A town called allies ...

Thank you Bennie Kara (@benniekara author of A Little Guide for Teachers: Diversity in Schools) for the wind beneath the sails of this blog. Bennie made me think about allies recently, and her provocation inspired the next few blogs. Thank you sister! 

In a series of blogs, I wanted to explore different relationships, different aspects of being an ally. But I rarely talk/write of private stuff, so a break from convention here, as I wish to introduce you to a wonderful woman. As I wrote in my acknowledgements it takes a whole town to keep a PhD student alive...In times of need allies are the people who’ve been there for me. Sometimes friends, sometimes colleagues, sometimes strangers… together providing a source of strength... For me there’s a fundamentally life affirming quality to these relationships, one that can be expressed in different ways. Here I look in the places close to home... 

 

My sister: thoughtful, incisive, reflective, wise, warm and funny! A bit barmy and whole lot loving. I am always astounded at how our relationship survived against the hate we’ve faced. I’m the oldest, yet rarely the more mature, I turn to her for insight, calm and strength. We shared the path for many years, so on the face of it, we have enjoyed the same privileges. However, it is never that straightforward, and we talk about our place in the world with trepidation - fear almost.  We both have impairments, and while you can see mine you can’t see hers. By her own admission, therefore, she can choose to disclose.  She has watched people reject me on sight. In our own ways we’ve dealt with similar issues, but equally there have been stark differences. I wear the ‘disabled’ badge with pride these days. I’ve spent a large amount of my working life dealing with disability. Despite the complexities, I’ve gained a degree of ease and fluency, when talking about disablism. As I’ve described previously I’m an activist. My sister doesn’t wear the badge, she understands little of the politics, and her expertise lies in a different domain entirely. I still would include her in the population I strive to fight for, because I challenge ableism irrespective on who it lands. My sister argues that because people don’t know, the stigma is not obvious, her difference is not made public issue the way mine has.. We trust each other’s experience, thinking and commitment to social justice. Our conversations will no doubt rumble on... in many ways the conversations we have mirror those many others are having. 

 

When I was very young I overheard a number of people talk to my mum about me, what a shame it was for my sister. I would freeze, confused, and ashamed, for what I wasn’t sure. I hurt. I carried the pain for years. In our 30’s, I sucked up the courage, and actually asked her how difficult my presence was. She squealed with laughter initially, thinking I was joking, then realising the seriousness, and then said; "many people have fucked with our heads and inflicted pain in our lives... YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THEM."  When I think of our relationship I know I’m ok. She’s my greatest ally. She knows the cost I pay to keep up, but will also tell me to get lost if I’m asking for help I don’t need

 

I know plenty of siblings who don’t work on these levels. We have had to. We now sit at a distance. The elephant in the room is far too big. That doesn’t mean she’s not an ally. The understanding of what each face runs deep. We have each other’s back, we delight in our successes, even when we don’t understand them. She has a greater grip on what I face, odd possibly, but I’ve had to move past the pain. She’s an ally, not because she’s an activist, but because she understands some experiences from her position at close quarters. She has watched, acknowledged, listened and understood ableism, although she wouldn't name it such. She’s held a truth about my story that others will never see. The dark moments, the fear, the pain, the recovery (of sorts)... and the heaps of great stuff too. 

 

Now I’m not suggesting that we all treat each other as siblings, because there are other boundaries to consider here too. The private/intimate invasions of disabled people’s lives is now better documented. But for me the lesson here is trust and respect for another’s stories, even, and maybe especially, when they are hard to believe. Particularly when we don’t recognise it as familiar. I apply this idea, by treating colleagues in a familial way, not a familiar one (Helgesen, 2005).  That is, I aim to look at them as equals, rather than within a positioning on a hierarchical tree. It goes further, the gift my sister extends to securing my safety in the world is far from unique. On my travels I have encountered this acceptance by many, the allies I’ve made, have also been siblings. As I know my sister has gone on to secure belonging for many. I can’t even express the joy of being understood - not having to justify, explain, or compensate! Thank you for having my back, as I have yours. I’m going to struggle with the publish button with this one, but praise be to siblings, and those who treat you as kin!! Up the sibshood in every way, and here’s to diverse families! 

 

Next blog, close friends, spite ‘n malice and ‘helllooo’ - ally the sequel.

Don't take my word for it, Jenny has her own perspective.

https://languageofrespect.blogspot.com/2022/01/hello.html  

Words on a journey

While disabled people are often told how to act more responsibly, in a narrative where we are assumed to be a cost to society. Research suggests our contribution is largely denied in mainstream debates that ignore our contribution, while the impact of crises affect us most.

Sustainable Development?

 

 

The image of the earth as a marble was a defining point in history, and for many it was the first presentation of the globe as a single entity. To this day it serves as a representation of the connection between planet and people, the environment and society. 

 

The earth you’d imagine should be a place where disabled people should feel they belong, storytellers in its story, part of its action. As a Disabled woman, I often feel I’m denied the role of its many storytellers. A single but authoritative voice among the many who holds its past, creates its present and shapes its future. But for many disabled authors our words do not count  as voices of authority, more often our experience is not counted, our tales falling outside the more accepted tales ... told by the less disruptive Joannas on the omnibus. In education her learning is not viewed as progress, in work her contribution does not count as paid, in housing her needs do not count as priorities, as an academic voice in texts her knowledge is bent and moulded to count as someone else’s data, as a citizen she is not counted as a neighbour, mother, daughter, wife or friend. While some plop their empties in the correct bin and call it being ‘green’, for many such a luxury is meaningless in the small matter of surviving the harm in a fight to stay alive in a world littered with words that are toxic. As the Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience report states:

Climate change exacerbates existing inequities by widening the gap between people with wealth and people living in poverty. (World Resource Institute, 2019, p. 2)

 

Until recent months, stories about our planet have talked of sustainability as an interest that is somewhat separate to the globe as an indivisible whole. In addition, rarely viewed as an imperative, discussions about human rights were not placed at the heart of conversations about sustainable development. For many the impact of growth on disadvantaged groups was ignored by those telling stories of the advantages growth bring. Thus, overshadowed by a denial of its implications for life on the planet, an ambivalence was evident in matters of equality and fairness. To paraphrase Hawken (2007), it was a choice, to get on the environmental bus or on the social justice one, while ignoring the impact of the later on the former. He argued that the wrong questions were being asked as both buses run out of road.

 

Growing evidence suggest that the negative impact of inequality is currently threatening the lives of harmed by as levels of unsustainable, unchecked and uneven growth impose hardship and destruction. Furthermore, issues of social justice are often see as either /or propositions, broadly: to save the whales or to feed the starving. It is only recently that the literature has grown proposing an and/and/and view of such matters, linking issues, interests and crises as a deeply woven into an uneven global fabric. It is with this storytelling that issues of social justice have come to be seen as deeply enmeshed in matters pertaining to sustainable development.

 

I do think, at the end of much hard work, that there has been a lag in the language, with new vocabularies only just emerging to define ideas relating to this complex emerging view. With regard to politics, populations, groups and their activities, shared tales  are often simplistic. Our storytelling mostly setting up the binary continuums that result in confused conversations where words poorly define much more nuanced ideas. The narratives used to define modern day lifestyles, the power held in the texts that hold ideas, can add to the oppressive nature of growing inequalities within social arrangements that fuel hardship and poverty for many, and injustice for all … 

Image with thanks to @_louisreed ❤️

 

To read more, and access references, do click on Link:

 

https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/119788493/b676175e8bbedfbe1a22b9db7f2defec/Chapman2020PhD.pdf

 

 

Improving the world a word at a time

Are our measures of success in the current landscape changing the world one person at a time?

Thank you Bradford university for inviting me to speak in Disability History Month. A few thoughts on language...

[no right answers I’m afraid, relationships and context are crucial]

How do we define the disadvantage disabled individuals face, without running to risk of euphemism creep in ‘vulnerable’, pretty much everyone, or the embarrassment of having to identify individuals within a crowd? Either way it’s difficult no to introduce extremity to orifice in the time old tradition.

 

Let’s face it, the way we talk to each other is not the way talk about a group. When I talk with another person, I leave it to them to define themselves. They may refer to themselves as disabled, a person with a disability or as gay, B/black or Muslim. But, I tend to be as respectful as possible by mirroring the language  they choose to describe themselves. 

 

This is because I feel identity is both complex and personal. I could choose a number of badges, if put on the spot. But in one to one conversations these descriptions are rarely needed because the topic or shared interest is the focus of conversation - not me. The personal, if professional, nature of most interaction means I’m at liberty to choose what I call myself. Most often Mole will do, because whatever the conversation, my badges, labels and impairments rarely come into it.

 

Talking about groups is an entirely different thing. When I talk about the disabled population, I’m typically referring to the stuff I know through research and literature. The Ideas, numbers and theories in the public domain. I use a choice of words that is guided by groups too, such as D/deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations, Disability Studies, and disability literature. This is less the stuff of media, although many sources are now well informed. I came across the term rainbow literature recently, to indicate public texts often sharing personal experience, and non-academic writing now available beyond library paywalls.

 

The way I speak or write for public scrutiny avoids private choice where possible. I use evidence and testimony already available to many. This doesn’t mean I disregard personal choice, on the contrary I’m aiming to respect individuality.  However, as a professional and a community member, I’m aiming to follow the leadership of Disabled people as a group, their interests, their activism, their politics. That’s why I’m guided by the theory, the Social Model, to define the oppression many face. Like feminism, ideas and interpretation will change over time. Defining disablism and ableism has evolved to reach ever more nuanced meaning. However, not referring to the early thinkers or understanding a smattering of history is like referencing feminism without feminists such as Pankhurst, de Beauvoir, Roosevelt, Angelou, hooks, Lorde, Fawcett…  I don’t need to agree to acknowledge the way they changed the mindset of many, shifting paradigms on the landscape over time.

 

This blog is in no way a replacement for the amount of work required for a literature review, but I do find myself glancing over reference sections looking for evidence that the Disabled writers have been acknowledged. I am hesitant to even allude to a handful, as aware I would no doubt privilege one or two or forget a key thinker altogether. 

 

While words vary depending on context, when using disabled individuals I mean those for whom dis/ableism has an impact. Because seeking to identify who is or isn’t is fraught with issues, none more than drawing personal choice into a public arena. I use ableism as I would racism, ageism, classism, homophobia, sexism and the intolerance of many marginalised groups. Not to define human beings, but the specific oppression they may face.

 

The point I’m trying to make is that to have legitimacy, public writing needs to acknowledged group and a degree of shared storytelling. While I’m more than happy to share my experience it is a decision I make. Neither friend, peer, or colleague can demand it of me. Equally, when I speak about group, disabled people or women, I am mindful to have articulated a shared perspective. I’ve taken time to inform my writing with background, I’ve done my homework, the text is case sensitive. Ifnot as intersectional as it could be, I’m working on it, for the sake of accountability.

 

In the end I’m Mole or Dr Chapman, my interests are human rights and accountability, but disclosure is a choice that is down to me.

Resources added  at: https://padlet.com/molechaps/ashgatedsability

Disclosure, individual choice and privacy

 I do feel that Issues of disclosure are made easier when guided by more nuanced definitions of disability. I was in a conversation about the matter of disclosure at a conference a while back, and we certainly got our wires crossed. The person I was talking to was using ‘disability’ to mean impairment. She believed that disabled people needed to be more open so that organisations could respond to their needs. I on the other hand was using ‘Disabled people’ to refer more specifically to the discrimination and oppression some face within our working cultures. Needless to say, it was a rather confusing conversation. 

 

My own choice of words is guided by three things: my personal experience, disability studies as an academic discipline, and disability equality as a working knowledge drawing of the voices of the Disabled people’s movement.  While I am aware I cannot speak for other people, I do believe I can build a professional knowledge base to reflect the interests of the Disabled population. I aim to speak on matters of shared interest through the frame of the named oppression imposed on Disabled people as a marginalised group – ableism. This does not mean I expect other Disabled people to agree, because issues of identity, community, network and group affiliation are matters of personal, individuals, and private choice.

 

Both personally and professionally I do like having separate words to talk about impairment, discrimination and ableism. The latter speaks of the specific characteristics of the disadvantage the whole disabled population face. In a public space, and more specifically as a Disability Equality Practitioner, talking about prejudice, discrimination and inequality are hugely important in terms of a political voice. 

 

As a disability equality practitioner, I advise organisations to deal with issues of monitoring & accessibility and accommodation in very different ways in order to respect individual choice while acknowledging group affiliation. 

 

Personally, I’ve had very mixed reactions to disclosure. It’s not that people are not initially sympathetic to the sharing of a hidden aspect of impairment, but sharing is a huge leap in trust, therefore I’m often hurt when people I have trusted then dismiss the added effort I make and the barriers I overcome within seconds. I have noticed that while many overestimate my capacity to keep up, a few will completely fail to understand the extra effort needed to achieve any degree of success. 

 

As for a public conversation about disability, while I see the importance of ticking a box to indicate the ableism I face, in the years of my research I have become less convinced that my five impairments need to be a matter of public concern. As an educated guess, I would argue that it is fairly easy to work out how many Disabled people can be found within any group [2 in 10]; and a breakdown in impairment category is also easy to work out if you take time to look. Therefore professionals do not need to identify who has what, in order to work on access, language and culture. 

Evidence exists regarding the number of disabled people in any population, therefore if less than 10 % of any group are disclosing that they identify as Disabled then the organisation has more than 2 problems.  Firstly, if there are no/few Disabled people in the organisation there’s probably a cultural issue linked to institutional discrimination [access, recruitment, retention etc]. Secondly, if workers or customers don’t feel able to speak up about the accommodations they are entitled to the organisation probably has an issue of trust. 

 

Furthermore, the way disability is treated as a rare and individual problem more generally in conversation contributes to the problem. Indeed, while it seems impairments are viewed as a matter of public interest, the invasion of privacy associated with this assumption fuels some of the prejudice imposed on disabled individuals. Don’t get me wrong context matters, if a colleague is kind enough to ask how my impairments affect me in a conversation about reasonable adjustments, I really appreciate it. However, I tire of being stopped in the street by strangers and asked ‘what’s wrong with you?’. 

I’m sure people don’t mean to be unkind, but they’re no doubt acting on the stereotype - if unintentionally - that Disabled people are turnips to be treated as infants. Way deep in their assumptions, not in their thinking, is a belief, is the idea that they know best what Disabled people need. This hidden aspect of infantilisation, not only allows a prying into private worlds, but a  right to ignore discrimination they refuse to consider. Both assumptions lead to ways of working that often deny reasonable adjustments in ways that compromise ethical values.

 

The point, for me, isn’t that ‘impairment’ is a bad word in a way that ‘Disabled’ is not. The real issue with disclosure is that it relies on the disabled person to trust the organisation’s understanding with regard to prejudice, barriers and discrimination. The onus is therefore on disabled people to advocate for fairness, more often than not by having to reveal far more private information than is expected of others.  There is a far greater public/private articulation to be stated for issues of identity to be respected. Only 3 organisations I’ve worked with so far [in 30yrs] make the distinction between impairment and ableism on their websites and in their documentation. This lack of articulation is a klaxon to me, as it often indicates how fairly I’m going to be treated further down the line.

 

Nearly 2 decades after the Disability Discrimination Act came into force, legislation still hasn't addressed its legitimacy. By their own admission, the professionals I have delivered disability equality to have said they had no way of guessing the implications of their lack of understanding regarding these matters. Many admit to being surprised to learn that it was up to them to ask about reasonable adjustments, while it wasn’t up to them to reinvent inclusive practice on behalf of the disabled population. The legitimacy of their storytelling rested on the leadership of Disabled activists - the ideas of the Disabled people’s movement - a civil rights group with definable interests.

 

In a dawning age of anti-ism, where acting to address discrimination is as important as acknowledging its existence, the words we use need more than ever to express privilege and disadvantage in order to have legitimacy. Where paid folk could decide how many shared their experience, many will now do their homework to use words intentionally chosen to reflect the political voice of marginalised groups.

 

An understanding of power and language

Speaking as a writer not an author, and daunting as it is, here is a story. Years ago I stood outside a classroom, waiting for my turn to teach, listening to the woman ending her session. ‘Black Majority’ she said ‘is the way I articulate Black people’s power in the world. I use the words to counter the oppression – the racism - they face’. She went on to explain that it was not the number that marks a minority, but the silencing imposed on experience that minimises group voice. I remember her talking about the whiteness of her world, where few Black people were visible - on streets, in text, in storytelling. She said she needed to frame the strength of a group voice against her own privilege. That was decades ago, it was my first memorable lesson in anti-racism. It stuck. 

To inform my research I was guided by the storytelling of Black authors – a cultural immersion (Gladwell, 2008). Their stories helped address my own racism, but more importantly helped me write more accurately about the population I was focussing on. Foremost, I wanted to convey in my own storytelling that many of the people I was speaking about were in receipt of racism. I found myself resonating to a growing collection of stories, nodding in recognition of the pain - if not the words that caused it. I began to recognise, but not identify with, the racism carried by seemingly harmless words. I empathised with Reni Eddo-Lodge’s (2017) wish not to talk to white people. I understood Sara Ahmed’s (2017), feelings of being viewed as a problem. Importantly, I acknowledge that there are aspects of their experience I’ll never have to endure. As Pease’s (2013) story of the mirror illustrates, in the morning I never have to consider the problem most people will have with the colour of my skin. That’s my privilege. 

As l made my journey, I continued to look out for the characteristic way different stereotypes drive the character of each discrimination. It was a Black woman who taught me that she understood being Black as a choice [her emphasis in capitals]. She spoke to me of her choice to articulate her belonging to a group of people in receipt of racism. My privilege, she explained was not being white so much as not having to endure the racism she experienced every day - the prejudice, institutional discrimination and global inequality imposed on a Black world majority. As a Black Disabled woman, she said her parents had taught her to frame the disablism she faced as similar to racism. Working in a similar way to other isms, but different in its specific character, a triple whammy. 

It was in conversation with a Black trainer that I learned in what way the prejudice she faced was different from mine. My colleague’s name is Smith, yet she tells me how often people ask her to spell it. That’s racism, she says - their prejudice – people are unaware that they expect her name to have an exotic spelling. She is from Peckham she adds pointedly ...

In the words of Marianne Coleman; ‘there are more differences within groups than between them’. ‘Them’ might be useful in pointing to individuals in a park, it has direction and is specific. But trying to identify who is Black, Gay or Disabled it is not helpful. it is probably more true to say that there are people facing racism, homophobia, ageism, transphobia, religious intolerance and ableism ... WHEREVER we gather.

Because the myths about groups have different characters, I feel that we need a conversation about the cumulative negative impact of -isms more than ever. As those in receipt of double or triple prejudice are undoubtedly under greatest likelihood of exclusion in society and in its storytelling. ‘AND’ I find is more useful than EITHER / OR in these matters. We have a long way to go to address racism AND all other forms of oppression, AND we need not choose between them to work under a duty and with agency to dismantle the stories that threatened their lives.

An anti-racist language was easier to adopt than one with a more Intersectional fluency. I think this is because there is such a pull on us to see things in binary, sometimes the ‘them’ and ‘us’ is formed in our hearts before we’ve properly had a chance to un-think it. As a writer I found it hard to talk about ‘we’, avoiding ‘them’ and ‘us’. Statements of identity are personal, and multifaceted. It would be hard to be on the end of any spectrum.

These matters became spiny issues in my thesis. Because when dealing with a storytelling that silenced Disabled people’s stories (Coleman, Brunell, & Hauge, 2014). Not only was it hard to find ‘disability’ on the list of Equality and Diversity literature, but it was rare to find disability studies added to a wide range of critiques. It is telling that early disabled campaigners, fighting for human rights made links between the oppression they faced and the one that drove the apartheid that harmed Black South Africans (Finklestein, 1999). Unlike Ms Smith, I have an unusual maiden name: Mulhern. From an early age I remember my mother having to spell - M U L H E R N - every time we went anywhere requiring identification. In my head I heard the chant as I learnt to write … in two different languages. Yet, I can remember people adding Es, As and Ss! Was it because I could not be trusted to spell my own name correctly?! I also observe, that many of my friends will rarely have people invading their privacy, asking rude questions or telling them what to do and what to say as often as I do. I’m disabled, they are not, that’s their privilege, however those that are allies speak to the power of Disabled people.

 

Bibliography

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

Coleman, J., Brunell, A., & Hauge, I. (2014). Multiple Forms of Prejudice: How Gender and Disability Stereotypes Influence Judgments of Disabled Women and Men. Science+Business Media, 34, 177–189.

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

Ferguson, P., & Nusbaum, E. (2012). Disability Studies: What Is It and What Difference Does It Make? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(2), pp. 70-80.

Finklestein, V. (1999). Professions Allied to the Community (PACs) . Therapy Weekly, 1-9.

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

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

 

 

Strength and Power against Disability Hate Crime

Disability Hate Crime: Strength in numbers and the power of CAPITALS

It’s always a joy to be invited! A pleasure to participate and an honour to contribute. You know you’re in the right place when the words ‘nothing about us, without us’ and ‘by Disabled people for Disabled people’ hang on the walls. The #bigLearningEvent 2019 began with a reminder that ‘Disabled’, in capitals, is a shorthand for the Disabled People’s movement, its activists, its ideas and its power.  Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations [DDPOs] also in their voice show their intent in the telling of Disabled people’s interests. No one person can speak for a whole population, however together as a movement we can inch toward a vision in hundreds of single steps. Better together is the strength and power of many individuals.

It was a huge privilege to share insights from my recent work on the fight against disability hate crime since the ground-breaking 2008 report ‘Getting away with murder’. As a seminal piece following in the steps of its authors was an act of respect. Tall shoulders indeed! These are a few takeaways from the work so far:

The conversation about Disability Hate Crime is slowly gathering pace. Ten years ago there were few common words to give the phrase meaning, so talk of the crime was practically nonexistent. Thankfully things have changed – somewhat.  Slowly so far, the story of the intentional hate and harm directed at Disabled individuals as a group is growing. The conversation has started, words are spreading, and gaining strength in society more widely .

Disability Hate Crime in short is an abuse of human rights. Unfortunately, it is a crime that occurs in circumstances where it is not always recognised and it takes so many different forms so few see it for what it is. The character of its violence can be physical, emotional, financial, psychological, sexual, neglect and institutional. Emerging research, despite growth, has a sparse literature, but is gaining pace. However, evidence needs to grow in order to change a landscape where it’s rarely acknowledged.

In a list of difficulties, the Disability Hate Crimes themselves can at first seem trivial to many. Particularly to those who’ve not been gifted an insight into the realities of Disabled people’s lives. Many still find it unbelievable that Disabled individuals are subjected to derision, mockery and abuse most days. The initial response to "I’ve been hurt" is most often "you must be joking ?”

Trust is rarely placed in the testimony of Disabled victims.

Crimes against Disabled people are often seen as mere bullying. Attacks are thus normalised, rather than challenged. Sadly, experienced as a bombardment of mini aggressions, what may seem inconsequential to many is a nightmare to the few who endure it. The impact is cumulative, weeks of low-blows can impact on Disabled individuals in life-changing ways. Fear, or more often the fear of fear,  haunts many and leads to habits that avoid public spaces. Sadly, the type of life affirming habit that helps relationships flourish and help people feel less exposed. 

Thankfully growing quantification and qualification is revealing evidence of size. While attackers as are not treated as perpetrators of disability hate crimes, as the offence isn’t recognised, sentencing has become stricter. The Disability hate crime knowledge-base is poorly shared, despite training programmes that are updated and attended, people struggle to recognise it, or have a language for it, to call it put when they are faced with it. It is cloaked by so many other complex taboos.

Disability hate crime can be an intimate, often individualised therefore dismissed as personal, especially because when perpetrated by friends and family. Sadly, akin to the red flags for identifying coercive control, small acts of violence follow a pattern that can end in sustained violence that can lead to murder.

For agencies to respond more effectively, a great deal more needs stating about the systemic failures and the societal myths that fuel the negative ideas and attitudes that feed hate.  Lack of Disabled people is noticeable in institutional settings, and their Voices in associated instructional materials. When this silencing is linked to multi-agency working, as omission of of self-representative language creates a huge clash of conflicting terminology. In addition to the pain of crime, it is disrespectful to the Disabled public who need to navigate institutional warrens in order to get help, support and ultimately justice.

In terms of a single word, moving from the use of ‘vulnerable’ to the use of ‘crime’ in line with a conversation about Human Rights abuse and towards an entitlement perspective seems positive. Disability hate crime is a violation of Human Rights that is not well understood. 

I believe vulnerability is a choice, as human beings we are most vulnerable when we allow ourselves to trust. In telling my story I’m vulnerable, in taking your hand I’m vulnerable, in joining a cause I’m vulnerable... I love you.  In no way does my impairment make me more / less vulnerable, however others abusing honesty, openness and trust can be an opportunity for them to inflict harm. Vulnerability is complex. To quote Brené “Vulnerability is about sharing our feelings and our experiences with people who’ve earned the right to hear them. Being vulnerable and open is mutual and an integral part of the trust-building process.” (Brown, 2012, p.45)

I'm thankful that language is changing, and through Disabled people’s experience, there is growing knowledge of their storytelling in the world. We need to encourage this characteristic group voice, nurture it, and help it flourish. 

Leadership Activity

Inspired by the conversation of Annie and Roz on the ‘Leadership Quest’ podcast, I went looking for a blog I thought I had written on the subject leadership…. I found nothing, I’d obviously either deleted or merely imagined it. I know I was asked to write one a while back, and I chickened out… the topic is vast. It is so much easier to talk of leadership activity in context than as a theoretical subject I find, because it is complex and far reaching.  So, here is an enthusiastic response to Annie and Roz’s words. This piece repeats many of their ideas, I’ve added of my own thoughts, at random I admit. My thinking has emerged from numerous conversations. Nothing’s new, nothing’s original, the knowledge is ours, and the errors are mine.

There are stereotypes attached to the word ‘leader’ that I think drive our assumptions about who can lead.  The idea of a charismatic individual telling others what to do dominates storytelling across the centuries. Power is is critical, moreover how it is used seems key, there’s an ocean better holding power-over others and sharing power to highlight the injustice others face.  More specifically within the leadership literature, where many authors define their specific type of leadership, concepts can appear hugely individualistic. Presumably this is done by many as a way of qualifying how their interpretation stands as better articulation leadership against thecommon assumptions based on myths. I do think on the whole library holds a great deal of truth, leadership needs to be seen as just, good and moral. Or, rather, demonstrate an understanding of what is accountable, ethical, sustainable, environmental, or seeking greater social justice - leadership is leadership. I made the same mistake 16yrs ago, I though leadership needed to become more equitable, that is oriented to further social justice. The more I read, 100s of texts of a decade, the more I understood that leadership was generally well defined - however in common terms what was criticised for being oppressive was not leadership at all! Confused, let me try and illustrate with a few perspectives. Not an exhaustive list, I’m going for fast-and-furious, not structured-and-precise. In my enthusiasm I’ll no doubt stumble. The following points, in no particular order, rose to consciousness as I listened to Ros. 

·      Language. I say ‘Leadership Activity’, because I find using the word ‘leader’ does little to articulate leadership as action, possibly shared. Given opportunity and strength activity is a choice to move, not a personal characteristic.

·      Leadership activity is not a position or a title. I find that having to put ‘leadership activity’ in a sentence stops the talk of me-leader / you-follower; it speaks to power-with not power-over.

·      Context. Place is critical. As I watch images of London Bridge, it is the individuals who step up, step in and run towards what’s needed that make a difference.

·      What – not who.  Sometimes it is about physical strength or specialist knowledge. Some situations aren’t improved by a meeting. “Can anyone fly an aircraft perchance? Please form a queue and we’ll weigh up options”. Thankfully for democracy to emerge, leadership activity necessitates conversation, and certainly coproduction delivers on transformation. For alternative ideas to emerge, diversity and divergence help, turning away from improvement and to illuminate new horizons.

·      Unthinking. Assumptions, sadly, beliefs not thoughts, lead our hands before our heads make the story. Sadly before our minds can reflect on meaning hidden beyond view, we act on stereotypes that draw heavily on myths and often falsehoods. Mindful determination is needed to interrupt a belief in the charismatic, loud, aggressive winners that inhabit our hearts – the tall tales that cloud our heads. It takes energy, slow-thinking, to consider the quiet, inquisitive, wise, learned and joyful people engaged in a shared movement for a better world. In a hurry, in a panic, or with anger, the chances are we’ll be robbed of the strength to challenge existing tales. [I don’t wonder how the bullies get in]. Evidence suggest people are swayed by feelings, not arguments, and our perception tends to discredit any information that is at odds with what’s in our hearts. Evidence suggest we will find a variety of imaginative way to re-tell stories from our experience, and to view the decisions we make as objective. 

·      Education! You wouldn’t ask a person to be an optometrist because they’re wearing glasses. Yet we dismiss people because they have the wrong status, physique, language or look. As any other activity, leadership action is best when underpinned by knowledge. We need to do our homework. We’re back to the 10 000 hours and 800+ texts. I’m always amazed that so many books on leadership are written in the first person; with no evidence, no background, no community, and no shared thinking. To miss-quote John Maxwell; “if you think you are leading without looking behind you, it’s nothing but a walk in the park”. If the one in front taking advantage of the privilege does not acknowledge others, that’s not leadership. It is not about character, it’s about understanding, that’s why we need to hear all perspectives. References or citations aren’t an affectation imho, they are an acknowledgment of joint endeavour – on the shoulders of others.

·      People. Leadership activity benefits from community, more specifically a network of connection and shared interest! Attacking a problem often gets little achieved; as fighting bad doesn’t ensure good.  Imagining a better world has benefits that go way beyond beneficial gains in the short term.

·      Together. Yes it is about power, but it’s about using it wisely, sharing it, trusting other individuals, and defending rights and the empowerment of groups often silences. It is about shouting beside those who are seldom heard. 

·      Accountability and legitimacy: Knowing who’s missing!! An activist attitude certainly keeps action on the disadvantage. Leadership activity needs to respond to injustice, articulating its anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic or ant-ableist intent. Speaking the name of injustice helps us work to increase power for good. If we don’t stand against unearned privilege existing myths will not be challenged. 

·      Values! Not value. We don’t have to have the same values to respect each other’s. The list may be extensive, but not infinite. I think it’s important that action has strategic intent, and price does little to determine its worth. If we are too busy, stretched, broke to have a conversation about sustainability the damage is probably far worse than we can say. [wrong forest!]

·   Stop!? It’s a question I ask in training.  Where Institutions continue to deepen inequality, by getting better at delivering on inequality, its working practice and its culture obscures the discrimination it perpetuates. In an age of imposed insecurity, driven by a belief in scarcity and deficit. What can we stop doing? Time and energy gained could be better spent, surely? 

A moral imperative is needed to develop Leadership activity, which requires both the ability to think in a hopeful way about possibility and a determination to act on what is positive. This requires an ability to articulate both great vision and daily activity as congruent movement. Reality will alter evolving vision if change facilitates re-imagining in the process. Leadership activity can be shared, but no doubt a more difficult choice for those most oppressed by isms touched on above. As my friend John taught me, leadership activity is to put principles into practice: the abstract to the concrete and the inspirational into the actual experience. 

Leadership activity demands an ability to be authentic in words and true in deed. That means saying sorry, because it’s hard, and mistakes happen. It is hard to walk power-with, and to act in ways that empower those around us. Helping others to believe in their ability to  change their own world, and their ability to live their best lives. 

I’m sorry to say that for too many years I only understood leadership as an autocratic or bureaucratic position of power, an immediate response by an overpowering voice with more qualifications and status than trust in a collective strength to change the world. I was a little too keen to be admitted to an elitist club – one I assumed would give me authority and power-over. Ironically, I was angry because I believed I had the right to join in, but felt I would not be accepted, let alone treated as an equal. I now realise why my feelings were deeply contradictory, how my own learning has changed my own definition, and the increasing tension with public notions of the conquering-hero over the kind and wise.

It’s infuriating, but I found the other blog as I finished writing this one: it’s a myth

Leadership blogs are like buses, you don’t see one for ages…

It’s a wrap!! 

My leadership team today:

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

Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Block, P. (2013). Stewardship. Chicago: Berrett-Koehler.

Brown, B. (2012). Dearing greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. London: Pengiun Books Ltd.

Daniel Goleman, R. B. (2004). Primal Leadership. Harvard Business School Press.

Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling, Mastering the art and discipline of business naratives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

Holbeche, L. (1999). Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

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.

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

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. Palgrave McMillan.

McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2010). The Abundant Community, Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhood. San Fransisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

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

Sennet, R. (2003). Respect, the formation of character in an age of inquality [Kindle edition]. London: Pengiun group.

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

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

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

Brooding of Bradford.....

....  oh to live in Preston!

Dear BBC

I have been a license payer for more moons than care to remember, so I feel upset that I need to ‘put pen to paper’.  In the space of 24hrs I have heard not one, but two, uses of language on BBC airways that I find highly problematic. To hear M* and N* used on prime time shows were chilling moments, because in the safety of my own car and at my own breakfast table, I felt mocked, shamed and insulted. Many will no doubt argue that words don’t break bones, I think they legitimise greater abuse.  I wonder how many were teased in the workplace or shamed in playground as a result of sloppy, mean and careless wording. Let’s face it, if the woman or man on the radio can say ... the words used are to be spoken without hesitation. I wonder how many of us sat by our radios stunned and hurt, waiting for an apology ... it never came. 

My beef though isn’t with the individuals involved, I’m hoping they are sufficiently mortified. Yes, I’ve been there!   I am not on some kind of political correctness vendetta either. My issue is with the Corporation, and with what I consider a failure to give their employees the adequate information to keep their audiences safe from the power they hold as speakers. The words are not to blame, they are neither bad or wrong, it’s the meaning behind them that needs care, their association to pain therefore requires airing.  Calling people names is petty at best. But labelling has helped paid professionals lock people up. Ridiculing people with all types of impairments has made dehumanising and shaming ideas so common place they are not noticed. For many the M word is synonymous with people being denied freedom, as stated in law under the Mental Deficiency Act, a piece of legislation that led to people’s detention in often atrocious, inhuman and painful ways. As for N*, most people to have left it in the playground... where it does not belong either!!  If individuals wish to use it behind closed doors, well shame on them, it’s not a crime - but it'll teach others to be unkind. In public, however, specific terms can make people with all types of impairments feel victimised, pushed out and ashamed. Childishness doesn’t soften the blow, I feel it makes it worse. Radio is an intimate medium, hearing the rejection of one’s humanity over breakfast did not put me in a good frame of mind for a day in the board room. [Apologies owed!]  As disabled person I felt treated as an object of derision, rubbished if you like. clearly, my contribution to society is not worthy of consideration. Sadly, it took me right back to being kicked in the corridors and having my head flushed in the toilets at school. 

Surely it is the Corporation’s responsibility to ensure that every single individual in its audience is treated with respect. That means knowing what harms those in specific groups, under the law, see the Equalities Act for characteristics of 9 groups. People who identify as members of marginalised groups have equal right to feel safe to switch on - radio, tv, and internet. Disabled people have been recognised as a group entitled to specific attention since 1999 by The Disability Discrimination Act. Ignorance is no longer defence here, and I would argue that the introduction to Disability Equality has been a route to helping many understand an entitlement to parity for the disabled population. I think at the very least the education in the workplace helps prevent attacks - though obviously not over the breakfast table or in the car. It says volumes about the culture of the BBC that bullying and degrading language goes unnoticed. Broadcasters seem to feel it is ok walk into other people’s lives, and carry their ignorance unashamedly and use words with casual disregard. Maybe we, the denigrated and mocked, need to withdraw our support in more interesting ways… 

I don’t think I’m being a disgruntled-of-Tonbridge here. I am proper disgusted that there are far bigger crimes in the world. Wars, epidemics and poverty driven by global inequality. I am scandalised that people who are locked up, have their heads kicked in, and die without institutional accountability or national outrage. In a country that can’t afford to support its most disadvantaged citizens, successive governments prioritise spending on growth and kind regard for what greater wealth can buy. While it appears we live in a world that cannot afford to extend an entitlement to social justice or well-being to all beings equitably. These things offend and disgust me in the extreme. HOWEVER, I think, there is a disrespect that is often left unchallenged as a thinner end of a far more lethal cultural wedge. One that helps to justify the freedom of people in privileged positions, paid generously to speak publicly across the globe, to express their disregard for those possibly facing far more pain and hardship than they’ll ever have to know? 

* I have removed the actual words in this text, as a this now blog it stands in the public domain. I think the actual words can easily be inserting by the reader, or even replaced by others, ruder or more explicit. The words will be used in private communication, whilst unfortunate, those getting this as a letter will need to identify those involved and expressions used. My intention is not to pick on individual, messaging them or pointing them out directly, but to raise issues of institutional and organisational accountability more generally from a position of professional wisdom and vague academic insight.