How Often Do You Have Sex?

 

Now that I have your attention, let’s talk about narratives: How We Tell Tales

 

Think about narratives—the different types of conversations we have every day. Many of us change tone and wording without thinking. The way we speak changes depending on where we are and who we’re speaking to. You wouldn’t talk to your boss the way you talk to your best friend. You wouldn’t approach a stranger and immediately ask them about their intimate life. And yet, when it comes to disabled people, this social toggling or its sensitivity seems to disappear.

 If asked how often I have sex, I would expect the very close friend to have at least filled my glass a few times!

Public Narratives

 

Pick up a newspaper, and you will notice how journalists shape narratives to guide the reader’s focus. Consider a headline: George, 56, fell in the street because of a pothole. Why mention his age? Unless he is 5¾, George will be unlikely to want you to know his birthdate! Age is personal. A journalist will mention it because it jars—the wrong toggle invites a particular reaction. We identify with George if we're around his age; perhaps we’ll feel sympathy, concern, or a reminder of our own vulnerabilities. Journalism is about framing, about making certain details stand out while others fade into the background.

 

Similarly, if a journalist writes about sex in a professional context—say, a dentist having a relationship with a client—it’s because they hope their readers find it surprising. The narrative assumes that the mix of workplace culture and intimacy is unusual. In this case, there’s nothing to report. What dentists do in private is personal, as long as everyone consents. (Jill and John got married and lived happily ever after 🙂)

 

 

Misplaced Focus on Medical Matters

 

Getting the focus wrong—the toggling—often happens, sometimes unwittingly, when disability is written about. While many disabled people see themselves as human, the narratives about them often articulate a faulty, medicalised view. Reading about disability in mainstream literature, you’d be forgiven for thinking that most disabled people constantly need medical help. This framing can make disabled people seem less human, focusing only on their differences, often medical conditions. The narrative subtly shifts; the George headline becomes Autistic Falls in the Road.*

 

This brings me to a recent exchange in the supermarket. As I picked up a lettuce, I never expected to be asked about my condition(s). Not because I’m ashamed, but because it’s personal—jarring. Yet, I was asked what was wrong with me by a stranger. Sadly, it happens too often for me to ignore. Typically, in public, we don’t ask strangers deeply personal questions.

After ten years of study and research, I’m not surprised that disabled people are frequently subjected to intrusive questions: Are you taking medication? What’s your condition? Does your disability allow you to do this? These questions wouldn’t be acceptable to most typical social interactions, so why do they become acceptable when directed at people who appear disabled?

 

Literature and Personal Truths

 

Different literary genres use distinct storytelling methods. Mysteries, for instance, focus on action and facts, leading the reader in a straight line to solve the puzzle. Memoirs, on the other hand, rely on personal truths and emotional details, asking the reader to see the world from the writer’s unique perspective. As Mary Karr puts it in The Art of Memoir: “Truth works a tripwire that permits the book to explode into being.” So why tell tales about disabled people? Needy, lazy, broken, sick...

 

Disabled writers and scholars have pointed out that narratives about disability often follow a script that doesn’t align with their actual lived experiences. The focus tends to be on medical conditions rather than the person as a whole. This mirrors real-life interactions, where people feel comfortable asking disabled individuals personal questions of a clinical nature they wouldn’t ask anyone else   (Medical Model )

 

It’s not the same, but the equivalent of walking up to a stranger and asking, How often do you have sex?

 

So, the next time you meet someone, think about how you frame your questions. Do they reflect genuine curiosity about the person? Cats, curry, chardonnay? Or are they shaped by a narrative you’ve not challenged? Let’s move beyond the jarring stereotypes and towards conversations that recognise all people as complex individuals.

*totally disrespectful I'll agree! 

Ditch the book!

I’ve read a lot of leadership books, thousands of words in all manner of texts over a decade. I was recommended a book recently, so thought I would enjoy a few hours learning, being challenged, feeling excited and hopeful. Sadly not, there were a number of things that got under my skin, by chapter 4 I decided the book was not worth a read. 

Many assume, I guess, that I’m new to leadership. That because I’m disabled, ‘disability’ is my subject, I am not therefore viewed as a leadership scholar. Leaders are tall, symmetrical and bold, and that stereotype pushes my buttons. In the last few years I’ve read a sizeable amount, and when it comes to the clangers in leadership literature these are my top peeves. I’ve learned to ditch the book, I call each gripe a *ditch klaxon*!  I hope the following rant reads as a think piece…..

Ditch the books!

 

1. Jargon and pseudo speak. I understand that at some levels, in academic journals say, a specialist language is needed to articulate a subject that is nuanced and complex. To a large extent I am on the side of the writer struggling for simplicity – it's a hard job. As a reader however, when I spend hours looking up every other word only to find the page offers little in terms of ideas, I despair. If the central message needs to speak to many, to reflect ideas of shared strength and power, failing to make the text accessible is a basic fail. *ditch klaxon*

 

2.  Leadership literature suggests a shared responsibility, so how personal tales are told is revealing I find. Beware the ‘heroic’ anecdote that places writer as saviour, the chosen one, the expert above others.  *ditch klaxon*   When authors tell you of their experience, as thinkers above the rest, you have to ask yourself whether they demonstrate mutual respect in their writing. Slagging of others isn’t pretty. There’s a difference between criticism and critique! Beware of those using the former in the name of the latter.  *ditch klaxon*

 

3. An adjective in the title, that added to leadership, denotes the author’s possession of position. *ditch klaxon*  Great, green, brave, quiet, sustainable, fierce, courageous, distributive, simple, crisis, emotional, inspiring, questioning… whatever!?  The available reams suggest leadership activity is all of these things, and so much more. Essentially leadership that is not green, brave, quiet, sustainable, fierce, courageous, distributive, simple, crisis, emotional, inspiring, questioning, is not leadership. And let’s face it there’s plenty of not-leadership about! *ditch klaxon* By all means question the stereotypes of existing leaders, our unconscious belief that loud, brutish and strong people are best leaders. Leadership activity is empathetic, empowering and kind where you look for it.

 

4.  I look for texts that stand against injustice, by confronting the myths that promote privilege. Leadership activity needs to challenge inequality - ideally in many ways. If the writing does not address a mix of anti-   sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, religious intolerance, ageism ...  it’s a *ditch klaxon*  Strategic intent is hard to judge, i can't as reader guess to moral intent, but language is a clue if possibly limited. Without considering the disadvantage of others, the global power structures, writers are not walking the talk: writing to lead.  *ditch klaxon*  I tend to look for a choice of words that present an alternative view or a fresh perspective on existing narratives. Not challenging injustice means the status quo remains accepted, and implies inequality is unavoidable, thereby somewhat easier to ignore.  Writing about strength and weakness from a privileged position, without the consideration of unequal power, does not address the drivers of disadvantage. Writing requires an intersectional approach to advantage to make it an activity that promotes change in an equitable way. See point 3.

 

5. Enthusiasm! I know, I know, not everyone wants effusive wording, or the equivalent of dancing cheerleaders on the page! But in line with well-being literature generally, and broaden-and-build theory specifically, it seems important to feel happy in the moment and positive about the future. If you’re on page 40 and have not managed a smile *ditch klaxon* In order to articulate capacity for change, experimentation and acceptance, positive feelings are important as they enable a wish to explore, consider and try new things. I’m not a huge fan of the individualism lurking within ideas of positive psychology, those that state if happy enough we can all overcome our personal circumstance. Such thinking implies a personal failure to be jolly to those most marginalised, blaming whole groups for their lack of enthusiasm and fecklessness. This I think denies a healthy reaction to abuse and violence rarely made explicit in conversations about inequality.  Reframing hardship and disadvantage as occasional and private – tosh and bollocks - see point 4. I rather subscribe to the benefits of community, and the happiness found in shared Endeavour: giving, working, having fun, building new paths with generosity and cheer. That doesn’t necessarily mean hugs and kisses, but the degree of closeness that helps empathy along and makes us feel hopeful about the good times that benefit us all.

 

6. It’s said 73.6% of statistics are made up.  *ditch klaxon*  Numbers don’t prove more truthful than narrative it seems. Seeking stories of leadership activity amidst the marginalised groups literature silences is fascinating. For centuries individuals within marginalised groups have been silenced by institutional and societal culture. While personal experience is finally being encouraged in many areas, organisational, institutional and global stories need to present a variety of views. Indeed, far more than the richer and most privileged. *ditch klaxon* Stripping the invaluable from the measurable is the risk when translating the human to the payable. Time and worth may disappear, obscured by a belief in big numbers. Yet terrestrial experience is priceless, there is no opportunity cost, loss has no affordable option.

 

7. References. People have been writing about leadership activity for decades. As a writer - while doing your best - you are joining a crowd. The idea you’ll be at the front this crowd is presumptuous.  Believing you are at the top of the pile, or 1^st in line, reminds me of the old quip attributed to John Maxwell: "if you think you’re leading, but no one is following, then you’re just taking a walk!”  On the one hand, references feel like a constraint of the academic form, on the other they represent the library that nourishes our personal understanding. I think they show homework's been done, a number of perspectives have been explored, and marginalised voices have been listened to. References are an acknowledgement of shared thinking, common endeavour, and joint conversation. There's nothing worse than the name of the author on page after page. *ditch klaxon* My references might seem eclectic, but I hope they indicate an intent to find diversity, highlighting groups often ignored. I certainly found that titles are misleading, leadership ideas pop up in all sorts of places.  

 

I hope in writing this I’m in the round, a storyteller within a bigger story, not a tale-teller speaking alone in a vacuum, but one of many in a far-reaching conversation.

 

For some inspiration see a list of those not ditched below!

Happy holding books 

Bibliography

Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life [Kindle Edition] . Duke University Press.

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

Bhopal, K. (2018). White privilege: The myth of a post-racial society [Kindle Edition]. Bristol: Policy Press.

Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Abingdon: Routledge.

Brown, & Leigh. (2018). Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics? Disability & Society , 33 (6), 985-989.

Brown, A. (2014). The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age. Vintage Digital.

Carastathis, A. (2016). Intersectionality: Origins, Contestations, Horizons (Expanding Frontiers: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality) [Kindle]. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Crenhaw, K. (2017). On Intersectionality: Essential Writings Kindle Edition. New York: The New Press.

Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Woman. London: Vintage.

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.

de Waal, F. (2009). The Age of Empathy, nature’s lessons for a kinder society. London: Harmony Books.

Diener, E. (2008). Happiness, unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth. London: Blackwell Publishing.

Diers, J. (2004). Neighbor Power - building community the Seattle way. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Eddo-Lodge, R. (2017). Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race [kindle edition]. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.

Giddens, A. (2013). The Politics of Climate Change; 2 edition [Kindle edition}. Malden US: Polity.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Blink - The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. London: Penguin Books.

Goleman, D. (2003). Primal Leadership. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Handy, C. (2015). The Second Curve [Kindle edition]. Kindle: Cornerstone Digital.

Hargeaves, A. (2005). Sustainable Leadership. San Fransico: Jossey Bass.

Hawken, P. (2007). Blessed Unrest, How the biggest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it coming. New York: Pengiun.

Helgesen, S. (1995). The Female Advantage, Woman’s Ways of Leadership. New York:: Doubleday .

Helgesen, S. (2005). The Web of Inclusion. Washington: Beard Books.

Hochschild, A. (2012). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston MA: South End Press.

Huppert, F., Baylis, N., & Kevene, B. (2005). The Science of Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Issacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York Doubleday. New York: Doubleday.

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

Kahane, A. (2010). Power and Love; A Theory and Practice of Social Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow [Kindle edition]. London: Penguin.

Kelly, J. (2017, March). Why women should tell the stories of humanity. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from TED talks: http://www.ted.com/talks/jude_kelly_why_women_should_tell_the_stories_of_humanity/transcript?language=en

Lawson, I. (1999). Leaders for Tomorrow’s Society. London: The Industrial Society.

Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to Listen: Positive Approaches and People with Difficult Behavior . London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Marmott, M. (2015). The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World [Kindle Edition]. London: Bloomsbury.

O'Hara, M. (2017, Aug 15). Liz Sayce: ‘The UK thinks it is a leader in disability rights. But it has a long way to go’. Retrieved 10 30, 2017, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/15/disability-rights-uk-not-doing-enough?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Pease, B. (2013). Undoing Privilege, unearned advantage in a divided world. London, New York: Zed Books.

Pinker, S. (2014). The Village Effect: Why Face-to-face Contact Matters [Kindle Edition]. London: Random House.

Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? London: Penguin.

Sang, K. (2017). Complementing psychological approaches to employee well-being with a socio-structural perspective on violence in the workplace: An alternative research agenda . unpublished .

Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline, The art & practice of the learning organisation. London: Random House.

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

Thompson, N. (2007). Power and Empowerment. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

UPIAS. (1975). Fundamental principles of disability. London: UPIAS.

West-Burnham, J. (2009). Rethinking Educational Leadership. London: Continuum.

Wolff, J. (2006). An introduction to political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zeldin, T. (1998). Conversation, How Talk Can Change Your Life. London: The Havilland Press.

 

 

Being part of a bigger conversation

A few thoughts on a shortened visit to the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society conference #belmas2016.

It's been a busy time, conferences, AGMs and board meetings... I'm struggling physically but I gain so much from the conversations I join it would be very sad to miss out. My areas of activity are diverse, because my interests are eclectic, but they make sense to me given my background and experience. I'm interested in educational leadership because of my passion for inclusive education and special educational needs. I have an interest in organisations supporting disabled people because I too am disabled and have facilitated disability equality sessions across a number of sectors for many years. I am also chair an organisation that supports people in receipt of domestic violence, because I have seen its ravages close up and I have sought to understand the social inequality that feeds violence  across localities. Below is a linear representation of how my ideas fit together; yes an intentangled mess - but that's ok!!

  

Last Friday at the BELMAS conference I was struck by how important it was to be part of a research community as a budding researcher. Being part of an interest group is important, and recognising the work of others is critical, avoiding silos is pivotal. For me conferences are about seeing where my work fits, hearing about different perspectives, and acknowledging the interconnectivity of a bigger whole.  It's a precarious balance of courageous contribution and humble interest (no easy for a shaky woman!), it’s hard work for any doctoral student wanting to belong to the bigger club. Over the years my strength has grown as I've learned about new ideas and a different language - I can now joke about high-brow concepts! (Bad humour in any language). 

The danger as a researcher I think, particularly one with an activist heart, is that you overstate the importance of your own interest(s). This tendency, while understandable because of the enormous amount of work needed to secure a knowledge base, can impose a binary view of the world within wider debates. For example, being a feminist might impose a man-woman view of the world, which left unchecked effaces the diversity women as a group (thank you Marianne Coleman). And while lip service may be paid to LGBT, disabled and Black communities within the group, individuals can easily become marginalised by a group agenda fought too radically. From personal experience, I feel that as a disabled woman I don't want to be a secondary member of any group but a all-round thinker in lots.... And then a few more!

 I think intersectionality is critical to measured debate. Personally I seek to recognise my own limitations in many areas, the boundaries help me define my authenticity as an unreliable narrator - It's possibly all we can ever be. I don't think my hesitation is a weakness, au contraire it's an acknowledgment of limitation and a definition of subjectivity. Being gentle and aware of different views allows me to hear a number of voices at once. I hope to be kind without a need of alignment, I hope to acknowledge what I don't experience – values and ideas. Flexibility, moving beyond a two-sided choice, allows me to understand that we all face different obstacles. Some more than others!!!  It’s cumulative and often not of equal size; and without a move to understand the thinking of other groups we are not treating those within ours with equity. Because without an understanding of feminist, critical race, queer or crip theory - ANY research perspective runs a risk of being oppressive - take your pick. 

I feel that no identity is purely a one-ended choice along a spectrum, I feel our identities are multifaceted, we stress aspects of our being to secure belonging in a never ending performance - a dance that changes with every partner(s). In many of my relationships disability doesn't feature, it's not that I cease to be disabled, it's just that other brilliant parts of my being come into play... Being in a place where I feel wanted is a game changer! My own identity has changed over the years, from young to older, my being is fluid and rarely static! (2nd CP joke)

At this point I collapsed, was showered with kindness, but had to leave… makes you wonder what 2 days thinking would look like!

British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society Conference 2015

I do hope this finds you well, I'm in the recovery position today! Exhausted and a little shocked, because Monday came too soon .. I wasn't ready! So please do excuse the rough edges…

As always the BELMAS conference this weekend was fantastic! Once upon a time, I remember being rather scared and awed by this gathering. Probably my lack of understanding about leadership made me fear that it would be elitist and oppressive. I'm glad to say that what I find every year is warmth, collegiality and respect! In terms of sustainability, the weekend leaves me renewed, refreshed, challenged and connected. If a little weary! Ken Robinson talks about walking into a room where people talk your language, know your passion, connect to your craft - the community at @belmas feels this way to me!

I was Really! Really! honoured to meet John Novak – a privilege and a joy! Being of an enthusiastic disposition (after 20 years in education?!) I was preparing myself to welcome him with intentionality. after all, Intentional invitation is the subject of his most recent book, Leading for Educational Lives. However, I felt quite out-welcomed by his warmth and interest?! I gather I did a good job with of my introduction - despite my fear. People were kind enough to let me know that my joke - about being neither underwhelming or overwhelmed, but full of whelm - was appreciated. This was a reference to his recent book.  In his keynote, he joked that as a Canadian he hoped that people read his book, but as an American he hoped people bought his book! As I told him, my feelings are that as my book is now so old, I usually pray that the people I meet cannot remember mine!  

My paper went well, as the previous blog articulates. I enjoyed sharing the ideas I'm playing with ideas. Those that connect sustain-ability, to equality/inequality, governance and account-ability. A tall order, and not the most straightforward of academic endeavours. My heart soared, as I was described as 'inspiring' twice! More generally people were warm in conversation, looking after me, and helping me get my needs met (hugs and tea!!). I picked up loads of ideas in the session I chaired.  Friends and new colleagues.... I was voted in as a council member, an honour and a privilege!!

Today I’ll be lying on the sofa, trying to find low brow stuff to do while my body recovers. Accessibility issues and general high levels of noise have left me v week and wobbly. I look forward to more worthwhile endeavour – tomorrow!