If changing your clothes makes you feel different, imagine the power of changing your mind: the potential power of conversation
With YouTube in the background I
became aware of a cheery ‘style coach’ onscreen with a TED talk about how dressing
‘for confidence’ would make one confident. As someone with no eye for clothing,
I was struck that what was transfixing was the potential to use the analogy of
changing attitudes rather than outfits – if we are not prepared to change our
mind, what is the point of having one.
Conversation is a way of getting
to know other people and for them to get to know us. In this way it has the
potential to be enormously rewarding when positive and mutual. But, there are also
conversations that will have a confrontational tone – and discussions about
race are the epitome of such potentially difficult topics. A key aim here is to
preserve a constructive attitude and to avoid losing control and creating a
negative interaction. Body language, facial appearance, vocal tone are
as important as the actual words said. Even the position in a sentence of
certain ‘negative’ words (such as death, poverty, inequality) can influence how
the listening brain processes the message.
In recognition of the vital need
to support frank discussion towards the development of an antiracist NHS the
national Equality, Diversity an Inclusion (EDI) team of the People Directorate
in NHS England are conducting a month-long conversation about racial justice in
the NHS, entitled Race Ahead. It is co-produced with regional EDI leads and
intended to draw in workforce in all NHS organisations, at all levels, to help
them be able to have such conversations with staff.
The seminal 2020 interview with
Jamaican cricketer, Michael Holding, highlighted the importance of education
and conversation if we want to change the centuries long mindset that results
in systemic racism. The power of that interview was in part that the other contributors
to that discussion were black and minority ethnic people (BME). It is important
to highlight the voices of those who are most affected by any issue, whilst at
the same time recognising that people encounter differing types of discrimination
based on diverse and intersectional identities. It is a truism that everyone
has a race, and the priority is not to centre any one race, white or black; and
when there is no prioritised race, then there is no possibility of ‘othering’.
The thought of a conversation
about race may cause anxiety for many, especially if preceded by layers of data
which can be misused like a percussive baton Equally alienating can be rhetoric.
Rather we could start with shared values and signpost towards opportunity for consensual
solutions, and braving areas of challenge. Social media is riddled with commentators
who deny the existence of discrimination, or say they are ‘colour
blind’ or proclaim inability to change centuries long practice. The first
point can be denied by carefully cited evidence, but the notion of
colour-blindness needs more careful dissection. At a superficial level it is
attractive to talk about seeing the
content of someone’s character rather than their skin colour. But that is akin
to the fallacy that COVID-19 was the great
leveller as evidenced by the disproportionate effect
of the pandemic on BME people. In
fact, the pandemic revealed to many for the first time that there are structural
causes of racism rooted in health and class inequality. The notion of being colour
blind is to ignore these institutionalised disparities and make the
consequences more related to false narratives about genetics or behaviour.
Colour blindness also permits the denial of the existence of ‘white privilege’, namely that certain populations experience an innate advantage based on being the majority demographic with historic advantage.
Compared to white people, why do people who look like me get stopped by the
police more, have our tickets checked for longer, get followed when in shops?
In healthcare why do we not warn Black and mixed-race pregnant women that they
have 5-times
or 3-times the mortality of white women? This is majority privilege, it is not
‘playing the race card’ – and it is important to help to tease these positions
out for individuals who may have never considered these issues to any depth.
Equally important in conversation
is to put education into context. Reducing individual cognitive bias is not a
substitute for de-biasing systems that perpetuate inequity. Any training or engagement
needs to be inextricably linked to process change. Having a solution-focused
conversation means challenging common fallacies, the most pernicious of which
is the
'ignored white working class boys' which has at its heart that socioeconomic
factors are the fundamental determinant of outcome. The argument is that if
housing and education systems were equitable that would be sufficient to
achieve equity for all. The error in this argument is that it ignores that racism
leads BME communities to be stratified into certain houses and schools compared
to white peers with similar incomes. Lived experience and countless
studies have identified that racial inequity persists even adjusting for socio-economic
factors.
Workplace conversations about
race are essential, for the potential they have to create allies of the
willing, and provide hope for the marginalised. The history of racism and its
continuing damaging effects mean that these conversations can be emotional, but
if handled effectively, not emotive. The privilege of being in an exchange
which can change someone’s thinking is surely worth that investment.
Comments
Post a Comment