Monday, November 12, 2012

Response to Kaeshi & Brad—Part V: Kaeshi's "Red Zone"

The day after I posted my critique of PURE's War & Peace performance in an Open Letter to Kaeshi Chai, she sent a response that I understand made significant rounds through the internet. Since it contains many false and hurtful statements about me and others, I feel compelled to respond.

What follows is the fifth part of that response. For further info, please see:
(Kaeshi's letter, continued)
It was also during this mediation when I realized she finally hit my "red zone" with the sheer amount of anger pouring out of her (this time it was not directed at me, it directed [sic] at someone else). 
Once again, Kaeshi insinuates something terrible happened here, but gives no detail whatsoever of what that might have been.

Because it is a lie.

First, I do not even know what "sheer amount of anger pouring out of her" means.

Was I yelling and screaming? Did I jump on a table? Did I spit seething invective at this "someone else"? Did my head spin around?

Of course not.

It is all a fabrication. Interesting that she mentions "someone else," but doesn't name Pacita, most likely because she does not want Pacita to be put in the position of lying for her.

So. What did happen? Well, there were hurt feelings and miscommunications to be discussed, but this was to be expected. Indeed, Kaeshi acknowledged the value of such emotions in her letter to us: "If there are some heightened emotions it's because I know it stems from caring about PURE and wanting it to be it's [sic] best."

But in all, emotions notwithstanding, I recall the tone being respectful and moderate.

I believe Kaeshi's "red zone" was not an outburst of mine, but this:

Since the argument over the Halloween Parade was caused by leadership confusion, I asked, "Well, why don't you just make me the Lead Facilitator of PURE NYC? You are still the Artistic Director, but I am already doing this job—it's a lot of work but I'm happy to do it because I believe in PURE—plus others are looking to me to do it. So let's just make it official and end the confusion."

And she answered—I kid you not—she said, "I can't make you the Lead Facilitator. Your personality is too unstable."

I was shocked ... speechless for maybe a minute.

I asked how she could possibly think this. I asked if she could give some concrete example that led her to believe this... she had none. I pointed out that I had already been a Facilitator for quite a while, and had been acting as Lead Facilitator because people were coming to me for minor decisions, organization, and to keep projects on track. And, indeed, that perception was behind the very conflict that we were discussing.

So if I was "stable" enough to actually do the job, why would I not be "stable" enough to be given the title officially?

She had no answer.

Then, I said, "Well... If you really think this... then I probably should not continue in PURE."

She began to backpedal, to argue for me to stay, saying how much she appreciated my work and my dedication to PURE. But she held fast to this absurd conviction that "[my] personality [was] too unstable."

Now. This is upsetting for so many, many reasons:

First, to say such a thing in that way is personally and professionally insensitive, if not downright insulting.

Second, it is untrue—she even admitted being unable to substantiate it—yet she stated it as though it were an absolute, unquestionable fact.

Third, not only is it untrue, she has no reasonable basis and certainly no qualification for making such an assertion.

Fourth: Even if she did have this qualification, and if it were true, to say such a thing in a public setting completely and utterly lacks class, tact, compassion, integrity, and basic human decency.

 It is the act of a beast.

And yet what is most upsetting of all is that she said it so casually, almost blithely—as though it were completely obvious to me and everyone else. It was as though she expected me to say, "Oh riiiggghhtt! Of course!! I'm unstable! Duh! How silly of me to have forgotten that..."

But instead I challenged her, asked for explanation, asked for detail.

And there was none.

So I believe her "red zone" was that I did not uncritically accept her very damning and unfair view of me—a view which she had used to justify her unwillingness to appropriately credit the considerable amount of work I had done for PURE—and that I stood up for the recognition I deserved.

And this was unacceptable to her.
I had a very lucid moment of realization where it was crystal clear that I no longer wanted her to be a regular part of my life, that to continue working with her would mean continual stress and more many more mediations into the future, plus less time with others that I wanted to spend time with.
It is difficult to speak to this. Personalities mesh and clash in inscrutable ways, but there are two points to remember here:

(1) Kaeshi and I had worked together closely and productively for seven years. If we were so wholly incompatible, wouldn't that have surfaced much earlier?

Granted, there are long relationships where small grievances build up for many years, and finally become intolerable. But, again, in keeping with PURE's mission of healing and peace, shouldn't Kaeshi have sought to deal directly and honestly with whatever negative feelings she had towards me before those feelings erupted in such a destructive way?

Rather she exaggerated or outright fabricated a negative image of me to justify her uncomfortable feelings. And she has tried to convince others of that defamatory view.

(2) If she felt "continual stress" in my presence, but could offer no concrete evidence of any action of mine that caused it, shouldn't she look inside herself for the source of that stress? Is that not the better course to peace and reconciliation?

Lastly, she mentions "many more mediations into the future" implying that we had had mediations beforehand. We did not. When we returned from Florida she sent several insulting messages demanding to meet with me. I finally agreed, but asked for a mediator. Then she refused. (More on this later.)

This is when she became fixated on the idea of "mediations." It had never come up before that.

To be continued in Part VI: Violent Communications
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)