3 Dynamics You Might Not Be Aware of in Your Group
You're feeling icky for a reason. Let's talk about why.
Most of us have heard some form of the following statements. When you read these, see if they cause that little ick feeling in your gut.
"I love you, but you’re a jerk.”
“I care about you, but you really need to get it together.”
“You’re super smart, but you’re so dumb.”
“I love you even though you’re such a pain.”
What’s the underlying message in all of this?
“I am better, smarter, and more intelligent than you, and you should thank God that someone like me is willing to even keep you in my life.”
We don’t even realize that’s what we are actually saying. In fact, if we are called on it, we’d deny it. We would fight it. We would probably even be hurt by the insinuation that we are being manipulative or insulting. We might say that we certainly didn’t mean something THAT negative. It’s a joke, right? We say these things and we laugh because of course we would never say something that jacked up to someone we care about.
Except, we do. All the time.
You’ve heard statements like these in various forms throughout your life, from people who you genuinely thought loved you or wanted the best for you. If you’re like me, you couldn’t quite put your finger on the thing that made these statements always feel so gross, though. Many years and a lot of training later, I get it.
The reason that these statements feel so gross is because they make us feel small. The part that we struggle with accepting is that they’re meant to do that.
These phrases aren’t just clumsy expressions of love mixed with frustration. They are emotional maneuvers—conscious or not—that reinforce a hierarchy: I am the bigger person. You are lucky I’m here at all.
That’s not love or caring or even decency—that’s control dressed as grace.
Yes, the person who said that to you is attempting to make you feel small. They might not be doing it out of malice, but they’re doing it nonetheless.
At this point you might be wondering why I’m writing about relationship stuff when I’m supposed to be writing about group dynamics in political activism. What does this even have to do with you and your group?
Everything.
How we treat people in close relationships often mirrors how we show up in collective spaces. Power dynamics don’t disappear when we enter activist circles, and we don’t suddenly become someone else—we just become MORE of what we already are. If we don’t recognize when we’re chasing validation at someone else’s expense in private, we’ll recreate that same dynamic in public, and do it to a whole new level.
It’s important to note that everything that you think, do, or are, affects your political activism. It’s why I argue so strongly against people being in your group when they have major issues that are seemingly unrelated—because no issue is unrelated.
Whether you realize it or not, the need for validation doesn’t just make us engage in acts we wouldn’t normally do in an effort to prove ourselves or feel like we matter, it also can cause us to hurt people and relationships that matter to us, in an effort to feel safe. That translates to problems in your group.
1. Power Dynamics: The One-Up/One-Down Position
The one-up/one-down is when someone puts a positive statement with a negative, demeaning, or even abusive one, linking the two with the word “but.”
The word ‘but,’ you may remember, stands for “Behold the Underlying Truth.” In deception analysis, whatever comes AFTER the ‘but’ is the important part—so much so, that sometimes you can completely set aside what came before it. “But” is THAT important.
The reason we feel so much ‘ick’ when someone makes a statement like this is because we instinctively recognize that they’ve activated shame in us, even if we cannot verbalize exactly how. By default, it puts you in a position to feel like you need to defend yourself, OR accept inferiority for the sake of the relationship. That’s not friendship, or bonding, or emotional intimacy—it’s just another example of leverage through shame and conditional acceptance.
2. Emotional Safety as a Power Currency
In any group, whether we are talking about a family unit, a friend group, or even an activism group, there is an unspoken rule about who gets to feel safe. I’m not talking about warm and fuzzy safe spaces and inclusion-y things, I’m talking about the basic responsibility we have to not verbally or emotionally harm the people around us.
Specifically in an activism group, there are dynamics that aren’t just about feeling good, they’re about legitimacy and even identity.
Whoever is the most powerful leader (and not necessarily the one who’s positionally in charge) will dictate the culture. If that culture involves their own need for validation, you will see that emotional safety and validation for members are tied directly to agreement, allowance, and self-abandonment to maintain worth in the group.
3. Validation as a Power Loop
I mentioned earlier that our need for validation can cause us to hurt people in an effort to feel safe.
Someone in a group may engage in all manner of tactics:
Correcting someone or dismissing them in front of others, such as in a meeting, so that they understand their (lower) place in the hierarchy.
Offering “love” (acceptance or feeling like part of the group) while still undermining their voice so that everyone knows who’s in and who’s out.
Using rudeness and condescension disguised as “tough love” or directness.
Being defensive when called out, seeking to flip the script and portray the person standing up for themselves as the attacker. That’s gaslighting.
The validation loop becomes: “I love/accept/like/allow you, but I need you to be small so I can stay safe/important/approved/right.”
Members now must decide which is more important: their dignity and their self-worth long-term, or the short-term hits of validation?
Most people, interestingly enough, will choose short-term validation because it comes with instant gratification and the dopamine we all crave.
Unfortunately, that locks us into a cycle because of the validation/shame scale.
It takes an emotionally healthy person, who does not have an external validation object, to choose the truth over the dopamine hit—especially when doing so means going toe-to-toe with someone who is willing to harm you to protect themselves. One more thing: it isn’t love or brotherhood or even healthy interaction. That’s control, negative manipulation, and quite frankly, you should find a new group if this is how your leadership is.
Moving Forward
If we want healthier political activism, we need healthier people in our groups. That starts with refusing to normalize subtle emotional tactics that make others shrink so we can feel secure. The antidote to all of this isn't performative niceness or conflict avoidance. It's accountability, beginning with ourselves.
Start by noticing how often you use the word "but" in praise or connection, and ask yourself what you're really trying to say. Practice making statements that don’t rely on contrast or superiority to be heard; for instance, next time you start to use “but,” substitute the word “and.” How does that change the message you’re sending?
In your group, observe who controls the emotional tone and whether dissent is met with curiosity or correction. Paying attention to this might also expose bad leadership or groupthink. Build a culture where emotional safety isn’t a reward for compliance but a baseline expectation. Remember: we recreate in public what we have not addressed in private. The personal is political—and if we want resilient movements, we must stop letting shame masquerade as leadership.