The Harms of Withdrawal

In this paper, I will explain: 1) Scanlon’s paradigm case of “Exit-Style Blame” (ESB), 2) how Agnes Callard’s “co-valuing” framework makes sense of our relational obligations in relationships of attachment, 3) how communicating one’s Strawsonian reactive attitudes is necessary for emotional vulnerability and valuing others, and 4) why exit-style blame is wrong and fails to express our subjective experience and solidify relational expectations. Some may argue that reactive communication of blame will only incite unproductive counter-anger or that this argument wrongly prescribes behavior universally. Nevertheless, without communicating some degree of our reactive attitudes when we are subject to them, we fail to express what we find valuable or harmful in the actions of those closest to us. This exclusion of our emotional experience wrongs the recipient of ESB, as it fails two epistemic and one practical obligation we have in relationships of attachment. Epistemically, we are obliged to explain what actions elicited reactive attitudes and some degree of our subjective affective experience. And since those we are close to regularly rely on our support and valuing, we are practically obligated to grant an opportunity for the wrongdoer to apologize and make amends for their wrong.