Allies at work

As a wise woman once said: “political correctness changed the words, but did not change the conversation!”  Full credit Andrea Layzell @AndreaStEdmunds.

Compassionate relationships

Professional wisdom is a beautiful thing when applied to practice and workplace relationships. The difference between political correctness and respectful language isn’t whether a word is right or wrong but why the meaning strengthens or counters oppressive storytelling.
 
I have met a great number of kind, considerate, and compassionate people in my work, many have become good friends, but friendships and allied relationships are not the same things. It was on the Inclusion Press website that I came across the phrase: "we don’t have to like each other". The phrase is key in this context, because being kind to people we like is easy, however, being empathetic enough to acknowledge a different perspective is far harder.
 

From a position of strength

You’d be forgiven for thinking that I believe that being an ally demands friendship - it doesn’t. I’d say friendship sometimes helps and maybe follows, but it’s not the deciding factor in being able to interrupt the oppression another individual faces daily. In fact, if allyship is conditional on likability we have a problem. In some circumstances being friendly, or overfamiliar, may only serve to demonstrate unequal power in the relationships: “Be my friend…  I’ll choose when to be yours”.  
 
Speaking counter discrimination, on the other hand, is needed! But words are critical to define the characteristic discrimination and inequality other people face. Otherwise, you can’t a/ give it an articulation, or b/ interrupt it in conversation. Put another way, as an ally I need to recognise the stereotypes that feed the misrepresentation of those facing each type of organisational or systematic discrimination colleagues face - racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, etc. Without a working definition, therefore, however sketchy,  the language we use carries forth the culture that reproduces it.  From a position of privilege, it’s far more important for me to do my homework, than ask those in the room affected by its experience. The knowledge I gain through reading and speaking to people facing discrimination helps me change the way I speak about it. 
 
Few have been in jobs where in-depth equality is offered as part of orientation or ongoing training. Yet without this explicit reference, theory or tools, how does one begin to talk about the specific characteristics of discrimination and the exact nature of the characteristics of societal inequality imposed on each marginalised population. You need to look, sometimes quite hard, to find out what you do not know. For example, with feminism, gender equality doesn’t equate to being nice to women, a shared meaning for structural and cultural inequality is necessary to articulate sexism and patriarchy.
 
As research suggests, being able to ignore a worldwide crisis is less about denial and more about lack of awareness. Despite 50 years of activism the civil rights movement is still largely fighting the same battles. On the whole because while individual experience is sometimes heard, the ideas or interests of campaigners and specialists are often dismissed and/or not applied to work practice [and the disciplines that feed professionalism]. This leaves an idea of discrimination as an individualised problem expressed with regret. As we speak, for example, we often dismiss or ignore the size and scale of prejudice and inequality, particularly when we cannot relate its form to our own experience. It has nowhere to sit in terms of personal understanding.  
 
We tend to link stereotypes to deficit, prompting an organisational reaction, and societal voice articulating rejection or blame. For example, stupid, becomes hard to educate, becomes special educational needs, becomes segregated...  once we’ve established the pattern is easy to see how culture leads to human rights abuse. [it’s not the personal difference that leads to a bad experience, more the lack of typical protection not available to those being treated unfairly]. Unless we understand the cycle, blame is more likely to be laid on the individual. 
 
Allies are those who can name the stereotypes, the patterns, and the cycles of misrepresentation in language and culture. For some of us, safety in a room often rests on the quick response of others to spot and interrupt negative assumptions. It’s life-affirming to hear colleagues point out the words, phrases, or idioms that harm. Those that carry assumptions about the ‘normality’ of perfect bodies, with a language that creates the idea that those without difference are normal. It’s not the words themselves that are good or bad, it is their meaning in a particular place. It is the idea that some are typical, implying others are not, that needs challenging, not the ignorance of those speaking.