“I’m not being racist!" the white woman defensively claims. She can show how she holds no animus toward others of a different background or skin color.

But she doesn’t address her impactful behavior that shows bias favoring her white cultural norms. Or what those on the political left label as “white privilege”. Perhaps “insufficient cultural competence” would be a less provocative critique.

The woman’s defenders react by asserting how she had no choice in being born white. “It’s not her fault” if raised in a familial environment modeling little if any empathy toward at-risk peoples. “Are marginalized people,” they wonder, “now socially privileged to coerce sympathy?”

A disadvantaged person reacts, “I don’t coerce sympathy. I’m not privileged like you!” Not-privileged. Each reacts to the other. Any potential for mutual understanding rapidly declines.

Defunction: hyper-defensive “not-that”

By declaring you’re not something controversial, you expose the possibility that you indeed are. Your actions then speak louder than your words. You appear to avoid humbling awareness. And aim to shut down any helpful illumination.

Perhaps the full weight of the label is too harsh. And you could potentially admit to some of the observed critical claim. Humility attracts grace. Until then, the full label tends to stick.

Your defensive self-righteousness to discount any possibility of the critique wins you few friends. It can appear as if you’re trying to hide something, or avoid awareness of your own (potentially embarrassing) imperfections.

The more you arrogantly boast that you are “not” that offensive thing, the more you appear that you truly are that bad. Or worse, that you don’t care that you callously harm others.

Others will see you trying to avoid the discomfort of the critique when refusing to engage its substance. You then appear morally weak. Like you could deny similar critiques of your potential harmfulness, and rationalize any of your threatening behaviors.

Provoked defensiveness tends to pull you into extreme positions. You must either be all of that or none of that. Overgeneralizing categories are easier to refute. You then privilege interpreting available evidence in your favor.

No one is immune to confirmation bias. The more you cling to an adversarial binary stance of is-that/not-that, the less likely you are open to the full scope of reality. You then easily overlook vital nuance.

Consider these in the context of political and judicial dichotomization of complex human phenomena. Each assumes the listener should accept the opposite of the leveled charge. Then deescalated with a need responsive next step.

Examples

Each example reflects the elements of toxic legalism, notably overgeneralizing categories, avoidance, and adversarialism. As examples of react culture, each privileges a binary construct that avoids what is necessary to fully resolve the underlying inflexible needs.

• not-antisemitic: pushes back at using antisemitic label to coerce sympathy or where used to smear critics of the Israeli government or as a propaganda technique to further Israeli political aims.

  • While not overtly against Jews as a people, some elements opposing Zionism neglect to respect the Jewish people’s need for security and sovereignty, or appreciate their trauma from Palestinian violent resistance that, in their lived experience, mirrors the European pogroms of the past.

• not-apartheid: criticizes comparison to the South African apartheid regime by noting how Israel doesn’t exploit Palestinians for labor and grants Arabs the right to vote, but conveniently ignores how Israeli policies do mirror the former apartheid regime of South Africa.

  • While not exactly equivalent to South Africa, much of Israeli government policies limiting Palestinian access to spaces open to Jews readily neglects to respect the Palestinian people’s own need for security and sovereignty, or appreciate their trauma from IDF and settler violence simply for who they are.

• not-genocidal (aka genocide denial): disputes characterization that overlooks exceptions to a legal definition of genocide. 

  • If it not a genocide, then what is it? While not aligning with other historical genocides in scope, with their overt intent to methodically and totally destroy an opposed group, it presents signs akin to reducing a marginalized group to similar ends of an official genocide. Genocide-lite?

  • Israeli defenders avoid addressing their American critics who complain their tax dollars are paying for this unscrupulous violence against their will, and how this exacerbates the big money capture of Congress who ostensibly answer more to donors than voters, and how some of these donors are dual citizens biasing a foreign government who American voters are compelled to financially support without their credible say. Taxation without representation?

• not-Islamophobic: critique of Arab culture’s impact upon others in non-Arab spaces getting conflated with Islam itself.

  • While not explicitly against Islam as a religion or Muslims individually, there is a line one can cross that disrespects the rights of Muslims to freely worship as any Christian in the West readily assumes they can worship.

• not-racist: refuting application of a label that can cost one their career (as illustrated in the example above).

  • While not explicitly opposed to another’s ethnicity, one could be culturally incompetent or insensitive; tone-deaf to prior complaints that now lean into hyperbole or exaggerated claims of racially motivated discrimination.

• not-transphobic: pushing back on conflating opposition to underage hormonal therapy (i.e., critiquing healthcare providers incentivized to medicalize incipient transgenderism) with opposition to trans identified children themselves. (Trans identified athletes is another matter.)

  • The push to protect children from committing to irreversible health decisions they may regret later risks neglecting the few whose condition likely will worsen without qualified professional and potentially required medical intervention.

• not-socialist: resisting being lumped together with failed past socialist or communists in recent history, and differentiating themselves from those failed economic approaches.

  • While not overtly socialistic, some aspects of social democratic views tap into the same emphasis of top-down policies that threaten the conservatives, who need the liberty to be self-motivated to sustainably respect other peoples.

Other examples:

• not-homophobic

• not-censorship

• not-hate speech

• not-guilty

• not-innocent

Refunction: could be something to consider

Instead of defensively insisting you are not that, you could counter by asking, “Why do you say that I am that?” Inquire with genuine curiosity, without a hint of admission or animosity. Let your openness invite mutual awareness.

The accuser would then more easily admit any exaggeration. Instead of the kneejerk defensive denial, you could invite further discussion about it. Even while the accusation hurts.

You could humbly admit your imperfections without agreeing you are fully what’s accused. You can turn this challenge into an opportunity for mutual understanding of each other’s affected needs.

Which leads to better results than reactive “not-that” denials. The point is to not sever opportunity for deeper understanding. And move toward solving more conflicts by resolving more needs.