Step Eight tips

 

SEPARATING CAUSE AND EFFECT

• Make a clear distinction between actions one takes (the chief subject matter of Step Eight) and the effect on others (which is what triggers the Step Nine).
• If one writes out the effect, and the sentence starts with the word ‘I’, followed by a verb of which I am the subject, I have merely elaborated on the action; I have not described the effect.

CAUSING OTHERS TO ACT VS INVITING OTHERS TO ACT

• If the effect on someone else consists in an action they took that they otherwise would not have taken, make a distinction between necessitated actions (e.g. one takes an overdose, which necessitates someone else calling an ambulance) and voluntary actions (e.g. I suggest shoplifting and Sally decides to join in the endeavour, or I gossip to Sally, and Sally engages in the gossip): I make amends for the former, because I put the other person out / caused them unnecessary worry; in the latter case, I might make amends for placing them in that position in the first place but I am not making amends for anything they did or the consequences of those actions following their decision to take up the action.
• Influence, encouragement, etc. is harmful only where one is in a position of power because the other person is younger, more junior, or impaired in some way; here, the degree of assumed agency on the other person’s part must be taken into account; the same applies to any relationship where there is a power imbalance, but be careful not to patronise or infantilise the other person in one’s consideration of Step Nine.
• Where the other person is entirely complicit in a joint endeavour, an amend is usually inappropriate, because it implies we have condemned them as well as ourselves and they usually do not believe they did anything wrong; to the extent that they do, they will take responsibility for that and will treat the suggestion that our offer or invitation forced their hand or induced them to act immorally as insulting and demeaning: we just don’t have that sort of power.

MATERIALITY

• A materiality threshold is required in Steps Eight and Nine. Although Step Nine does say that we make amends to all people we harmed, the notion of harm in Step Eight must include an assessment of materiality. Trivial items need not and should not be made amends for, for instance forgetting a piece of information someone had related, being a few minutes late for something, etc. These were wrong but not significant enough to constitute harm. Harm is properly speaking substantial in some way: it will have elicited marked annoyance or anger, material loss, inconvenience or nuisance, or have altered the relationship; items that the person had entirely forgotten about by the time of the amend were likely too trivial for a Step Nine; anything recalled—even if the person had not been personally troubled and / or had entirely gotten over the incident or forgiven it—are good candidates for Step Nine. Theft and other misappropriation, if noticed or known about, do not have a materiality threshold: anything borrowed must be returned (or the return must be offered); consumables (e.g. a lick of someone’s butter from the fridge) might reasonably be excepted from this. Malice or deliberate harm, however petty, is typically worthy of an amend, though.

IMPACT VS HARM

• In Step Eight, I find it helpful to trace through the consequences of all of my actions, in terms of the material effects, the emotion effects on the individuals, the changes in course they caused, the changes in relationships they caused. These I would call the ‘impacts’. Having established these, I might note that, if they are negative at all, they are harmful in a strict sense, but they might not be harms for the purpose of Step Eight because they are too trivial, transient, forgotten, or with the normal bounds of ordinary human interactions and would be absurd, priggish, and scrupulous to make amends for now. Such negative impacts that do not meet the materiality threshold for harm are often remembered more out of embarrassment or damage to one’s own image or reputation than because the conscience is really pricking. Even if impacts identified fall outside the scope of harm or are trivial, their tracing is an important part in the due diligence of Step Eight, as it helps train one in understanding the laws of cause and effect and of moral responsibility.

THE THREE RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY OF WRONGFUL BEHAVIOUR

• Firstly: Outright amend. This is due where I caused extensive, repeated, protracted, or deep annoyance, distress or other negative emotion; where I caused significant extra work, nuisance, inconvenience, or other trouble; cases of material or financial harm; cases of physical harm; behaviour that affected the relationship over time and was not promptly forgiven and forgotten; cases that were not dealt with adequately at the time.
• Secondly: Apology. If I’m quick, I can get in the apology. Apologies can have a shelf-life, and, after a certain time, the incident has been entirely forgotten and left no trace. If one misses the boat, that’s that.
• Thirdly: Tactical learning. Whether neither an amend or an apology is due, there is almost always a lesson for future adjustment of attitude and action.

WHAT I’M LEARNING ABOUT MYSELF

• The process of Step Eight not only is necessary to prepare for Step Nine; it is also useful in revealing to me my own maladjustments. Let me explain:
• As I go through a situation, how I think others did react or might have reacted often sheds ample light on my own reaction patterns. These might include:
  • Taking one small incident and allowing it to colour my whole appreciation of the person
  • Touchiness, sensitivity, swiftness to take offence or chide, emotional immaturity, impatience, intolerance, suspicion, assuming the worst, victimhood, blame of others for what is my own responsibility, and lack of forgiveness
  • When I engage in an activity with someone, blaming them for ‘inducing’ me to engage in it, as though I had no choice or agency.
• Thus the material written in the Step Eight becomes an inversion of my Step Four resentment inventory: I’m essentially imagining the impact based on my own resentfulness. The absurdity is often more striking in the Step Eight than it was in the Step Four.
• One must move away from this towards assessing how a regular person or the person in question, with their actual emotional profile, might have reacted or did react.

EVIDENCE OF HARM

• A lot of speculation is involved in Step Eight, but, except in cases where one did not witness the person’s response or one is dealing with a very discreet person, one usually has evidence of harm.
• Evidence is not required, however, where the action is axiomatically (by its nature) harmful (malice or wilful harm, punitive or angry action, unwanted and inappropriate sexual intrusion or worse, gross dereliction of duty, physical injury including neglect and including to animals, damage to property, theft of money or property, etc.)
• If there is no evidence, however, there is usually no harm.
• Evidence might be:
  • The person saying they were upset, inconvenienced, angry, etc.
  • This being reported by a third party.
  • Actual conflict.
  • Cold-shouldering, frostiness, coolness, or other alterations in the person’s behaviour or that of third parties.
  • Christmas and birthday cards stopping, opportunities drying up, communications reducing in their frequency or narrowing in their content.
  • Actual changes in the course of events after the incident, compared to what was usual or expected.
  • Interventions.

SPLITTING OUT

• Where the harmful act was a form of communication, one often has to split out various elements, to judge the communication effectively.
• For instance:
  • Content
  • Style, tone, and packaging
  • Audience
  • Mode (email, telephone, in person)
  • Context
• In each case, one is looking for which side of the appropriate–inappropriate divide the behaviour falls on.
• With each, specify what happened, and whether there was a legitimate ‘instead’ in the situation.

HOW TO TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WAS RIGHT OR WRONG

• There are three basic reasons some behaviour was wrong:
• Firstly, the act was immoral.
• Secondly, the act breached custom or etiquette.
• Thirdly, the act was unwise given the specifics of the situation and the person(s) involved.
• Always be clear what principle was breached, if any.