Introduction
We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite by sociologist Musa Al- Gharbi is a confronting read. The author introduced me the idea of symbolic capitalism. Here’s a summary of that idea by the author from the Columbia University website:
The early 20th century saw the rise of a new constellation of social and cultural elites whose wealth and status was tied to the production and manipulation of symbols and rhetoric, images and narratives, data and analysis, ideas and abstractions, drawing from Bourdieu, let us call them symbolic capitalists. From the outset, symbolic capitalists have defined themselves as champions of the desperate, vulnerable, marginalized and otherwise disadvantaged in society. (My bold)
Here’s a quote from the book: (I don’t know the page number – I have an audiobook and it starts around 1hour 56 mins in.)
Nonetheless it is not clear what, if any, good is actually being accomplished by this ever-expanding constellation of social justice sinecures beyond providing practitioners with gainful employment. Many of the programs associated with these DEI roles such as diversity training are demonstrably ineffective with respect to their stated goals. (My bold)
This is a common assessment from critical observers of, and researchers into, DEI and ERGs. What does this all mean?
This book converges several themes that I have been exploring recently into a disturbing argument – that there is no real intent to change the circumstances of people subject to discrimination and exclusion – just to perform as if there is. It sounds so darkly cynical it is difficult to credit it with any validity. But wait. The argument isn’t that there is a conscious callous intent to behave deceptively. Neither does the argument assert that everyone is so inclined. There’s a lot to unpack.
Why bother? On its face the book is competent sociological research. I think it is telling us something important and we do need to engage with what that is. What interests me is that the author’s argument is in sympathy with the essential themes of my own research. So, I want to explore what the implications of the argument are in the context of that inquiry.
What do we think we know?
There are several propositions I want to assert, based on my own direct experience and research (including this book). They are:
- Disability Inclusion is hard to do. (my direct experience)
- DEI and ERG activity frequently fails to deliver the outcomes that are intended and desired. (multiple credible researchers)
- DEI practitioners and ERG leads often lack contemporary knowledge of relevant current research, and resist acquiring it. (my direct experience)
- Disability Inclusion professionals seem to lose passion for getting outcomes for people with disability. (other people writing on the field eg Alberto Vásquez Encalada)
- ERG leads are reluctant to develop a skill set that makes them effective. It takes commitment and effort. (my direct experience)
- Senior organizational leaders seem to have no interest in ensuring their DEI teams and their ERGs are capable of delivering desired outcomes. (my direct experience)
- Organizations, DEI teams and ERG leads are not really about addressing the needs of their ‘diversity groups’, just appearing to care. (the book)
These issues aren’t confined to DEI but embrace the spectrum of social justice and human services concerns, including the welfare of indigenous peoples and those dependent on social housing and mental health services.
What’s the difference between being sympathetic and actually doing something?
I have been involved in human services nearly the whole of my working life and I must say that at least 60% of people in that field have been inept, often incompetent and, sadly, also corrupt and cruel.
So, Al-Gharbi’s observations are not startling to me. I can see why his idea about symbolic capitalism is attractive – get the job and perform as if you care. Why else would failure to succeed be so routine?
Yes, the job is incredibly difficult. I have detailed why I think this is so in this blog. I remind readers that my quest is to answer the question, “Why is Disability Inclusion so hard?”
It is inherently hard because it is about changing human behaviour. It takes knowledge, skill and determination to succeed – and a decent amount of good fortune too. Consequently, the difference between performing caring about outcomes and actually delivering them comes down to a willingness to acquire the knowledge and skills needed, and then act with determination. Al-Gharbi asserts that this is absent in so many practitioners. They will perform caring but never transition into the commitment needed to deliver real outcomes.
This is the thing about symbolic capitalism. It is self-interested. Performance of the symbolic acts affirms one as a member of a critical in-group. Make them believe you care so that the in-group is protected from accusations of not caring. That is, not caring enough about the in-group, not the putative recipients of services.
And here’s the paradox. By attempting to deliver real results you risk exposing your erstwhile in-group to the hazard of having to actually do the hard work of making good things happen. That isn’t the purpose of DEI, really. This is why Al-Gharbi says this is a symbolic economy. The trade is in symbols, not actual social justice.
It is critical to understand that there’s nothing aberrant about this. It’s not morally okay, of course. But it’s just not outside human nature. We need to be vigilant that such a risk exists and take steps to reduce it and preferably eliminate it. However, this brings us into the vexed issue of accountability when it is controlled by organisational leadership. It adds a challenging level of difficulty to the effective delivery of Disability Inclusion.
There is, I believe, a no more compelling argument for taking a professional approach to Disability Inclusion, and certainly when running an ERG.
Care about vs care for
The idea that people will say they care to get a job shouldn’t be at all remarkable, especially if we understand that acting as being caring is a requirement for membership of a community of decently paid folks. It’s a form of what used to be called ‘respectability’. You affirmed commitment to socially acceptable and progressive values. Whether you actually lived them was less important so long as you did not violate them flagrantly in public – and certainly not as a representative of an organisation in a manner that could lead to questions being asked.
We all know hypocrites – people who say high things and do low things. That includes people who take wages for roles that are supposed to deliver benefits to those in need of assistance and aid but do not deliver. The litany of failure and ineffectuality in DEI is well attested. The reason? The job is just too hard? Perform an analysis, figure out what’s so hard, provide developmental support to existing staff, or employ those who are more capable. It isn’t rocket surgery. And yet, after several decades and an abundance of research, failure is still the most common outcome. Why is this?
DEI practitioners and ERG leads still resist upgrading their knowledge and skills. Few actually make the effort to assess their own performances – Are we succeeding? Why not? How can we do better? Why bother if you are being paid AUD$120K a year and nobody is on your case, why raise a sweat if you really don’t care for the people relying on your work?
I think people do genuinely care. But they care about. They don’t care for. They don’t take care of. This isn’t sophistry or pedantry. Care, here, is a verb – a doing word. But it can end at a feeling of the sentiment only, and not progress to effective action that will deliver a beneficial outcome for a person. There’s a lot of this about.
If I sound cranky here it is because I am. As an ERG lead, I gave three and a quarter years to getting outcomes for my members, and I did okay – for a beginner and an amateur. It was very hard work. I had a lot to learn. Since June 2021 I have had the time to commit to researching why Disability Inclusion is so hard. There are a lot of reasons, but none so insurmountable that an honest effort wouldn’t yield good outcomes. I proved this myself.
It’s hard if you want to get results that make a real difference to the people you care about – translating that care about into care for. It isn’t hard if you are content to fail because, despite your ‘best’ efforts, other people aren’t doing their bit – resisting your inducements to be more inclusive and not caring enough. It isn’t hard if you hand off responsibility to make a real impact to other people on the grounds that they should do better to meet their moral obligations. You have informed them, and the rest is up to them? What else can you do? If they fail to act that’s their issue, not yours.
No! You can find a way to be more effective – to care for, or take care of, the people you care about.
On the Disability Debrief website Alberto Vásquez Encalada wrote an essay called We Wanted to Change the World in which he lamented how Disability Inclusion activists, when they became professionals, ceased to be effective. There’s a snare to earning an income from a passion to serve and it can become a conflict of interest. Activism can conflict with an employer’s culture and become a risk to the benefits of having paid employment and becoming a member of a fortunate minority. That’s a universal hazard which is simply worse when your passion is effective service. Stay committed to service or preserve your income stream?
Think of a person at risk of transitioning from a role committed to service to membership of the symbolic economy committed only to the performance of giving a damn. It can be soul sickening, especially if the transition has been made with no awareness of the reality of the culture entered.
What can you do when your critical source of income corrupts your values, and you cannot walk away? It is far better when you don’t have values to be corrupted, and you can take your wages with no qualms.
We are all familiar with the performance of value assertions not backed up by any meaningful action. Senior leaders soothe us with nice sounding words, affirm their commitment to values and sometimes promise action – and then nothing happens. Did they (1) get distracted? (2) forget? (3) or were they just bullshitting us? Staff in organisations reliably select option 3 on experience.
The sentiment is authentic because that’s as far as it is meant to go. Its not meant to be literal and real – as in actually happening. This is an important insight because it explains routine failure. It is the intended outcome. To think otherwise is to impugn the competence of people who otherwise successfully run large complex organisations. Give them due credit and allow that failure is intended.
Why? They don’t really care. They are aware that social justice is a theme that they should appear to care about, so that is what they do. Hiring a DEI team is essentially about perception management. Everyone (well almost) is happy. Senior leadership is happy because it is managing perception. The DEI team is happy because the jobs are high status and well enough paid.
And the intended beneficiaries? Well, you know, Disability Inclusion is just so damned hard, and we are doing our very best to help you.
Conclusion
Symbolic capitalism is only part of the complex psychology of people involved in Disability Inclusion. It doesn’t apply to everyone who is a practitioner and it’s not the only explanation for inaction or failure.
Disability Inclusion is hard because we humans are complex. Its goals are morally good, but also aspirational. They are achieved as part of a shared evolution that depends on those who are practitioners being genuinely committed to getting results for those in need. That commitment includes extra effort to learn insights and develop skills. If you, as a practitioner, are not prepared to put in that effort ask yourself whether you are a really a symbolic performer – a carer about. This is no less sincere in protestations of concern. It is just that action does not go beyond performance of that concern and into a focus on delivering genuine benefits to those in need of assistance.
We Were Never Woke is a timely and compelling argument that merits confronting. It addresses a problem that I think permeates the wide field of human services. It is present in government agencies and NGOs. It is not the whole answer as to why Disability Inclusion is so hard, but it’s a good chunk of it.
Footnote: I sent this post as a draft to a friend and former colleague. Their response was (in part): “Yes, totally relatable and yes truly soul tearing, to know this to be the hard truth …You have captured the harsh reality of (name of employer).”