“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald
reading the news about the latest round of accusations aimed at a political figure has got me vexed over things. I'm already starting to hear rumblings that this is a jilted lover or that they were on board until things stopped working in their favor. I'm not going to name the scandal I'm talking about because that's not the point. The point is that agency and harm are not mutually exclusive. You can make a choice with full intent, even enthusiasm, and still end up harmed by the outcome.
"willing participation" describes the act itself, while “victimhood” describes the cost. Agency exists on a spectrum. Choices are rarely fully free or fully forced. Most sit somewhere in between. Saying “yes” confirms participation, not fairness, safety, or understanding.
Pressure also doesn't mean grinding somebody down until they agree. Social, emotional, and financial dependence can shape decisions without outwardly coercion. Pressure can be invisible shape decisions without explicit coercion.
The big part of this issue is the nuance required. We like things like this to be black and white. Heroes and villains. But human experience doesn’t operate with clear lines between right and wrong, where accountability is simple and outcomes wrapped up nicely. I understand the feeling that some of this falls into the life lesson bucket. Life lessons are supposed to teach you things that you haven't learned any other way. Not put a dent in your life and set you on a painful trajectory.
Accountability and harm can coexist. People can choose willingly and still be damaged. Not everything fits into a clean narratives. Reality is more complex than we like to admit. Act accordingly.