I'm really excited to see you touching on this! I've struggled often with this framework: I want so badly for compassion logic to win out but I have seen such truly disastrous and cruel outcomes from restorative justice approaches, and so much weaponization of a carceral/abolitionist dichotomy to reinforce abuses of power. I hope future posts go deeper into the complexities.
Universally, the collapses I've seen in activist communities involve compassion logic in the group's process and rhetoric - therapeutic approaches, restorative justice circles, a strong reluctance to formally remove someone from the community - while underlying, often informal, systems of control remain at play - someone participating in a restorative justice process for their embezzling finds a different way to steal from the organization, the survivor of the assault is iced out by the half of the community that's better friends with the perpetrator, those that want a restorative process to go a particular way are unhappy with an outcome and attack the group's reputation and cause support to be withdrawn. The community fractures not just because of the inciting conflict, but because of the echoing conflict about what can be done to limit harm without it counting as a carceral response (though the sides in that conflict typically have more to do with folks' relationships than their moral frameworks).
I'm suspicious that the choice between control logic and compassion logic is a false binary. I'm suspicious that every group has systems of control and it can only choose whether those systems are entirely informal, hidden, and tied to social power or whether (in addition to informal power-over) some access to control is formal, explicit, and more equally accessible. (And going the other way, maybe every group has systems of compassion, and the informal, hidden, social ones may make more of a difference than the explicit ones that can be easily examined and critiqued.)
I would also love to see "trusting in the innate goodness of people" unpacked! I think we all have infinite worth and capacity for goodness, no one is only their worst actions, and all of us have access to kindness and conscience in any moment. And at the same time I can't unsee the fact that so very many people take pleasure in cruelty, that most of violence in the world does not seem to be about unmet needs, the way that I can understand the idea of needs (otherwise well-off people wouldn't be doing so much of it!), and that people tend toward consistent behavior, with those who repeatedly do harm in a particular way likely to continue. There are a lot of people I don't trust to do good! In the control vs. compassion framework those beliefs are cast as opposites, but I don't see an actual conflict between them.
Fabulous questions that haunt me as well! There will definitely be many more posts that go deeper on the complexities. This one is just to introduce some basic ideas and invite reflection
I think all, literally all, violence is motivated by unmet needs, but that doesn't mean some people don't enjoy violence, and it doesn't mean that control is never the appropriate response. (I think those are very different issues.) If you're violent because you're bored, that's an unmet need. If you're violent because you want to be more popular, that's an unmet need. And, empirically, some kinds of antisocial activities do respond best to punishment -- activities that rely on "getting away with it." Sexual harrassment seems to be a classic example. I've seen the failures of restorative processes you mention in grassroots groups as well -- and I've seen miraculous successes. And I think bringing restorative principles to conversations about things like microagressions could go a long way.
Thanks for this. I'm really wary about treating motivations as needs, and I wouldn't class things like not being bored or being popular as a need. The force of the word "need" is that it says there's a moral requirement to satisfy it, that there's something wrong with the world if a need isn't met. Wanting to be not-bored or popular isn't a need that could ever be met - those motivations don't go away because you have an interesting time or someone knows who you are, and there's no limit to how entertained or socially powerful someone might want to be. You can have a completely just world without everyone being as popular as they want (not a need); you can't have a completely just world without everyone having access to shelter (a need).
I usually don't care much about definitions, but the reason I'm spooked about slippage in the word need is because a common mechanism of oppressive power dynamics in communities is someone making their not-really-a-need into a need, so that now the group feels compelled to make compromises between one person's preferences and another's health and well-being.
Fair enough. And we can look underneath the drive to be popular or not be bored for what drives them, and you can find things that are more Foundational. People do eventually die without stimulation and inclusion, though we crave them far earlier than they are literally needed for life and death. (Although the same can be said, to a lesser degree, for shelter.)
Love this thread. Just tossing in one thing—some needs are simple, others are so layered and deep they can’t be met through any one moment or process. Sometimes, an unmet need in the present is touching a wound that’s been unmet forever. It’s true that healing can happen through many corrective experiences over time, but no one person, group, or context should be expected to carry the full weight of that.
Take narcissistic wounding, for example—there’s a deep, unmet need to be seen, but the way that need shows up can be distorted or disguised. So I’m not sure trying to judge what counts as a “real” need is the most helpful move. Narrowing the definition or gatekeeping what’s valid just reintroduces control logic through the back door—deciding whose needs deserve tending and whose don’t.
To me, it feels more effective to assume a need is being expressed, and then move into a process of discernment that includes impact, capacity, and boundaries.
It’s not about always saying “yes.” It’s about not exiling each other—or ourselves—for needing.
I loved the post, I love the comment and how it was received too. There's much to think about here and as someone on the left, an old ish someone, I'm so sad about the implosion now at the worst time.
Thank you for this helpful framing. I often talk about the Hard P’s of patriarchal capitalist supremacy (policing, perfectionism, punishment, purity culture, performance measurement, productivity) and they align well with what you call control logic.
Was just thinking today how I cautioned folks in their rush to want to fire all police offers that those are humans who have families and lives as well. I see the events today as a backlash against the dramatic and often punitive approaches.
I appreciate your draw back to the economics at hand as I am not as sensitive to identity politics when I see it all as a way to get us off the spot of the true issue of monetary power.
In each of those scenarios you presented it felt like a race to the bottom of who is the most disadvantaged then gets the empathy and while attempting to create equity in sharing resources is important, empathy should be freely given.
This is beautiful. And a discussion that has come up recently in a leftist organization i'm a part of. It is SO needed, thank you for continuing the convo.
I'm really excited to see you touching on this! I've struggled often with this framework: I want so badly for compassion logic to win out but I have seen such truly disastrous and cruel outcomes from restorative justice approaches, and so much weaponization of a carceral/abolitionist dichotomy to reinforce abuses of power. I hope future posts go deeper into the complexities.
Universally, the collapses I've seen in activist communities involve compassion logic in the group's process and rhetoric - therapeutic approaches, restorative justice circles, a strong reluctance to formally remove someone from the community - while underlying, often informal, systems of control remain at play - someone participating in a restorative justice process for their embezzling finds a different way to steal from the organization, the survivor of the assault is iced out by the half of the community that's better friends with the perpetrator, those that want a restorative process to go a particular way are unhappy with an outcome and attack the group's reputation and cause support to be withdrawn. The community fractures not just because of the inciting conflict, but because of the echoing conflict about what can be done to limit harm without it counting as a carceral response (though the sides in that conflict typically have more to do with folks' relationships than their moral frameworks).
I'm suspicious that the choice between control logic and compassion logic is a false binary. I'm suspicious that every group has systems of control and it can only choose whether those systems are entirely informal, hidden, and tied to social power or whether (in addition to informal power-over) some access to control is formal, explicit, and more equally accessible. (And going the other way, maybe every group has systems of compassion, and the informal, hidden, social ones may make more of a difference than the explicit ones that can be easily examined and critiqued.)
I would also love to see "trusting in the innate goodness of people" unpacked! I think we all have infinite worth and capacity for goodness, no one is only their worst actions, and all of us have access to kindness and conscience in any moment. And at the same time I can't unsee the fact that so very many people take pleasure in cruelty, that most of violence in the world does not seem to be about unmet needs, the way that I can understand the idea of needs (otherwise well-off people wouldn't be doing so much of it!), and that people tend toward consistent behavior, with those who repeatedly do harm in a particular way likely to continue. There are a lot of people I don't trust to do good! In the control vs. compassion framework those beliefs are cast as opposites, but I don't see an actual conflict between them.
Fabulous questions that haunt me as well! There will definitely be many more posts that go deeper on the complexities. This one is just to introduce some basic ideas and invite reflection
Very helpful comment, to me!
I think all, literally all, violence is motivated by unmet needs, but that doesn't mean some people don't enjoy violence, and it doesn't mean that control is never the appropriate response. (I think those are very different issues.) If you're violent because you're bored, that's an unmet need. If you're violent because you want to be more popular, that's an unmet need. And, empirically, some kinds of antisocial activities do respond best to punishment -- activities that rely on "getting away with it." Sexual harrassment seems to be a classic example. I've seen the failures of restorative processes you mention in grassroots groups as well -- and I've seen miraculous successes. And I think bringing restorative principles to conversations about things like microagressions could go a long way.
Thanks for this. I'm really wary about treating motivations as needs, and I wouldn't class things like not being bored or being popular as a need. The force of the word "need" is that it says there's a moral requirement to satisfy it, that there's something wrong with the world if a need isn't met. Wanting to be not-bored or popular isn't a need that could ever be met - those motivations don't go away because you have an interesting time or someone knows who you are, and there's no limit to how entertained or socially powerful someone might want to be. You can have a completely just world without everyone being as popular as they want (not a need); you can't have a completely just world without everyone having access to shelter (a need).
I usually don't care much about definitions, but the reason I'm spooked about slippage in the word need is because a common mechanism of oppressive power dynamics in communities is someone making their not-really-a-need into a need, so that now the group feels compelled to make compromises between one person's preferences and another's health and well-being.
Fair enough. And we can look underneath the drive to be popular or not be bored for what drives them, and you can find things that are more Foundational. People do eventually die without stimulation and inclusion, though we crave them far earlier than they are literally needed for life and death. (Although the same can be said, to a lesser degree, for shelter.)
Love this thread. Just tossing in one thing—some needs are simple, others are so layered and deep they can’t be met through any one moment or process. Sometimes, an unmet need in the present is touching a wound that’s been unmet forever. It’s true that healing can happen through many corrective experiences over time, but no one person, group, or context should be expected to carry the full weight of that.
Take narcissistic wounding, for example—there’s a deep, unmet need to be seen, but the way that need shows up can be distorted or disguised. So I’m not sure trying to judge what counts as a “real” need is the most helpful move. Narrowing the definition or gatekeeping what’s valid just reintroduces control logic through the back door—deciding whose needs deserve tending and whose don’t.
To me, it feels more effective to assume a need is being expressed, and then move into a process of discernment that includes impact, capacity, and boundaries.
It’s not about always saying “yes.” It’s about not exiling each other—or ourselves—for needing.
I loved the post, I love the comment and how it was received too. There's much to think about here and as someone on the left, an old ish someone, I'm so sad about the implosion now at the worst time.
Thank you for this helpful framing. I often talk about the Hard P’s of patriarchal capitalist supremacy (policing, perfectionism, punishment, purity culture, performance measurement, productivity) and they align well with what you call control logic.
Language police vs actual police. 💯!
Was just thinking today how I cautioned folks in their rush to want to fire all police offers that those are humans who have families and lives as well. I see the events today as a backlash against the dramatic and often punitive approaches.
I appreciate your draw back to the economics at hand as I am not as sensitive to identity politics when I see it all as a way to get us off the spot of the true issue of monetary power.
In each of those scenarios you presented it felt like a race to the bottom of who is the most disadvantaged then gets the empathy and while attempting to create equity in sharing resources is important, empathy should be freely given.
This is beautiful. And a discussion that has come up recently in a leftist organization i'm a part of. It is SO needed, thank you for continuing the convo.
Very interesting! Looking forward to learning more about this