I Don’t Need You to Be Innocent Before I Help You

There is one last thing I want to make explicit.

You do not have to prove that you are innocent before any of these tools are available to you.

Maybe somebody hurt you.

Maybe you hurt somebody.

Maybe both happened.

Maybe you made the problem.

Maybe you contributed to it.

Maybe you misunderstood something.

Maybe somebody else did.

Maybe everyone involved managed to make an already difficult situation substantially worse.

Human beings are talented that way.

We can still work with the machinery.

Help Is Not a Trophy

There is a strange idea that sometimes appears around difficult problems.

First, determine whether the person deserves help.

Then, if they pass the moral examination, unlock the toolbox.

I do not think that is particularly useful.

Help is not a trophy awarded after moral acquittal.

If somebody is lonely, ashamed, furious, confused, guilty, defensive, frightened, or stuck, the immediate question can still be:

What is happening?

Then:

What can we do with it?

Those questions do not require innocence.

They require something to inspect.

Maybe You Caused the Problem

Sometimes you did.

That possibility stays in the room.

Maybe your relationship is falling apart because you repeatedly lied.

Maybe somebody stopped trusting you because you gave them excellent reasons not to trust you.

Maybe you are isolated partly because you keep treating people badly when you feel rejected.

Maybe the consequence you hate is attached to something you actually did.

Okay.

Then that is part of the machinery.

Look at it.

The wrench still works.

You do not have to transform yourself into an innocent victim before you are allowed to ask how to stop making the situation worse.

Maybe Somebody Else Caused It

Sometimes the opposite is true.

Maybe you were lied to.

Rejected.

Manipulated.

Humiliated.

Abused.

Used.

Blamed for something you did not do.

You do not have to invent your own guilt just to prove that you are being sufficiently balanced.

Accurate inspection does not mean automatically splitting responsibility fifty-fifty because symmetry looks mature.

Sometimes responsibility is unequal.

Sometimes one person really did do the harmful thing.

Keep the evidence.

Maybe It Is Messier Than That

Quite often, the answer is annoying.

You were harmed.

And you responded badly.

Someone treated you unfairly.

And you made the situation worse.

You had legitimate reasons to be angry.

And you still said something cruel.

You made a serious mistake.

And somebody else used that mistake as permission to treat you in ways that were also wrong.

Two people can hurt each other without the universe issuing matching invoices.

The point is not to identify the Good Person and the Bad Person so the credits can roll.

The point is to increase resolution.

• What happened?

• Who did what?

• What mattered?

• What is still happening?

• What can change?

You May Not Know Yet

Sometimes you genuinely do not know what happened.

Your memory and somebody else’s account conflict.

You are still angry.

They are still angry.

You are not sure whether you crossed a line or whether somebody is using a serious accusation carelessly.

You do not have to manufacture certainty.

You can say:

I do not know yet.

That is a usable position.

From there you can inspect.

Gather information.

Remember more carefully.

Ask questions.

Look for patterns.

Notice what you are strongly motivated to believe.

You can leave the verdict open while the investigation continues.

No Compulsory Innocence

You do not need me to tell you:

None of this is your fault.

I do not know that.

Sometimes it is partly your fault.

Sometimes it is substantially your fault.

Sometimes it is not your fault at all.

Sometimes the word “fault” is not even precise enough to be useful.

What I can tell you is:

I don’t need you to be innocent before I help you.

If you did something wrong, we can look at that.

If somebody wronged you, we can look at that.

If both are true, the lake is large enough for both.

No compulsory innocence.

No Compulsory Shame Either

The opposite demand is not useful either.

You do not have to hate yourself before responsibility counts.

You do not have to collapse.

You do not have to prove remorse by becoming nonfunctional.

You do not have to spend the rest of your life announcing that you are terrible before you are permitted to change anything.

If shame helps you recognize that something matters, fine.

Notice it.

But the goal is not maximum shame.

The goal is accurate inspection followed by useful action.

No compulsory shame.

Ask Better Questions

Once we stop requiring innocence or self-destruction, we can ask questions that actually move.

What happened?

What is happening now?

What would improve the situation?

What can you do next?

Maybe the answer is repair.

Maybe it is an apology.

Maybe it is leaving.

Maybe it is accepting that somebody else left.

Maybe it is changing a behavior.

Maybe it is protecting yourself.

Maybe it is accepting consequences.

Maybe it is admitting that you do not know enough yet.

These questions do not promise a comfortable answer.

They give you somewhere to put your hands.

Hand Over the Wrench

That is the movement of these first three chapters.

First:

Look.

Move the point called “I” far enough away from the pile to inspect the creature.

Then:

Do not collapse every thought, event, role, or verdict into the whole creature.

Then:

Make the creature large enough to keep looking when what you find hurts.

Now you can stay in the room.

Maybe you were right.

Maybe you were wrong.

Maybe you were harmed.

Maybe you caused harm.

Maybe you have repair to do.

Maybe somebody owes you repair that you will never receive.

We can still ask what is true.

We can still ask what follows.

I don’t need you to be innocent before I help you.

Hand over the wrench.