener for me: is this something people order their lives by? Because it sounds exhausting, both for the reader-between-lines and the passive-aggressive. Are they strategies learned from odd family interplay, or is it even more fundamental than that?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 09:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 03:04 pm (UTC)Have I lived these 41 years on a completely different planet? I like my planet. Things make sense here.
Just for the record, for anyone reading any post of mine ever: if I'm sayin' it, I'm meanin' it, unless there's obvious sarcasm or a winky-face. If I'm asking you a question, I'm genuinely curious and not looking to call you into doubt or insinuate my superiority, or whatever games may be suspected to lurk behind my words. O__O
no subject
Date: 2006-01-06 12:59 pm (UTC)(I have one friend who has finally been trained out of passive-aggression and into actual overt "telling people when she is angry", and it's fantastic. It's so much easier to deal with!)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 10:44 pm (UTC)I am all about the non-coercive interventions.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 12:17 pm (UTC)If you care about people it's sometimes hard to let them sit in the dark without a candle when you *know* they want you to bring one, but are just saying something different. But that doesn't mean I don't agree. In the end you have to bring the candle because you want to, not because you've been bullied into it.
But that's families where you can't get away from them. In fandom it's easier to assume everyone means what they say until proven otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 02:50 pm (UTC)Too right...it has taken me a long time to learn this in interactions with my mother, but after 30+ years, I'm beginnig to get there.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 03:52 pm (UTC)I especially like this: "If they try to tell you later that you should have known, just keep asking them HOW you were supposed to know." Yes.
Here via metafandom
Date: 2006-01-07 07:31 pm (UTC)Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2006-01-07 10:38 pm (UTC)I've had similar experiences, and, like you, haven't forgotten them. It tends to stick, that sort of thing.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-07 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 06:33 pm (UTC)Also, I am squeeing at your partaking in the whack-a-mole fun (and, in fact, your wording here has inspired me to add a new interest to my userinfo *g*).
~
no subject
Date: 2006-01-17 10:34 pm (UTC)as if it were posed in good faith is an excellent strategy.
Meant to answer this sooner.
It is, it's very effective. But also, I live with someone who, for various reasons, is kind of a chronic overinterpreter.
Which can lead to a point in an exchange where he's saying "are you SURE you're not mad at me?" and I'm saying "well, I WAS SURE..." :)
We've gotten much better. But it's made me decidedly sensitive to the aggravation of having it ASSUMED that one is being passive-agressive or otherwise dishonest, when you do in fact mean what you say.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-12 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 04:50 pm (UTC)