Recent searches
Search options
A little survival guide to power dynamics, for autistics. 
Intended as a resource for confused #autistic people on social dynamics & power hierarchies!
Below are links to some threads & articles I've put together on the topic.
1/10
Are people naturally selfish and lazy?
Or are we built to be collaborative, and self-motivated?
A thread on human nature.
"Do you have to, or do you choose to?"
A thread on responsibility and empowerment.
22 fabulous and socially acceptable ways to shut people down.
An article.
https://www.neurofabulous.org.uk/article-tips-on-shutting-people-down.html
Why I don’t (usually) tell people when I’m not okay.
An article.
https://www.neurofabulous.org.uk/article-why-i-dont-say-when-not-okay.html
Ten ways in which rich, white, straight, educated males aren't lucky.
A thread.
"Many Autistic people have great difficulties thinking of the world in hierarchical ways."
A thread about this article by Jorn Bettin.
Twelve signs you're exploiting someone... or trying to!
A thread about how to spot power struggles in personal relationships.
As an autistic person, it is my experience that we are aware of the struggle to determine dominance between others before they are aware of it themselves.
Yes. I think perhaps for them it is the air they breathe. They don't know there's any other alternative or way to be.
Whereas for autistics it perhaps comes less naturally, since we are simply less people oriented? 
@KatyElphinstone many years ago I saw an education department definition of bullying which was incredibly simple. It just said bullying has occurred when a person says they have been bullied.
It was a kind of recognition that the same type of comment on consecutive days depending on the tone of voice of the bully, the humour of the victim or the people around might have been received as bullying one day or might have been laughed off another day.
That's an oddly simplistic definition. I guess it must've developed since then into what it is now.
But whether it is bullying or not isn't, I feel, very connected with whether somebody laughs it off.
There is a lot of social pressure to laugh things off, especially for boys.
It's the element of somebody intending to harm you that's considered, and not your reaction. Which, I feel, is right & good. Focus should be on the perpetrator & not on the victim. (Although this often isn't the case).
@KatyElphinstone the laughing it off was my words not theirs. They merely said that the definition was that the bullying takes place when the person feels they have been bullied, and I like that.
if they think they were bullied, then they were.
I'm afraid I disagree... I've been thinking a lot about the phrase 'I don't mind' and why I hear it so much from the mouths of the powerless.
I do not think they have the luxury of minding.
I didn't, for many years.
It's better to think you don't mind if you have no choice about a thing. Point being, I think that even if the person appears fine, says they're fine, 'laughs it off', the thing that happened can still, absolutely, be bullying.
@KatyElphinstone that’s a very good point. If the victim is the only arbiter it’s not 100%.
It's just occurred to me we may be talking at cross purposes about one element of all this.
Earlier, I perhaps made it sound as though I believe we shouldn't trust the recipient's judgement of the situation, nor their own experience of the event.
In which case, I didn't mean that in the way it came across.
I think we absolutely should trust their experience (while being aware that, due to societal conditioning & pressures, they may be unable to fully know and/or report on their real, deep, internal feelings).
And the other factors should be taken into account alongside that. Namely: if there was a power differential & in which direction, if the act was repeated, and it if was intended to harm.
And now, of course lol, I'm having the 'hmmm' moment of thinking...
Hey, what if the person being targeted by bullying genuinely doesn't give a crap and it doesn't affect them at all??
But... tbh... I think when there's a power differential... well, people with more power (by definition, really) have the traction - the resources - to in some way punish those with less.
Which makes genuinely not minding a kind of unlikely scenario.
Hmm.
@peterbrown @KatyElphinstone
Problem with that definition is bullies will often apply DARVO; probably second most common response to being challenged, behind "it was a joke"
Yup. A bit like how sexual assault gets euphemistically called 'a bit of fun'.
@peterbrown @KatyElphinstone very easy for the aggressor to claim that in fact it was they that were bullied.
Yes. That was one of my first thoughts, as well.
I've often heard those who held more power in a situation, when the other becomes upset and angry, say they are being 'bullied' (and I think, well you've obviously not heard the official definition of bullying which states there must be a power differential in your favour for it to be bullying 
).
@KatyElphinstone @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
I can see some potential benefit in leaving the power differential out for a working definition.
While it's absolutely correct that this is a necessary part of bullying that there is a power differential, leaving this part out makes it much easier to claim for those being bullied. After all, this is not always a differential that would be easy to spot.
Abuse of this definition through the bully by clajming that in fact they were bullied may work once. But the second time, with a different person involved but the same bully, things will start looking dubitable.
Also, bullies could lose some of their informal power when claiming publicly that they were bullied because they put themselves in a victimized position (especially when that power is based on intimidating others).
This is not justice for individual cases. It can be abused. But so can a definition that includes the power differential when e.g. a team member bullies a higher rnaking team member who struggles with defending themselves emotionally. Then, the bully could claim it's not bullying where in fact it is - but the power differential is hidden.
@KatyElphinstone @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
I mean "working definition" in a management sense. When there is a third party that needs to mediate the situation.
It'd be different when assessing a situation with someone, in a trusted environment. There, taking the differential into account can help the bullied person understand the situation much better.
@manu @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
Ooh yes, definitely, it can be the 'lightbulb' moment !
@manu @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
I agree that the power differential can be very hard to spot. But I think we should look for it, all the same.
As, if we don't, we run the risk that abusers (whoever they are and however they use power or manipulate situations) can, as you say, claim to be bullied in any situation where there was simply a conflict of interests.
@manu @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
Without the element of a power differential the concept of bullying, for me, becomes redundant.
It's no longer bullying but rather just - well, whatever the act or behaviour was. Nothing more, nothing less.
@manu @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
Plus, I think we all - society, I mean - badly need to practise spotting power differentials.
So...well.. that's the main reason I write things such as '12 ways to spot if you're exploiting someone'....it's to help people see power flows (which, as you say, are not always in the direction you expect!).
@KatyElphinstone @manu @fishidwardrobe certainly not an easy shout as Donald Trump, possibly one of the most powerful people on the planet, is not afraid to portray himself as the victim of bullying by other states pressure groups and entities.
@peterbrown @manu @fishidwardrobe
Oh dear. You do not astonish me. 
@peterbrown @KatyElphinstone @fishidwardrobe
Not trying to defend my point (this will be just about the specific case of DT)
I had the case of Trump on my mind when I wrote my comment and yes, he's a perfect example of how someone can victimize themselves while staying on top of the hierarchy all the same.
This particular case didn't still change my mind because it is a very special one. T.'s power works differently from that of most people. Besides victimizing himself, he is openly incompetent and an open liar. None of this seems to damage him, it's rather the opposite. An I think that is because his only power principle is power itself. His followers see that he can get away with anything and that makes him look powerful (but the simple trick ist money and ties).
Having someone like Trump as an element in a management crisis would most likely lead to his sacking in a very short time because he'd be insulting people all around and there'd be no reason to keep him because he's being openly incompetent. Trump only works because he's born with lots of money and social ties that protect him.
@KatyElphinstone @fishidwardrobe @peterbrown
I mean, it would still be repeated and with the intent of harm, by your definition.
Anyway, seeking truth and helping others on a personal level, I also think this is of very high importance.
I was mostly thinking of the structural effect of leaving it out for mediation purposes. But it was also just a thought.
I absolutely see your point here.