postscript: a personal reply

More reflections on not judging and HRE

I think we don't stop communicating to send a message (or not only, and not necessarily), but more often because we reach a point where the communication has broken down - for whatever reason. It may be because communication has become difficult, disagreeable or pointless, more trouble than it's worth. It may be that wounds need mending, and communicating doesn't help that (for the moment); it may be that the gulf of understanding appears to be too large to cross; or that shared goals or values appear less obviously shared than once they did. Or it may be all of those - or other combinations.

One point I meant to raise by the post was that I believe people who 'refuse' to pass a judgement on dishonest or disreputable acts are nearly always doing so for pragmatic reasons. And yet - as you know - in the HRE community, the reasons given are more 'noble' sounding: 'we ought not to judge others', 'people deserve to be given a second chance', 'it is not for me to judge'. I think that is (often) disingenuous, and sometimes cowardly. So I wanted to say that there is an inconsistency between, on the one hand, our being willing (or being unable not) to judge our own acts according to certain moral standards; and on the other hand, being 'unwilling' to judge other peoples' acts by the same standards.

As far as that disagreement goes - a disagreement that I have with the HRE community - I can be 'tolerant': it is the sort of disagreement that I shall continue to argue about within the community (in so far as it lets me in), and shall continue to try to break down, because I think that the attitude is neither honest nor useful (always) in the field of HRE. But I am myself troubled by where the balance should be, and do not think it is always clear-cut whether we should take position 5 (turning a blind eye) or whether we should measure something against our own personal moral standards.

Then there's another disagreement that I have with (a particular!) HRE community (as you also know!), and where I do think that the line is pretty clear-cut. That disagreement is to do with whether a particular form of behaviour, an act of deliberate deceit for personal gain, continuously and strenuously denied, with damaging consequences for others, by someone in a position of trust and authority - by someone who even professes to be teaching others about values - whether that form of behaviour is indeed the sort that one should pass over, tut-tut a bit, but nothing more, forgive and forget, turn a blind eye. This disagreement is much more difficult to 'tolerate' - partly because I feel strongly that it isn't all of those things; partly because I feel disappointed that it was all of those things for those with whom I was supposed to be sharing values; and partly because as a result of that fundamental disagreement, I have ended up outside the community.

There are various possible (psychological) reactions to being 'rejected' by a community (or rejecting a community yourself?). But one of the most natural reactions must be to put up a defence: the community doesn't play by my rules, doesn't even agree with my rules, so I want no part of it. I want to be in a community which does share my values and priorities, so I shall look elsewhere.

So please, don't see it as a punishing act: see it as an act of complete incomprehension, disappointment and disillusionment; and for those reasons a breakdown in communication. Breakdowns in communication are difficult to bear for both sides of the divide.