Workplace bullying from the bottom up

In the United States, workplace bullying tends to be a top-down phenomenon. According to the latest Workplace Bullying Institute national scientific survey of workplace bullying in the U.S. (link to summary here), supervisor-to-subordinate bullying is by far the most frequent pattern (65%), followed by peer-to-peer bullying (21%). Subordinate-to-supervisor bullying, which some researchers call upward bullying, lags far behind in terms of prevalence (14%).

This makes sense. The American workplace tends to be hierarchical. The predominant U.S. rule of at-will employment allows an employer to terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it does not violate legally carved-out exceptions such as employment discrimination laws. Fewer than 15 percent of U.S. workers enjoy the greater job protections provided by collective bargaining laws. Overall, supervisors tend to enjoy a significant power advantage over subordinates.

But upward bullying is real, and like any other form of workplace mistreatment, it can be pretty awful for someone on the receiving end.

Harvard Business Review weighs in

Recently, the Harvard Business Review published an article by Ludmila N. Praslova, Ron Carucci, and Caroline Stokes (link here), exploring upward bullying and providing advice to targets. Here’s a snippet of how they explain this dynamic:

Upward bullying often starts with covert behaviors such as withholding information and subtle gaslighting. After eroding some of the bullied supervisor’s legitimate authority and psychological resources, bullies escalate to spreading rumors, circumventing, and insubordination, further undermining the target’s position and well-being. Typically, bullying by subordinates is enabled by support from the management one or more levels above the targeted supervisor.

…Bullying by subordinates can be fueled by personal characteristics such as charm or manipulation skills, by nepotistic relationships with next-level supervisors, or by membership in a clique. And wherever there’s rampant self-interest and a culture of winning regardless of ethics, you’ll find people willing to undermine anyone in their way to get what they want, regardless of where in the hierarchy they reside.

Their major categories of advice (accompanied by explanations) sound a lot like that given to other targets of workplace abuse:

• “Don’t give in to shame.”
• “Resist the allure of avoidance.”
• “Write down what’s happening.”
• “Seek help.”
• “Monitor your accumulating emotions.”
• “Prepare yourself to stand up to your bully.”
• “Decide if it’s time to go.”

Standing up to the bully

From these clusters of advice, one stands out as being particularly noteworthy, and that’s standing up to the bully. Workplace bullying subject matter experts have known for years that the stand-up-to-your-bully advice, which has its roots in childhood bullying scenarios, often turns out badly when subordinates confront bullying bosses. Frequently this only exacerbates the situation, hastening the target’s demise.

However, a supervisor being bullied by a subordinate usually has a major advantage by virtue of the fact that they typically review the person reporting to them and may have a significant say in that employee’s compensation and job security. A target of upward bullying can aptly classify this behavior as being performance-related. (Of course, all targets of workplace bullying should be able to claim that as well. But especially in the more common top-down form, the target is often blamed or ignored when they report bullying to management.)

This does not mean that the target of upward bullying has it easy. The interpersonal side of dealing with a highly manipulative individual can be exhausting and exasperating, regardless of where bully and target stand on the organizational chart. And because more in-your-face bullying tactics are a surer way to get fired, frequently the bullying subordinate relies on passive-aggressive approaches that are harder to identify and comprehend. This can be maddening to sort out.

A complex topic in need of greater attention

The Harvard Business Review piece is especially welcomed because it adds insight to a type of workplace bullying that calls for more research and understanding. Search “upward bullying” or “workplace bullying by subordinate” and you may see what I mean. A lot of the research and commentary comes from other countries, where work cultures are more horizontal (i.e., less top-down), with greater union density and stronger worker legal protections. Under such circumstances, it makes sense that more upward bullying would occur.

In fact, I’ll offer a hypothesis that in the U.S., a disproportionate amount of upward bullying occurs in public sector and unionized workplaces, where workers tend to enjoy stronger job protections. Quite simply, it’s easier to terminate a bullying subordinate in an at-will employment setting than in one where more documentation of good cause may be necessary to defend the same action.

I’ll offer a further hypothesis that at least some of the claimed upward bullying in the U.S. involves workers with less power trying to exert some degree of influence over bad supervisory situations, including those where the boss is a jerk or even a bully. In such situations, passive-aggressive, indirect ways of expressing unhappiness or resistance may be the only viable paths available, at least until a better opportunity comes along. This, of course, should not be reason to dismiss the presence of genuine upward bullying, but it should be part of the discussion.

“Gaslighting” is the Merriam-Webster 2022 “word of the year”

 

Back in October, I shared a short viewer’s guide to the 1944 film Gaslight (link here), noting that it inspired the pop psych term gaslighting, which is “now used to characterize psychologically manipulative and controlling behaviors in interpersonal relationships, the political realm, and — of course — our workplaces.”

Well, little did I know that the folks at the venerable Merriam-Webster dictionary would designate gaslighting as their “word of the year” for 2022! Here’s Leanne Italie, reporting for the Associated Press (link here):

“Gaslighting” — behavior that’s mind manipulating, grossly misleading, downright deceitful — is Merriam-Webster’s word of the year.

Lookups for the word on merriam-webster.com increased 1,740% in 2022 over the year before. But something else happened. There wasn’t a single event that drove significant spikes in curiosity, as it usually goes with the chosen word of the year.

…“It’s a word that has risen so quickly in the English language, and especially in the last four years, that it actually came as a surprise to me and to many of us,” said Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor at large, in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press ahead of Monday’s unveiling.

“It was a word looked up frequently every single day of the year,” he said.

This is Merriam-Webster’s definition of gaslighting (link here):

: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

To learn more

I’m re-sharing a book recommendation and some earlier pieces here on gaslighting, especially as it pertains to the workplace:

To learn more about the dynamics of gaslighting, I recommend: Robin Stern, The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life (2018 paperback ed.).

Past blog posts:

2012-2020: When gaslighting went mainstream (2021)

Gaslighting exists, and it’s horrible, so we should invoke the term carefully (2020)

Institutional gaslighting of whistleblowers (2018)

Reissued for 2018: Robin Stern’s “The Gaslight Effect” (2018)

Gaslighting at work (2017, rev. 2018)

Inauguration Week special: “Gaslighting” goes mainstream (2017)

Is gaslighting a gendered form of workplace bullying? (2013)

Gaslighting as a workplace bullying tactic (2012, rev. 2017)

Thanksgiving Week: Writing and remembrance

Hello, dear readers, I’m enjoying my traditional U.S. Thanksgiving trip to New York City right now. The 12 years I lived in this city (1982-94) were a personally and professionally formative time for me, so I always get a bit reflective when I visit.

With this morning’s publication of a piece contemplating the notion of personal libraries (see below for link) to the blog of Harrison Middleton University, where I’m doing a side gig as a 2022 Fellow in Ideas,  I thought I’d pull together variety of more recent (2018-present) writings from other sites, heavily themed on lifelong learning, books, popular culture, and personal nostalgia. I hope you find something here that strikes your fancy.

***

Contemplations on a Personal Library (2022) (link here)

Living history: The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as experienced by U.S. Navy officer on a destroyer (2022) (link here)

Forty summers ago, a first-ever trip to NYC (2022) (link here)

Pandemic Chronicles #26: Old postcards as time travel experiences (2021) (link here)

Embracing middlebrow culture: The Book-of-the-Month Club (2021) (link here)

Pandemic Chronicles #25: Monet, London fog, and memory at the Museum of Fine Arts (2021) (link here)

Studying the Great Books at the University of Chicago (2021) (link here)

Pandemic Chronicles #20: Witnessing “The Troubles” 40 years ago (2021) (link here)

Libraries as learning hangouts (2021) (link here)

What’s behind “More Than A Song”? (2021) (link here)

Pandemic Chronicles #8: And suddenly, our worlds became very small (2020) (link here)

Pandemic Chronicles #1: “Be careful what you wish for…” (2020) (link here)

Twenty-five years in Boston…whoa! (2019) (link here)

Music as a time machine: 1979 (2019) (link here)

What is it about cold weather that draws me to bookstores? (2018) (link here)

Two memorable semester breaks (2018) (link here)

“The Hero’s Call”: An alumnus interviews me about workplace bullying

One of the most gratifying things that I experience as a law professor is when I can reconnect with a former student who has built a successful and positively impactful legal career. Such was the case recently, when Suffolk Law alumnus Marc Diller extended an invitation to appear on his law firm’s video web series, The Hero’s Call.

Marc’s law firm is devoted to personal injury law, built around the conviction that those who suffer harms because of someone’s negligent, reckless, or intentional behavior should be entitled to compensation for their losses. And I’m delighted to note that Marc himself has become a highly accomplished and respected trial attorney here in the Bay State.

When the pandemic emerged, his firm launched The Hero’s Call series to spotlight the work of folks who are working to safeguard and advocate for the health and safety of others. Marc and his colleague, Dr. John Naranja, interviewed me for The Hero’s Call about my work around workplace bullying and associated activities in the field of therapeutic jurisprudence. To watch the 24-minute interview, go here.

Watch: “The Dignity of an Intellectual Life for All”

Dear readers, on October 21, I hosted a program titled “The Dignity of an Intellectual Life for All.” Focusing on Dr. Zena Hitz’s thought-provoking book, Lost in Thought: The Hidden Pleasures of an Intellectual Life (2020), the program examined the value of embracing the liberal arts and humanities for their own sake and considered how a rich intellectual life for everyone enhances human dignity. We opened with a conversation featuring Dr. Hitz, followed by a responsive panel comprised of four distinguished educators.

It turned out to be a wonderfully engaging, conversational program. A freely accessible recording has now been posted to YouTube. Go here to watch it!

Here are the program details:

Hosted by Suffolk University Law School and co-sponsored by:

• Basic Program of Liberal Education for Adults, University of Chicago, Graham School 
• Harrison Middleton University
• World Dignity University Initiative of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies 

Featured Speaker

Zena Hitz, Tutor, St. John’s College, Annapolis, MD, and author, Lost in Thought: The Hidden Pleasures of an Intellectual Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 2020).

Guest Panelists

Joseph Coulson, President, Harrison Middleton University

Hilda Demuth-Lutze, English teacher (ret.), Chesterton High School, IN, and author of historical fiction

Amy Thomas Elder, Instructor, Basic Program of Liberal Education for Adults, University of Chicago, Graham School

Linda Hartling, Director, Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies

Moderator

David Yamada, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA

This program was supported by the Faculty Initiatives Fund at Suffolk University Law School.

Watching “Gaslight” (1944): One viewer’s guide

On Friday evening, I hosted an online discussion of the movie Gaslight, the 1944 thriller that gave rise to the pop psych term gaslighting, a term now used to characterize psychologically manipulative and controlling behaviors in interpersonal relationships, the political realm, and — of course — our workplaces.

This session was part of a film discussion series hosted by the University of Chicago’s Basic Program of Liberal Education for Adults, an intensive, non-credit, four-year course of study of the Great Books of the Western canon. The film night discussions are among the program’s complementary activities. I’m enrolled in the Basic Program, currently as a 3rd year student. It has been an enjoyable and challenging intellectual experience. (Go here for a personal account of the program during my first year.)

I offered to host a film night about Gaslight because I realized that, despite the growing use of the term gaslighting, it’s quite possible that many folks have never watched the movie. In fact, I hadn’t seen the movie in years and wondered if it would hold up as a dramatic story, rather than simply being the inspiration for the gaslighting term as used today. Fortunately, Gaslight gave us plenty to talk about, and we didn’t spend a lot of time on its contemporary relevance.

For those of you who would like to do your own viewing of Gaslight, the following notes are slightly edited from what I posted for those attending the film night:

How to Watch

• Search “Gaslight 1944 streaming” for options. You will likely pay a small rental fee, around $3.
• Gaslight is also available on DVD. Look for the WB Archive Collection print.
• Don’t confuse an earlier, 1940 British production with the 1944 American production. The 1944 production has received the most critical attention.

Short Intro from imdb.com

“Ten years after her aunt was murdered in their London home, a woman returns from Italy in the 1880s to resume residence with her new husband. His obsessive interest in the home rises from a secret that may require driving his wife insane.”

Main Cast and Recognitions

• Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton (Academy Award nominee)
• Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist (Academy Award winner)
• Joseph Cotton as Brian Cameron
• May Whitty as Miss Thwaites
• Angela Lansbury as Nancy (Academy Award nominee)
• Barbara Everest as Elizabeth

Directed by George Cukor

Also, Gaslight won an Academy Award for “Best Art Direction – Black and White” and received Academy Award nominations for “Best Motion Picture,” “Best Screenplay,” and “Best Cinematography – Black and White.”

A Starter List of Questions

I provided these questions in advance to the film night attendees. If you’ve never watched the film before and wish to screen it “fresh” as a drama, then I suggest viewing it before reading through these questions.

• What are your impressions of the opening sequences?
• Is this a slow-developing storyline or are you grabbed from the start?
• We know early on that Gregory is not a nice guy. How does that shape the suspense of the film? Charles Boyer was nominated for an Oscar. Is he a believable gaslighter?
• Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for her performance. What do you think of her portrayal of Paula? Is her psychological descent believable? Before the final scenes, are there points where she appears to be comprehending what Gregory is doing to her?
• Are Pauline and Gregory believable as a couple?
• Put on your amateur psychologist hat (unless you’re a real psychologist). What psychological dynamics and psychiatric conditions are captured by the behaviors of, and interactions between, Paula and Gregory?
• Nancy, Elizabeth, and Miss Thwaites are significant supporting characters. How do they contribute to the overall story?
• Is the main storyline credible? Do you have to suspend disbelief at any time to go along for the ride?
• What do you think of the film’s use of foreshadowing, lighting, and music? Were these techniques effective or too heavy-handed?
• The heart of the film is set in 1880s London. What are your images of the city during that era?
• Brian Cameron is a Scotland Yard detective who sees an entry point back into a cold case. Does this work as a cold case drama?
• Compare the portrayals of men and women main characters in the film, especially against the backdrop of the historical period depicted. What gendered stereotypes appear?
• Do you have any favorite scenes in the film? (A personal favorite: What is the symbolism of the scene in the Tower of London?)
• Among popular film genres, how many different categories does Gaslight capture or at least hint at? Is the film “Hitchcockian”?
• Does the film portray gaslighting behavior similarly to how the term is now being used in our contemporary discourse — to characterize highly manipulative and controlling behaviors in interpersonal relationships, political communications, and workplace settings?
• Is Gaslight a classic, or is it simply an entertaining film that gave rise to a term that has entered our popular culture?
• For those drawn to the gaslighting theme, are there any other films or television series that you would recommend?

To Learn More

Search the film title and you’ll find plenty of good commentaries about it.

The Wikipedia entry is very informative, but be advised that it includes many spoilers.

To learn more about the dynamics of gaslighting, I recommend: Robin Stern, The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life (2018 paperback ed.).

***

Also, I’ve posted many articles about gaslighting to this blog. For example:

2012-2020: When gaslighting went mainstream (2021)

Gaslighting exists, and it’s horrible, so we should invoke the term carefully (2020)

Institutional gaslighting of whistleblowers (2018)

Reissued for 2018: Robin Stern’s “The Gaslight Effect” (2018)

Gaslighting at work (2017, rev. 2018)

Inauguration Week special: “Gaslighting” goes mainstream (2017)

Is gaslighting a gendered form of workplace bullying? (2013)

Gaslighting as a workplace bullying tactic (2012, rev. 2017)

From genocide to bullying, may remembrance inspire our commitment

The social media image that most commanded my attention on Friday morning was a photo of Otto Frank, father of Anne Frank, taken in May 1960, on the day that the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam was first opened to the public. Otto Frank was the only member of his immediate family to survive the Nazi concentration camps. Daughters Anne and Margot, and wife Edith, all perished before they could be liberated.

Staring at that photograph, I tried to imagine what was going through Mr. Frank’s mind. But I understood that I could never truly comprehend his experience and the journey that brought him back to the place where he, his family, and four other Jewish residents spent some two years in hiding before they were discovered and eventually transported to Auschwitz.

Remembrance

And yet, even if we do not share direct memories of the Holocaust, maintaining a collective sense of remembrance, buoyed by historical literacy, is central to our understanding of how humans can engage in seemingly unthinkable atrocities. Indeed, I believe that the Nazi genocide is a key starting place for grasping our capacity for cruelty. As I wrote eight years ago:

We need to understand the Holocaust because there is no more documented, memorialized, and analyzed chapter of widespread, deliberate, orchestrated human atrocity in our history. If we want to grasp how human beings in a “modern” era can inflict horrific cruelties on others  — systematically and interpersonally — then the Holocaust is at the core of our understanding.

Despite the ample historical record, we may be losing our collective memory of the Holocaust, at least in the U.S. In 2018, Julie Zauzmer reported for the Washington Post:

Two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.

Twenty-two percent of millennials in the poll said they haven’t heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they’ve heard of it — twice the percentage of U.S. adults as a whole who said the same.

. . . Asked to identify what Auschwitz is, 41 percent of respondents and 66 percent of millennials could not come up with a correct response identifying it as a concentration camp or extermination camp.

From genocide to bullying

Years ago, as I began my deeper dives into the dynamics of bullying and mobbing at work, I looked to the nature of genocidal behavior for understanding the eliminationist instincts that appear to be present in attempts to force someone out of a workplace and even wreck their careers. I took these steps somewhat gingerly, because I wasn’t sure of the appropriateness of comparing genocides to even the worst kinds of workplace mistreatment. You might sense these tentative steps in what I wrote back in 2011:

Do the individual and collective behaviors of the Holocaust help us to understand severe, targeted, personally destructive workplace bullying?

The question has been discussed within the workplace anti-bullying movement and requires respectful contemplation. I am well aware of the casual overuse of references to Hitler and the Nazis in our popular culture, especially in today’s overheated political discourse. Moreover, I acknowledge the dangers of comparing anything to the Holocaust, an outrage so profound that it is nearly impossible to fathom but for the abundant factual record.

Nevertheless, I have steeped myself in the experiences and literature of workplace bullying, and I have read many works about the Holocaust. Although the two forms of mistreatment are hardly equivalent — even the worst forms of workplace bullying are a world away from genocide — there are real connections between them.

I credit two important individuals for helping to validate my hesitantly shared belief that genocide and bullying exist together on a spectrum, connected by common human toxicities and failings.

First, Barbara Coloroso is an internationally recognized authority on school bullying whose work has also extended into the realm of human rights generally. In her book Extraordinary Evil: A Short Walk to Genocide (2007), she recounted how she used a talk at the University of Rwanda to explain “how it was a short walk from schoolyard bullying to criminal bullying (hate crime) to genocide,” invoking the roles of aggressor, bullying target, and bystander.

Second, Dr. Edith Eger is a noted trauma therapist, author, and Auschwitz survivor. At a conference in 2017, I had the bracing task of immediately following her eloquent keynote speech with my presentation about workplace bullying and mobbing. Looking periodically at Dr. Edie (as she is known) as she sat in the front row, I shared with everyone my unease about comparing the Holocaust to work abuse, especially in the presence of someone who had survived the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. Thankfully, when I finished my talk, Dr. Edie applauded enthusiastically and gave me a warm nod of approval. I was both relieved and honored by her response.

Commitment

In the realm of employment relations, we often use the terms workplace bullying and workplace incivility as a matched pair, with some differentiating them only slightly by severity and intention. However, I’ve come to regard workplace bullying, mobbing, and related behaviors as being closer in essential character to the even more virulent behaviors that target people for abuse or extinction en masse. The degree and extent of harm may vary greatly, but the driving psychological and social forces bear many likenesses.

Indeed, over the years, the worst accounts of workplace mistreatment that I’ve known of have had nothing to do with incompetent management or everyday incivilities. Rather, they’ve typically shared a malicious intention to diminish, undermine, and harm someone, to drive them out of the organization, and perhaps even to destroy their ability to earn a living. In each of these instances, an eliminationist instinct has been very present, usually enabled and protected by institutional cultures.

Ultimately, all behaviors on this spectrum of cruelty and toxic abuse of power demand our responses. Thus, remembrance should inspire our ongoing commitment to understand and address these behaviors, wherever they may appear. 

For my part, I’ll continue my research, writing, and advocacy on workplace bullying and related topics. That work is a lifelong commitment. In addition, the contemplations offered above, some of which draw upon previous writings posted to this blog, represent some early thinking steps towards a more ambitious project that examines the varied manifestations of cruelty and abuse and assesses how law and public policy have responded to them. My objective is to contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of the differences and commonalities among these forms of severe mistreatment and what we can do about them.

On creative destruction, radical disruption, and other extreme makeovers

Usually not the answer (image courtesy of clipart-library.com)

During the past few weeks, I’ve been giving some thought to two radical ideas that are floating around out in our public discourse.

One is coming from the far right: An organizing effort to hold a new Constitutional Convention, presumably to radically remake the U.S. Constitution. In the extreme right-wing fantasy mode, this would include removing federal authority to regulate things like environmental safety, health care, workers’ and civil rights, and various social and economic safety net provisions. As Carl Hulse reports for the New York Times:

Representative Jodey Arrington, a conservative Texas Republican, believes it is well past time for something the nation has not experienced for more than two centuries: a debate over rewriting the Constitution.

“I think the states are due a convention,” said Mr. Arrington, who in July introduced legislation to direct the archivist of the United States to tally applications for a convention from state legislatures and compel Congress to schedule a gathering when enough states have petitioned for one. “It is time to rally the states and rein in Washington responsibly.”

To Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society, a liberal judicial group, that is a terrible idea. Mr. Feingold sees the prospect of a constitutional convention as an exceptionally dangerous threat from the right and suggests it is closer to reality than most people realize as Republicans push to retake control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

The second idea I’ve been pondering is coming from the far left: It’s a call, well, to abolish work. I’m not talking about instituting a 4-day work week, or beefing up unemployment benefits, or tackling stuff like bullying and harassment. These folks literally want to end work, while assuming that all of life’s necessities will somehow be provided for. Nicole Froio advances the idea for Yes! magazine:

What if we abolished the institution of work?

If we were not required to work to pay for basic rights, such as food, shelter, and water, could we embrace radical solutions to change the current state of our society?

…Online, the rejection of the idea of work itself is a growing trend across social media platforms. . . . One TikToker’s message—“Fuck this, I don’t want to work for the rest of my life :(”—received thousands of likes and comments in agreement. On Twitter, where the constant barrage of negative news is constantly dissected and commented on, posters point out how capitalism keeps marching on despite the unconscionable tragedies we’ve all had to digest in the past two and a half years….On Reddit, the “antiwork” community (the r/antiwork subreddit) has 2 million subscribers who can easily access an online library about the abolition of work and exchange experiences with each other about the jobs they don’t want to do. The motto of this subreddit, whose members call themselves “idlers,” is “Unemployment for all, not just the rich!”

Personally, I’m much more concerned about a radical Constitutional Convention fueled by conspiracy-loving extremists than the highly unlikely prospect of everyone suddenly deciding to stop working. On the former, I believe we are in a precarious time as a working democracy. On the latter, while fully recognizing that our world of work needs fixing (my main focus for decades), I have not encountered any viable proposal that replaces working for pay.

In any event, the common threads between these ideas and others at the margins are the superficially attractive notions of “creative destruction,” “blowing things up,” “radical disruption,” and “starting all over” — all so we can get it just right this time.

Such thinking can be enormously appealing when the status quo seems deeply flawed. I’ve felt that way about certain matters myself.

But hold on a minute. What makes us think that we can do a clean sweep and nail the remake simply because, hey, we’re here?

There are many problems with the let’s-blow-it-up mentality.

First, calls for extreme makeovers are often driven by extreme points of view that aren’t deeply shared by the wide swath of people. Quick, dramatic fixes have great superficial attraction, especially when compared to the toil of digging into the nuances of complicated problems. They may sound especially attractive to those who aren’t thinking critically and who assume that only good can result from these efforts.

Second, when inflexible and/or extreme views prompt radical change, they often ignore or overlook the realities of unanticipated bad consequences. When anyone assumes a superior level of knowledge that justifies turning everything upside down and starting all over again, it’s usually wise to slow down and start asking questions.

Finally, extreme proposals for change tend to neglect collateral damage, by disregarding or minimizing the costs to those whose lives and circumstances are upended in the process. This encourages a sort of casual “othering” that easily dismisses the interests of those who are not in our core circles.

Given a choice, I usually prefer evolution to revolution, guided by courage, kindness, foresight, and wisdom. I have been an advocate for change for as long as I can remember, and that journey has taught me — sometimes by reckoning with my own erroneous assumptions — that most serious public challenges are multifaceted in nature and require thoughtful responses based on an understanding of systems and human imperfections.

I realize that I’m talking in somewhat abstract terms here. But if this prompts you to ask questions of, and require details from, the next person who bellows that it’s time for an extreme makeover that starts from scratch, then I will consider this short writing to be a successful one.

On making a difference through writing

On this day of remembrance here in the U.S., I thought I’d pull together a collection of past articles related to the theme of writing, especially those forms designed to make a difference in this world — which, when you think about it, is the larger contribution of just about all good writing. And, of course, the earliest piece starts with coffee.

Using scholarship to make a difference (2020) (link here) — “When I first became a law professor, I was skeptical about the potential of legal scholarship to influence law reform. My intention was to do scholarship in sufficient volume and quality to earn tenure, and then to pursue writing and activist projects that didn’t involve lots of citations and footnotes.”

The privileges of creating a “body of work” (2019) (link here) — “Four years ago, I wrote about Pamela Slim‘s Body of Work: Finding the Thread That Ties Your Story Together (2013), which invites us to examine — in the author’s words — ‘the personal legacy you leave at the end of your life, including all the tangible and intangible things you have created’…”

On the social responsibilities of writers (2019) (link here) — “I’d like to take a Sunday dive into the nature of writing to fuel positive individual and social change. This may be especially relevant to readers who write about fostering psychologically healthier workplaces that are free from bullying, mobbing, and abuse.”

Even Shakespeare had a writing circle (2017) (link here) — “It was an interesting exhibition, and here’s what specially caught my eye: Shakespeare was part of a writing circle — Elizabethan style!”

Author Jenna Blum: “I didn’t become a writer to not say what I believe in” (link here) — “On Saturday, Jenna was the featured speaker for a program hosted by the Boston chapter of the Women’s National Book Association, speaking on the ‘crucial role of women’s literary voices in literature in the current political climate, and the fusing of art, writing, and activism.'”

How do you take and keep notes? (2017) (link here) — “At annual board meetings and workshops of the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies network in New York City, I’ve taken delight in watching peace educator Janet Gerson‘s use of hardcover sketchbooks to take and preserve her notes, as well as to host her artistic forays and distractions.”

Three great authors on writing to make a difference (2015) (link here) — “For fresh, inspiring outlooks on the uses of writing and scholarship to make a difference, I often listen to voices outside of mainstream academe. Here I happily gather together three individuals, Ronald Gross, Mary Pipher, and John Ohliger, whose names I have invoked previously on this blog.”

Embracing creative dreams at midlife (2010, rev. 2018) (link here) — “Hilda’s desire to write novels was evident in college, but getting married, raising a family in Valparaiso, and becoming a high school English teacher would come first. However, she never let go of the idea of a writing life, and over the years she would exchange ideas, essays, and chapter drafts with friends and family members.”

Intellectual activism and social change (2013) (link here) — “For some time I’ve been studying a topic that I’ve labeled ‘intellectual activism,’ the practice of using scholarly research and writing to inform, shape, and influence social change initiatives.”

Mary Pipher on Writing to Change the World (2012) (link here) — “For all in this broad category, Mary Pipher’s Writing to Change the World (2006) is instructive and inspirational. Pipher is a bestselling author and therapist. Her book reflects upon the uses of writing to make a positive difference.”

Collegiate reflections: Working on the campus newspaper (2012) (link here) — “The Torch was the most important extracurricular experience of my college career. The topics of my articles and columns were limited largely to campus issues, but even this was heady business for me. There was something powerful and scary about writing pieces for publication with my byline appended.”

Coffee and work (2011) (link here) — “Coffee seems to be especially associated with writers. Crookes invokes J.K. Rowling, Marina Fiorato, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, and Malcolm Gladwell as examples of writers drawn to cafes and coffee shops to do their work.”

Labor Day 2022: There’s something happening here

On this Labor Day 2022, the world of work is certainly calling for our attention. Among other things, we’re seeing:

• A sharp uptick in labor union organizing, led by workers at Starbucks locations across the country, as labor studies professor John Logan explains in The American Commentator;
• A sudden outpouring of talk about “quiet quitting,” or doing the bare minimum at one’s job, as explored by James Tapper in The Guardian;
• A potentially permanent, significant shift to work at home options for many workers, as examined by Andrew Van Dam in the Washington Post;
• High job turnover driven by unhappy workers, deemed the Great Resignation, as Hope King describes for Axios.

Add to that a nation in civic turmoil, a continuing pandemic, a climate marked this summer by record-hot temperatures, an ongoing war in Europe, among other things, and you’ve got, well, very interesting times.

This is not a redux of the Sixties — what’s going on is even more dire than the events and changes of that era — but as I thought about today’s blog post, Buffalo Springfield’s “Stop Children What’s That Sound” came to mind. The lyrics sure do fit our times:

There’s something happening here
But what it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it’s time we stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It’s time we stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

What a field day for the heat (Ooh ooh ooh)
A thousand people in the street (Ooh ooh ooh)
Singing songs and they carrying signs (Ooh ooh ooh)
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side” (Ooh ooh ooh)

It’s time we stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

We better stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Now, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?

You better stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?