Harm and Healing: A Call-Out vs Call-In Culture Examination

In the Search for Justice Having an End Game is Wise.

Whether we like the term or not, if we believe that sexuality is not shameful, consent is essential, exploration can be healthy, and the government, its representatives, and its enforcers should approach intimate matters with a light touch, then we’re involved in the fight for social justice.

Some of us entered this culture war to defend reproductive rights, some for LGBTQ+ rights, fair treatment of willing sex workers, legal protections for non-monogamous, unmarried, and multi-partnered persons, acknowledgment of the sexual rights of those with disabilities, recognition of the rights of those who engage in BDSM activities to do so without harassment… so many paths have led us to this sometimes-contentious fellowship. It’s not a surprise that what we often collectively call a “community” can implode during times of strife, especially when those actively working for change come into philosophical conflict. Such alliances can become brittle, and diplomatic communication can easily break down.

What is left is often a sense of outrage, perhaps coupled with betrayal. We find ourselves at a crossroads. How do we address an individual or a business whose behavior has become seen as inappropriate, unacceptable, or dangerous? How do we continue our search for justice while in a heightened state of emotional turmoil? How do we honor the goal of “Be the change, see the change?” How do we do the right thing and maintain our integrity, humanity, and compassion? How do we see justice done without causing additional harm in the process?

Two popular but strikingly different responses are what is commonly referred to as “call-out” or “call-in.” Those who do not want any of us to do anything sexually unsanctioned with our bodies often refer to the former as “cancel culture.” In extreme cases, it becomes precisely that. Whatever we call them, nearly any self-identified “community” is going to experience the urge to engage in one or the other. Perhaps both. Each has strength and the potential to do harm if misapplied, misused, or misjudged.

In “call-out” culture, those identifying as a harmed party or champion for a harmed party go public with complaints or criticisms. The goal is to warn others about what is perceived or has been experienced as dangerous, objectionable, or otherwise in need of censure. This can be an individual, a business, or a group. This is a laudable ambition. It is also a path rife with risk. The internet makes it easier than ever to “call-out.” This technique has been used with some success to confront and identify people, organizations, and activities associated with a variety of hate groups. When used within a sex-positive community, its focus is often to ostracize, boycott, or shun in hopes of members being protected from harm or exploitation.

Again, laudable goals. But is public shaming always the most effective or appropriate way to address objectionable, concerning, or problematic behavior?

An alternative is “call-in” culture, which focuses more on finding a less reactionary, more productive, positive, growth-focused solution. This is not always possible but may prove useful when healing, accountability, and greater mutual understanding are the hoped-for results. “Call-in” culture is gaining popularity within social justice groups in part due to in-fighting and the resulting damage to activist efforts. The frustratingly gentle methodology of “call-in” culture promotes direct contact either in person one-on-one, in a mediated or negotiated setting, or through private communication.

Social media is a trickster technology because it makes engaging in “call-out” culture so easy but “call-in” culture seem so difficult. The latter does require a more level head, steady nerves, and a calmer emotional state, none of which are satisfying in the moment. “Call-in” culture plays the long game. It’s an investment, however grudgingly offered. When we “call-in,” we create an invitation to dialogue. There’s no guarantee the dialogue will be devoid of emotional discomfort, but if a soul can be saved, shall we say, it’s probably worth the trouble.

Just as there are more and less successful ways to approach someone whose words or actions have been found objectionable, the same can be said for hearing criticisms, especially if harshly worded and accusatory. As activists and participants in sexual activities and communities, we know that mistakes are made, communication breaks down, emotions take control, and trauma responses can take the wheel next to Jesus.

Fortunately, wiser minds than ours (or at least mine) have tackled this topic and shared some wisdom. Professor Loretta J. Ross has presented a TED Talk entitled “Don’t call people out – call them in.” Among other topics she covers in her talks and university classes are how to handle uncomfortable conversations and determine when a “call-out” is appropriate.

My guess is that many people who engage in controversial activities or express controversial opinions will be called-out at some point. Some will richly deserve it, some will be harmed by it, some will be unfairly targeted, and, hopefully, everyone can learn something from it.

I have certainly received my share of “call-out” communiques. I won’t pretend that I was the voice of reason when initially confronted by them. In fact, I can state with confidence that being on the receiving end of an unexpected “call-out” can result in a very defensive initial reaction. Most of us are trauma survivors, so the fight or flight response can be hard to immediately control. Because of this, I and the Harvard “Calling In and Calling Out Guide” strongly recommend that we take a breath, ground ourselves, listen with the intent to learn, reflect, and not beat ourselves up or “go into a shame spiral.” Instead, be kind to ourselves even if we have erred in some way.

Frankly, we would all benefit from a little more kindness. Together we stand. Divided we fall.