Protocol 11: Soft Oppression and Institutional Deviation

This statement is issued as a general guiding principle addressed to organizations that claim to protect artists, writers, and scholars at risk, as well as to those who work within or collaborate with such institutions. It is also addressed directly to artists, writers, and scholars themselves, as a tool of awareness, self-defense, and ethical orientation.

This text does not claim to speak on behalf of a collective, nor does it impose representation.
It establishes a clear ethical, psychological, and institutional standard by which any organization claiming a protective role may be assessed, and by which any artist at risk may evaluate their own situation.

This statement does not emerge from a position of weakness, grievance, or victimhood.
It emerges from a position of self-sovereignty, rights awareness, and refusal to accept the reproduction of oppression through soft, indirect, or “well-intentioned” means.

I. Principle of Alignment with Protection Protocols

The ethical, psychological, and institutional protocols governing the relationship between protection organizations and artists at risk are not optional recommendations, nor public-relations language. They are foundational conditions of legitimacy.

Any deviation from these protocols, whether through silence, justification, procedural evasion, or denial, does not constitute a minor administrative failure. It constitutes institutional deviation that exposes artists to psychological, symbolic, and professional harm.

An organization that fails to align with these protocols:

• does not protect, but manages vulnerability,
• does not shelter, but redistributes power,
• does not support, but trades safety for silence.

II. Anatomy of Soft Oppression

Soft oppression is among the most dangerous forms of harm in environments that present themselves as ethical or rights-based. It operates without overt violence, without direct orders, and without visible punishment, yet it is systematic, cumulative, and psychologically destructive.

Soft oppression manifests through:

• silence instead of confrontation,
• marginalization instead of accountability,
• demonization instead of dialogue,
• reputation management instead of human protection,
• moral language used to suppress dissent,
• and the reframing of the artist as “the problem” rather than addressing institutional failure.

Its effects are not immediate but progressive:

• gradual erosion of identity,
• chronic self-doubt,
• nervous system exhaustion incompatible with creativity,
• social and professional isolation,
• and, in many cases, symptoms consistent with complex psychological trauma.

Soft oppression does not break the body.
It reshapes consciousness around fear and compliance.

III. The Risk of Psychopathic Institutional Practices

Psychopathic practices in institutional contexts do not imply clinical pathology. They refer to patterns of behavior marked by:

• dehumanization in the name of “the greater good,”
• instrumental use of people,
• absence of genuine empathy,
• manipulation of values and narratives,
• and moral disengagement disguised as professionalism.

When an organization falls into these practices, it:

• uses artists against other artists,
• rewards obedience and punishes independence,
• produces scapegoats to protect its legitimacy,
• reframes critique as threat,
• and reproduces the very logic of oppression that artists originally fled.

Such practices are ethically unacceptable, psychologically damaging, and legally dangerous, regardless of the language used to justify them.

IV. Protection of the Artist as an Individual, Not a Collective Instrument

An artist at risk is not a collective management project,
not a balancing tool,
and not a symbolic resource.

They are an individual case with full rights.

They are not required to be:

• liked,
• aligned,
• grateful,
• or silent.

They are required only to be treated as free human beings, entitled to dignity, boundaries, and the right to defend themselves.

Any organization that conditions protection on silence, conformity, or self-erasure fails its core mission.

V. An Open Call to Artists, Writers, and Scholars at Risk

This statement addresses every artist, writer, academic, or scholar at risk, anywhere in the world:

Defending yourself is not aggression.
Setting boundaries is not pathology.
Refusing humiliation is not extremism.
Demanding transparency is not a threat.

Do not accept a narrative of imposed weakness.
Do not allow your protection to become a mechanism of control.
Do not trade your dignity for access or survival.

You are not a “case file.”
You are a full subject.

VI. A Direct Address to Organizations

This statement establishes a non-negotiable standard:

Either align with protection protocols,
or acknowledge openly the limits of your capacity to protect.

Do not use ethics as a mask.
Do not preserve image by destroying an individual.
Do not reproduce oppression in the name of safety.

Legitimacy is not built on silence.
It is built on justice, transparency, and accountability.

Conclusion

This statement is not an accusation.
It is not a declaration of conflict.
It is a document of awareness and responsibility.

A call to exit:

• the logic of fear,
• the logic of silence,
• the logic of victimization,

and to enter:

• the logic of self-sovereignty,
• the logic of mutual protection,
• and the logic of non-negotiable dignity.

The artist is not a burden.
Difference is not a danger.
Truth is not a threat.

Those who cannot tolerate these principles
have no ethical claim to the language of protection.