Ableism - Yorkshire Ambulance Service

With huge thanks to Yorkshire Ambulance Service for inviting me to talk to your trustees on matters of ableism. As ever 1000 words and 20 slides do not convey 2 hours of magical chaos that is a conversation! 

 

 It no longer comes as a surprise that there are contrasting views between those who have rarely had a need to think about disability, and those who have experienced the way their difference- or those of loved ones - has been dealt with by society. There’s a journey, many mention, in finding 'Disabled' a comfortable identity. Parents of disabled children willl tell you of the ongoing battles to education, health and support. The idea that non-disabled individuals, organisations, and institutions throw their doors open, or that paths to education, health, leisure, justice are clearly signed and barrier free is the stuff of fairytales. There’s no parallel world where disabled people are showered with riches, quite the opposite fighting  to have your needs met and human rights acknowledged, is a tedious battle.

 

A fair world

The words I hear most often is "I never knew what I needed to know". Many will say they’ve never had to think about what ‘disability’ means,  they been happy to assume the problem dealt with, that with laws and legislation have redressed inequality and injustice.  
  
When prodded initial responses are that disability a personal or a health issue, the remit of specialists and institutions, but not the matter of professional commitment or organisational duty. Thus ableism is rarely viewed as part of core purpose or the strategic conversation of boards addressing the societal impact of organisational activity.   Sadly, these beliefs often sit far deeper in our hearts, than in a our heads as thoughts. Therefore what is assumed is rarely challenged, leaving the stereotypes we don’t expose hidden so deep they can’t be contradicted. The landscape we live in, the culture around us - conversation, text  and media - informs our mindscape.as we bathe in words and images we rarely question.

 

Being nice is not trust 

Being nice does not equate to being trusted, when in text and conversation, what disabled people say is judged according to more established ideas. Hate crime literature is clear, the common response to "I have been harassed, abused or attacked" is "I doubt it was mean, you're joking!"  Disabled people get used to being challenged in ways colleagues, professionals, family members and close friends do not. 

 

I undertook my research, because as a trustee, I was continually baffled by the lack of reference to the voice of disabled people, D/deaf and Disabled People's Organisation’s or Disability Equality in strategic conversation. While the people around me were sometimes fluent in their ideas of feminism, they had no language to articulate the discrimination imposed on the disabled population.

 

Privilege

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘privilege’ as a right, advantage or immunity, belonging to person, class or office, giving that individual special advantage or benefit. Pease (2013) defines privilege as an unacknowledged position often left unarticulated or unchallenged. This unearned advantage, he suggests, limits people’s capacity to be reflexive in thought, and ultimately allies in the fight against disabled people’s oppression.  Privilege thus may be viewed as a coin: on the one (positive) side, situation affords control while on the opposite (negative) side it secures the very elitism that adds critical pressure to all layers of the social hierarchy.  This may help to explain why disabled people can be as ableist  when using their ability to secure authority over others [supremacy].

Able Privilege, is the unearned advantage of not facing ableism, the absence of the prejudice, discrimination and injustice weighing on the disabled population.  A position often left unarticulated and unchallenged.   Able-privilege is not about impairment/difference or identity, but about whether you face ableism on a daily basis. The privilege is to be able to never have to worry about your differences being a significant problem to others. Ableism, akin to racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, classism…. You don’t have to experience ableism to stand against it.

 

Equating to colour-blind, not acknowledging the prejudice, discrimination and systemic inequality the disabled population face means the issues linked to their human rights can be ignored. The continued battles for equal access to education, health, social justice, employment, leisure, family & community choices and participation. When people ignore that disabled individuals face substantial barriers then reasonable adjustments, fair treatment and pragmatic equality is more likely to be denied. 

 

Definitions

I  work to two definitions based on what I’ve read:

Ableism: a specific type of oppression, akin to homophobia, racism, classism, ageism, and sexism, held in the culture and language that inform society’s debates.

Anti-ableist: a defined position against ableism, the characteristic oppression that disabled people face - feminist or anti-racist.  Strategic ideas, for example, with an anti-ableist legitimacy involves explicit reference to the Disabled people’s movement and D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations as tellers in a storytelling that holds their interests at their heart.

 

I work as an anti-ableist, which means in seek in my practice, and my writing, to articulate an opposition to the ableism in the world around me. Notwithstanding the experience of individuals, and while allowing them choices of identity, I act to disrupt the institutional and societal narratives that perpetuate ableism. 

 

Tolerance is not acceptance

‘Nice people’, rather than anti-ableists, will be more likely to view their willingness  to tolerate disabled people as a good thing. Sadly, this does more to ‘other' those then only accepted on a conditional basis. This falls far too short of acknowledging the population of 1 in 10, 9 in 10 experience hate crime. Without a definition, there is no way of identifying the characteristic discrimination imposed on disabled people. If we don't speak about ableism, it doesn't exist, because it is not something we give time to - or that we acknowledge. 

 

Erasure

Disabled authors have gone to great efforts to define their experience, by doing so they encourage us to focus on the injustice they face.  Moving beyond issues of identity is critical, because while the predicament of impairment or difference and personal prejudice is significant, recognising experience does not go far enough to explain the startling figures that characterise the inequality the disabled population face. It is culture that is toxic, with ableism so pervasive many cannot put a word to, despite the harm it does it's and omnipresence. The negative ideas, however small add up, and the storytelling that surrounds us gently seeps negatively into our hearts.  In the same way that critical race theory has given us a language to articulate the structural racism people face, critical disability theory has led to a now growing terminology for the societal discrimination imposed on disabled people as a population.

 

Misrepresentation is most evident in the textual world, where a noticeable silencing acts to tell us that disabled people are untrustworthy. 
Disabled people are not recognised as authors, thereby denied a voice as writers of knowledge in documents that reinforce their marginalisation. 
Misrepresentation is most evident in the textual world, where a noticeable silencing acts to tell us that disabled people are untrustworthy. 
Disabled people are not recognised as authors, thereby denied a voice as writers of knowledge in documents that reinforce their marginalisation. 

 

Developing Alliship

Being an ally, in the anti-ableist sense, means developing a fluency around matters of group interest. See I'll always save a room for you!  Professional wisdom is a beautiful thing, especially when applied to working practice and workplace relationships. While not forgetting that identity and activism is hugely important, as they are the first step in acknowledging personal experience, the fight against injustice is also important. Therefore, an outward looking stance, on that faces different oppressions, frees us up to stand beside, not above or in front of, those most disadvantaged by them.  I stand against marginalisation, not because of my experience, but because denying alternative views adds insult to the experience of discrimination and inequality.

 

As an ally, I can voice my anger against racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, and help protect family and gender choice, without rejecting anybody’s personal experience. However, I will need to acknowledge the voices of other groups face in order to take a stand against different discriminations in turn. I can’t agree without others without understanding their perspective! My allyship as a sister, a friend, a colleague and a neighbour is in the action I take to minimise the harm that heads their way.

 

My do do list:

Years ago when I began delivering training I followed the methods of the day, giving professionals lists of ‘bad’ words to avoid. Sadly, when doing a piece of research on respectful language, I found out that professionals felt confused by this and afraid to talk to disabled professionals. I have also been confused by ‘don’t say’ lists in other subjects which left me fearful of conversations about racism, classism or homophobia.  In many conversations recently, several non-disabled professionals also said they feel they can’t talk about disability because they don’t know what to say and they haven’t experienced it. I do not experience racism, but I believe I’m part of the problem if I can’t articulate it adequately.

So this is my ‘do’ list, an attempt to respond to the comment “what can I say?

Do do list

Organisations  present as cultures that disable workers,  yet professionals need to feel able to participate fully – whether or not they have impairments themselves. To avoid the myths… a ‘do’ list responds to the comment “what can I say?!”

 

Do ask colleagues what they need to participate. Before a conversation about reasonable adjustments is possible, it is always a good idea to ask easier questions about flexible working. A question most professionals can answer allows disabled people the choice of whether to disclose – or not. 

Do talk about the size of the disabled population, stressing vast numbers, huge inequality, lack of visibility and wide variation. This helps contradict the assumption that disabled individuals are few and far between. A separate group to those people facing sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, family and partner choice.

Do highlight the discrimination imposed on disabled people. Articulate professional identity separately, because respecting choice helps us focus on addressing unfair disadvantage.

Do make the assumption that disabled people have fought, and that to be visible an individual will have probably overcome huge barriers to achieve the life goals many can take for granted, there’ll be many more with impairments that you will not notice. 

Do refer to D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations as the voice of the disabled population. Individual experience is just the first step, the bare minimum, you need to learn an articulation of institutional discrimination and systemic inequality people face.

Do refer to the societal and environmental aspects of discrimination – ableism – in the same way as you would have a speak in anti-racist or anti-sexist terms.

Do state often that organisational culture, and more broadly society, does not do enough to speak of the discrimination and inequality the disabled population are subject to – this failure to uphold human rights is ultimately a cost to all communities.

Do ask about identity, but allow individuals not to. This is far more respectful once a professional relationship has been established. Disabled individuals will have different words for experience, knowledge and wisdom on these issues – as do feminists. Allow for choice, and respect personal boundaries. Illness, impairment and difference, contrary to society’s storytelling, are private matters.

 

Disability Equality before awareness 

Seeking and responding to ‘lived experience’, is essential yet an unsatisfactory minimum, as it only addresses the prejudice and barriers at individual level. Furthermore, we can’t ask every labelled learner in turn what they understand by discrimination, without imposing on their time and generosity. We have to trust the voices those who have also gained research evidence and professional wisdom on these matters.  Disability equality give us frame, a language, like torchlight in the darkness, that highlights a specific sensitivity to ableism. As feminism gives us a sensitivity to sexism in the male gaze.  Through its lens, disability equality helps us question the ableism in ideology by highlighting misrepresentation in discourse.    The Disabled people's movement in the UK has used the term Disabled for many years.  Disabled, rather than people with disabilities, is used to emphasise the idea that Disabled people are disabled by the world rather than having a difference. Also, the oppression imposed on disabled people has a character. For many this can be viewed as a form testimonial silencing apparent in the telling of globe-local our stories. While storytelling may seem neutral, many authors, unwittingly, tend to focus on personal experience, and if trusted at all, use their own assumptions to replace the evidence or the working wisdom of academics and professionals identifying as disabled. For a growing number, therefore, using the term disabled, reflects a journey - a step into a movement. It is a choice to write, and co-author, on shared interest: speaking with activism and with intent to disrupt.

 

Disabled people themselves express as their interests - the story they tell. The civil rights movement, disabled people have organisations who tell a story of shared interest. The disability activist and scholar, Oliver, refers to alternative ways of questioning experience:

the medical model as asking the question: ‘What is wrong with you?’.

And, the social model as asking the question: “What is wrong with society?’

 

Accountability 

A definition of accountability, that refers to the character of discrimination, helps articulate and intentional intent within organisation purpose in everyday practice.    Suggested by Sinclair’s writings, the idea of a chameleon serves well as a metaphor for accountability. Because, as an animal that can change its colours to represent its surroundings, as the picture illustrates the beastie still manages to clearly display a response to discrimination  without changing its being.  An organisation wishing to represent its human rights imperative, can choose to state the interests of the disabled population within its accounts by making them explicitly within its storytelling, thereby still keeping its  integrity and purpose.  This implies its responsibility to also provide a trustworthy account of that dialogue. If the dialogue is skewed, the population is mis-represented, then those that are entitled to have a voice in the conversation are effectively silenced. The account is no longer proof of legitimacy, as it does not articulate equity, a shared decision about interests and fair participation in stewardship. 

 

A legitimacy gap 

A shorthand for lack-of-accountability, the gap is often a prejudiced response, a reaction to myth, rather that acknowledgement of voice.  The legitimacy gap refers to the amount organisational storytelling differs from interests [Disabled People's Organisation].

 

Leadership  teams who acknowledge the significance of disability equality can more ably respond in personal, organisational and public conversations by talking of barriers and injustice from an organisational perspective.  Pragmatic equality, or justice for disabled people, at the very least requires that discrimination does not add to the other injustices in the world. Another way of thinking about it might be to say that a world that is (pragmatically) equal in respect of disability should contain the same degree of inequality between disabled people as there is between non-disabled people (Wolff, 2011).

 

 

 

Trust me, why would I lie!?

My thanks to Touch Consulting, and the Joy FE community, who makes the #FestivalFridays conversations possible. A learning network of courageous practitioners who are resistance to the established norms that can hinder the well-being of those struggling to flourish within education.

I enjoy the enthusiasm in the lead up to a presentation, there’s an energy that comes of being wanted. A thrill, and anxiety, that is motivating and exhausting in equal measure… I’m no longer surprised that the linear story I have in my head, put into text with supporting 34 snapshots, rarely ever matches the messiness of the conversation in the room. Years of keynotes do not compare well to the joyful chaos of building understanding in the room.

I started with a trigger warning, not because it’s fashionable, but because we know that 9 in 10 disabled people report hate crime every year.  Therefore, we can assume that violence is recognised in most rooms, because one in ten individuals can identify as disabled- should they wish. I explained that while the story was mine, we were having a professional dialogue, so the storytelling was framed by evidence and theory [Disability Studies among others]. 

I am sharing professional wisdom - that’s 30+ years of conversation.  Like discussions about critical race or gender, ones about critical disability is a specialised subject with an extensive knowledge base [you wouldn’t stop random individuals on the street as it could be potentially traumatising]. 

Othering emerged fast as an emotional tension in the room; talking about disability is uncomfortable because the ‘them’ and ‘us’ continuum becomes more visible when we talk about who’s in/out. I too get tongue-tied and stutter in the choice of ‘them’ and ‘us’. Should I identify as a disabled author, or am I writing as an equal scholar in a discipline I've studied for decades - leadership. I'd prefer to let people identify as Disabled or non-disabled, rather than assume ... get it wrong. 

Clearly, there’s more to it than what’s wrong with you… what about society? Where’s the difference, mobility, impairment, glasses, dyslexia?  The question is do you identify, surely? Do you face ableism? One in ten of us may choose, that's a huge group. 

Truth is terminology, or lack of it, hinders definition or clarity. A single word, disability, covers so many notions, it’s not surprising we struggle to find accuracy - let alone alignment or agreement.  Words fail when it comes to nuance: label, diagnosis, politics, difference, impairment, network, community - disability has been used willy-nilly and every which way. To define ableism, I have used ortho-toxic, a portemanteau term, to describe the violent ideas and assumptions imposed on the disabled population. It means I don’t have to point a finger - at individuals or groups - people can identify as they wish.  It’s clear it’s not always a reflection within easy reach, many will say they’ve never encountered sexism, for example, others say islamophobia appears the minute they cross their own doorstep. 

It is surprising how many of us can ignore the subject of disability altogether, while others see it as an aspect of human diversity, yet more will recoil in horror or embarrassment… how dare you bring your elephant to the room…  it’s hard to identify, as I explained, you run the risk of being dismissed [see Kafer on testimonial injustice].

Misrepresentation is evident in the textual world, where a noticeable silencing tells us that disabled people are untrustworthy.  Disabled people are not recognised as authors, thereby denied a voice in mainstream debates that impact them negatively. Rarely referred to as writers with authority, creators of knowledge, in documents that largely reinforce their marginalisation instead.

Why would I lie?

This shape of silence is hard to describe but essential to describe the framing of d/Disabled authors in text. Selective editing of 1st hand experience, giving a framed story with a medicalised view of the person as the problem. Denying the systemic, institutional and social violence reminiscent of #MeToo and #BLM campaigns. It seems the paid-pen exercises its privilege, not exclusively held by white, professional men, but under a more omnipresent cis/white/elitist gaze. Resistance is far harder for the pens held by those not fighting racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance or prejudice linked to partner and family choice. The 9 protected characteristics should be equitable categories, but cumulative impact is rarely articulated in guidance. If disability is mentioned on reference lists, details are shed, and divergent voices are erased, as unconsciously layers become shorter to save wordage in the final draft. Where disability may be ninth in a list in the introduction, sometimes mentioned in the review, it then disappears in discussion… as for the reference section watch the tumbleweed.  Of course, disabled writers may not identify for fear of having their texts judged harshly, and many write from 1st experience rather than with activism or accountability to other disciplines and professional journals. Disability in title rarely translates to existing knowledge, or knowers in the narrative. Assumptions and bias obvious in the individualising, personalising, uniqueness of condition or individual. This writes away the dimensions of institutional and systemic discrimination and societal disadvantage.

The impact of silencing is apparent where assumptions become myths reinforcing the stereotypes that themselves grow from ignorance - not experience or research evidence. The belief that a mere few need consideration, therefore the problem can be attributed to the unlucky or the undeserving. The omission in disciplinary and professional texts, forgotten in the granular, or believed to be the problem [cost] of another department, profession, or institution. The idea that there’s a line to be drawn between those who can and those who cannot fit into the system; the rules imposed keeping some watching from afar and others further yet beyond the walls. Finally, the dehumanising of those then viewed as public property; from research to the pool-side, experience is used, revised or demanded as it is considered both cheap and devoid of typical privacy - no consent or care required in the probing.

Accountability, or rather the legitimacy gap that is articulated here, denotes a breakdown of trust where reputation lacks any acknowledgement to the disabled population, disability equality or the interests of the disabled people’s movement [D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations].  Where legitimacy theory can be defined as the ability to respond to civil groups it will need to demonstrate an intent to address their interests fully in organisational accounts - and society’s storytelling. 

As Oswick et al. put forward, a radical travelling theory is one that moves beyond its own domain of production to be adopted by existing ones with equal measure. A theory that adopts anti-ableism in its intent, therefore, needs broad applicability [Social Model]; so that it can effectively begin ‘a process of repackaging, refining, and repositioning a discourse (or text) that circulates in a particular community for consumption within another community’ (2011, p. 323).

From the sadness at birth, testing for school, a poor practice that stigmatises, barriers, denigration and rejection in the workplace, made victims by justice and barred entry to transport, housing and leisure, the reduction of the human rights agenda applied to disabled people is reduced to care and cure, and adds massive cost to society. Plus, there's no price on the emotional burden imposed on many!

Trust me!

Just ‘any effort’ isn’t sufficient, the imperative behind practice needs to be with the right effort and have deliberate intentionality. While good, best and proactive practice sometimes equates, addressing ableism doesn’t happen by accident while chasing efficiency. Because being better at treating people fairly means recognising an agenda broader than financial value. Divisible or conditional human rights is a nonsense! Cutting down on worth and values, will not achieve more equitable culture(s). Practice will need to change to avoid the very activity that compounds the structural discrimination and the impact of inequality experienced by so many.  Addressing ableism is like tapping your head while rubbing your tummy, different actions are required at individual, team and organisational levels. 

 

 

Bibliography

Aikaterini Malli, M., Sams, L., Forrest, R., Murphy, G., & Henwood, M. (2018). Austerity and the lives of people with learning disabilities. A thematic synthesis of current literature. Disabiity & Society, 1412-1435 .

Anderson, T. (2017). Telling the story of disability. Retrieved 11 10, 2018, from Washington state university libraries: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/12238

Beauchamp-Pryor, K. (2012, 6 20). From absent to active voices: securing disability equality within higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(3), 283-295.

Beresford, P. (2003). It's our lives, A short theory of Knowledge, Distance and Experience. London: Citizen Press / Shaping our lives.

Campbell, J., & Gillespie-Sells, K. (1991). Disability Equality Training: a trainers guide. London: CCETSW.

Chapman , L. M. (2013). A Different Perspective on Inclusive Practice Respectful Language . Huddersfield: EQTraining Publishing .

Chapman, L. M. (2016, feb 26). The words that bind us . Retrieved Aug 12, 2017, from The Language Of Respect : http://languageofrespect.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-words-that-bind-us.html

Crow, L. (2014, 8 28). Scroungers and Superhumans: Images of Disability from the Summer of 2012: A Visual Inquiry. Journal of visual culture, 13(2), pp. 168-181.

Disability Rights UK. (2012). The Equality Act and disabled people. Retrieved 11 13, 2019, from Disability Rights UK: https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/equality-act-and-disabled-people

Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. San Francisco: University of Michigan Press.

Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2016). Disability and Social Media: Global Perspectives [Kindle Edition]. abingdon: Routledge.

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2016). Crime and disabled people: Measures of disability-related harassment 2016 update. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Fenney Salked, D. (2016). Sustainable lifestyles for all? Disability equality, sustainability and the limitations of current UK policy. Disability & Society, 447-464.

Frame Works. (2016). How to Talk About Disability and Human Rights. Frame Works. Washington: Frame Works.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Fullan, M. (2011). The Moral Imperative Realized. Thousand Oakes: Corwin sage.

Goodley, D. (2012). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hall, A. (2016). Literature and Disability (Literature and Contemporary Thought) [Kindle Edition]. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hawley, K. (2012). Trust: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) kindle edition. Ashford: OUP Oxford; 1 edition .

Hughes, B. (2015, Sept 11). Disabled people as counterfeit citizens: the politics of resentment past and present'. Disability and Society, 14.

Hybels, R. C. (2017, 12 13). On Legitimacy, Legitimation, And Organizations: A Critical Review And Integrative Theoretical Model. Academy Of Management Proceedings, 1995(1).

Inclusion London. (2020). Disability hate crime . Retrieved 4 4, 2020, from https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/campaigns-and-policy/facts-and-information/hate-crime/

Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

McRuer, R. (2006). Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability (Cultural Front) [Kindle Edition].New York : New York University Press.

Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data . Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 419-438.

Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes of organizational theory building . Academy of Management Review, 318–337.

Papworth Trust. (2018, 5 5). Papworth Trust's Disability in the UK: Facts and Figures 2018. Retrieved 8 16, 2018, from Papworth Trust: https://www.actionduchenne.org/news/papworth-trusts-disability-in-the-uk-facts-and-figures-2018

Pennycock, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice . Abingdon: Routledge.

Perry, D. M. (2016, 2 25). How “Inspiration Porn” Reporting Objectifies People With Disabilities. Retrieved 11 11, 2018, from Medium: https://medium.com/the-establishment/how-inspiration-porn-reporting-objectifies-people-with-disabilities-db30023e3d2b

Qa Research. (2017). ‘It’s broken her’ – Assessments for disability bene ts and mental health 3. Rethink Mental Illness. Rethink Mental Illness.

Sergiovanni, T. (1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision. Journal of curculum and seprevision, No 1.5-17 5.

Slorach, R. (2015). A Very Capitalist Condition: A History and Politics of Disability. London: Bloomsbury.

Smith, D. (2016). Disability in the United Kingdom. Papworth trust. Cambridge: Papworth trust.

Sommers, J. (2017, 8 22). Disabled People's Right To An Independent Life Being Eroded By Cuts, Equalities Commission Warns . Retrieved 11 29, 2017, from Huffington Post: http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_599c473ce4b06a788a2bef3

 

Nelly in the room

In the last post, I distracted myself so much with a metaphor about elephants I thought I’d give it a fresh field here. So this is an attempt to give the pachyderms shape. It is a metaphor for ableism, not an analogy, I'm not talking about the animals here but prejudice and discrimination. 

 

It is a recurring infuriation that many do not recognise ableism, the bias, discrimination and injustice Disabled people face. It has shape, I think, as an unwanted and invisible guest wherever people gather. Ableism, the elephant in the room, is a spectre in most places – and on zoom. It’s a daily wrestle, therefore, having to explain that the elly really exists and that while it’s a materialised ele’ment conjured by language, its footprints leave traces in our hearts – if not in the custard.

elephant calf with mother

I feel a sense of responsibility to point it out, we need everyone to see it, because I want it to be ours - not mine. It hurts when people deny it, I can't wish it away. When they do see it, people often think it’s exceptional, not a common sighting. but so daily I feel crushed, by a sensitivity to what often seems invisible to others. I see its shape every day, in every group, in every space, on every street, in every town…  

The elephant is very much alive in the spaces I want to feel safe in, I recognise that while some also see it, few act as allies and ignore its footprints.  I’m frustrated that people can’t, or won’t, see how toxic it is to so many [1 in 10]. As it parades openly on floors and in corridors. It’s purple tusks threatening, prodding, belittling and inciting rage… I find I unwittingly react to its crushing size, feeling threatened by possibility of threat if not presence of harm. “Don’t react!” they say “it’s not here now!” 

 

The idea that we’re either elephant-ridden or elephant-free makes poor sense. I know that many are also crushed, herds of red, green, and pink tusks bristling behind every door. Still more in the sights of several at once, beware the jab of the purple/pink tusk my friends! Truth is if we are free of one, we’ll probably face another. None would be a luxury, not 3 but 2, a privilege! I'll see the tusk of classism, if you see that of ableism, and we'll share the fear of sexism. 

Too few may indeed experience a lifetime of elephant-free living, what a luxury that must be. As privilege though, the tension is acknowledging others, not by over-defining yours but pointing to the herd. Don't be the one putting huge energy into ignoring one, by avoiding it, dismissing its threat or sneering at the way you hear others speak about it. Not taking responsibility, lets bad practice slips off the hoof, difficult experience is denied – “no elephants here!”. From the mammoth to the calf, impact is reduced by acknowledgement. “I saw the purple tusk coming your way, take good care!” Because stepping around it will hurt less than walking into it. (besides the latter cannot jump! Fact) 

 

Most fear monsters where juniors pass, but grappled we feel by our own if not the herd that threatens others. Some may indeed be far more able to ignore the elephant, it would rather depend on whether it’s been thrown at you, charged passed you or sat on you. Again violence real, imagined or accidental makes you fearful. Small shocks, repeatedly, intentionally or occasionally, still add up. Whether red, blue or purple tusked, I’d imagine the weight is considerable, but two or three at once and the impact might be overwhelming.  Where to start with hierarchy, when cumulatively numbers equal pain. It’s not the elephant that is better or worse, but a well-aimed tusk or a multitude of stabbings.

 

Being aware of other people’s threats is challenging, when your own have you pinned to the ground. Tomes of misrepresentation adding to those creating their own comfort among the tangles of debris left by yellowed manuscripts in arcane fonts. Ways of living long left unquestioned, never cleared to reveal challenging legacies. Elephants of old, shed skins and leave footprints the size of chasms, the fear still fresh, even if the harm is now past. Stories of old, not a telling with hope. 

 

So with that I'll pack my trunk, and find my way to the circus ........

Trigger warning - thinking hard hurts

I’ve really struggled to put words around this topic, so please share stuff in the comments if you can. I was recently at a meeting when a trigger warning was given in the opening words. Initially, I was stunned, then relieved, then angry, then reflection on the action changed the way I thought about trigger warnings. 

 

Thank you, Jo and Elyssa (@JFletcherSaxon @elyssa_shack) for your thoughtful, intentional and respectful practice. I know safety doesn’t happen by accident, you took steps to keep us safe.  I thank Catina Barrett from WLN, her practice and writing have changed my perspective, helping to deepen my thinking on this subject. Her words are my jump-off point here, Catina writes on trauma:

… feminists changed that definition to include domestic violence, to include sexual abuse and harassment of women, and others, but in particular, of women. And so I think the inequalities that we see are intersectional, transnational inequalities.  (Joyfull Education)

 

Complexity is not easy to convey, because these things are seldom simple, so let me unpack...

 

Trigger warnings are typically used to give people with post-traumatic stress disorder, and others who have experienced trauma, an idea of the content they're about to encounter. The warning is intended to prepare those readers - or viewers - to expect words that may trigger a significant, and possibly debilitating, emotional reaction. PTSD, a response to trauma, is sometimes a result of hate crime. Hate crime is defined as: any criminal offence that is motivated by prejudice - sexism, racism, ableism, classism, homophobia, religious intolerance, individual and family choice  – the hostility based upon a victim's difference or a perceived identity. The literature articulates hate as extremely hard to recognise by those privileged to not experience it, and because institutional culture helps hide violence,  therefore prejudiced behaviour is hidden from public view.

 

I was stunned

Feminism might not strike you immediately as a triggering topic. But, if you take a minute to think about its opposition to misogyny and sexism, it’s clear that conversations will involve the articulation of a characteristic oppression - sexism. Feminist conversations, therefore, will articulate the violence against women that remind so many of us of the experience of pain and shame.

 

To address sexism, as discrimination and injustice, involves discussing the ideas that fuel aggression, the misrepresentation of women found in those narratives that drive hate speech.  We can’t talk about a whole population’s safety without talking about the specific characteristics of an oppression weighing on them. The ideas that build cumulatively to marginalise groups. Oppressive organisational and institutional ideas, weighing on individuals within groups, that ultimately play out inequitably across whole localities.

 

Talking about equality, therefore, requires an intentional warning to create a courageous space, because injustice is hard to talk about. Should we ignore the impact of past pain we are likely to impose its reality once again. The experience of inequality is at best unsettling, and if you’re a victim, then re-living violence can be distressing. Being forewarned tells those in the room that this lack of safety and individual’s pain is acknowledged. Taking responsibility is key here, the warnings are intentional, and demand the knowledge that what will be shared may harm. Disregarding this potential harm, unfortunately, ignores the victims in the room. Furthermore, telling someone to feel safe, puts the onus on the victim to anticipate and then manage their own distress. It’s this imposition that denies experience, by silencing feeling, rather than speaking to the impact of sexism - action and ideas that are often violent, upsetting and oppressive. 

 

Then relieved

Practices that keep us safe are sometimes seen as over the top, because they aim to help the few, and they are seen as superfluous to the most. Where badly explained, they can be assumed not to matter, and often tend to disappear in the rush and informality of a shared space. Unintentional comments, such as "we don’t need introductions, this is a safe community, we respect each other…" may stop us from using the better practice of taking care and/or doing the safety checks. Forgetting those most harmed stops us from thinking about the present harm of brave conversation, and ignoring the triggers to those already carrying the pain of past hurt. The very warning of sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, classism will stir feelings, but at least allow the individual to make decisions. Telling people that they can turn off the camera is explicit. It calls us all to acknowledge what will hurt some is in the room.  It draws the group’s attention to the room - its elephants. 

 

Then angry

So, why anger?  It suddenly occurred to me that I’d never been in a space where I had been warned about the ableism I was about to experience. Never!! I’ve seen trigger warnings, but rarely about ableism - the oppression disabled people face. This, I think,  has a lot to do with language and a wider lack of nuanced definitions.  Too few of us work to a written definition of ableism, fewer still engage with its parity to other characteristics, the understanding of institutional discrimination and societal injustice. The forces that drive ableism, that many will not equate to harm or oppression. This lack of fluency translates into poor practice, for example being asked to not make a fuss, or to ignore hurtful comments because they were not meant, rather than exploring why ideas can be harmful. Far more oppressive, in my experience,  is that those most triggered are asked to share why they feel uncomfortable. Again adding to the initial impact of disrespectful wording and poor practice, by being asked to explain why ableism, for example, is traumatic. It’s rather like having to describe what is crushing you, to prove how really painful it is. 

 

Leadership 

Viewed as an ability to account, accountability calls us to question the organisational impact of business activity on populations. Therefore, it is not enough to just consider the people in the room, certainly a good starting point, but the locality more widely. As statistics suggest, disabled people in any locality make up 1 in 10 [of which fewer will identify as Disabled], then most rooms need to be safe. The trigger warning, therefore, needs to address the possibility of the people in the room, gestimated on population. Trigger warnings are required, therefore, without anyone needing to raise a hand. Because, if demand identity - or victim’s disclosure - then we’ll doubly add to potential discomfort and harm.

 

Without the trigger warning, erasure replaces accountability, as the power dynamics shifts blame onto those in receipt of harm – not to the topics of conversations that fuel it. Highlighting possible harm in a trigger warning, by defining the ageism, classism, racism, homophobia in the room, demonstrates the direction of responsibility. Better to articulate warnings at every meeting, calling attention to the space isn’t safe than impose the dismissal of unfair rules, barriers to participation or the harm of meaningless wording. The aim is to highlight the violence, not perpetuate an assumption of equitable safety. Telling me to fit in isn’t kind, but an acknowledgement of difficulty Is, I can live with Imperfections, but I’m oppressed by denial and lack of acknowledgement.

 

Trigger warnings, from this perspective, is the articulated accountability – reflection for practice - in stated acknowledgement. The ability to view the potential harm of a courageous conversation. It is the responsibility taken to give a heads up, by saying ’’we understand this can upset”. A seismic shift in power-sharing, because taking account of potential harm, demonstrates a voiced responsibility for safety.  

 

If you are not clear as to what may be triggering then best not go public. Celebrating community and holding abuse up for scrutiny are very different. If you are sharing stuff on social media, your readers will value a trigger warning if content is about the harm imposed on groups, because those viewing your content are a diverse group and some will be victims.