Introduction
I have been recently looking at some NSW government programs and policies and was dismayed to see affirmations of zero tolerance of unkind and exclusive conduct expressed in a passive sentimental tone with vague, emotionally remote affirmations of what will be done.
These were written and approved by people engaging in an intellectual exercise calculated to win approval for saying a good thing. It’s good to disapprove of bullying, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and the exclusion of people with disabilities etc.
The sentiment is genuine in its general orientation and people are responding in various ways – sometimes with a passion – but often weakly and ineffectually.
I have had a few recent conversations with people who think I am being too harsh in my assessment. But I am not criticizing a moral failure, rather a cultural one and this is of vital importance because I argue that the next stage in our efforts to secure Disability Inclusion is a transition from the familiar social model to a novel cultural model.
The social model of disability has required the building of physical and system infrastructures. This is an ongoing action area. I have been a member of my local government’s Access Reference Group since July 2021 and have been impressed by the council’s commitment to Disability Inclusion. I have also discovered how much work is to be done to make our LGA more inclusive and accessible and the cost of getting it done. I am grateful that I live in a community in a nation where this matters enough to put real money and effort into making things happen.
A shift to a cultural model will require an investment in a different kind of infrastructure – a psychological one. This is also pertinent to a wide range of trends in our communities and organizations. Fortunately, there’s a lot of well-funded research being done. But we are largely lagging behind on the job of implementing the fruits of this research.
The situation is complex and the work to be done is challenging. We are making progress, but we would make more if we didn’t under-estimate the level of complexity and difficulty we face.
Below I want to explore some key themes.
Why is it so complex and difficult?
In sum, it’s because we are a bunch of humans trying to do stuff we haven’t done before. Complex, diverse, pluralistic and inclusive communities are novel. They are an evolutionary novelty thanks to the strength of humanist values that influence our culture for a few centuries. They are aspirational, and an aspiration.
We are still guided by psychological and neurological reflexes that were developed a very long time ago – and which suited us well to ways we lived tens of millennia ago. So, we have a tension between reflex and aspiration.
We have a reflex to be inclusive toward members of our in-group, and now we are expected to be inclusive of everyone. That’s an aspiration, and it’s hard to do without intentional effort.
We have a bias toward people who are like us or with whom we identify, and now we are expected not to be biased when we make decisions. That’s an aspiration, and it’s very hard to do without intentional effort.
The humanist values we have adopted put a burden of responsibility upon us. We must change our reflexive habits of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors so that we make those values a living reality in our communities and organizations.
To make such changes we must exert significant cognitive effort. Here’s a paradox of sorts. We are innately averse to cognitive effort – unless it is in response to a threat. We prefer an easy life. We are hardwired for it. Our brains are suited to minimal cognitive effort. This explains why, for 10s, even 100s of millennia, humans didn’t do an awful of ‘progressing’.
The ‘paradox’ is that now we benefit from the minority who not only don’t see cognitive effort as a threat response but positively get off on such effort. Next time you pick up your smart phone give thanks to them and capitalism – which brings the fruits of their strange behavior to all of us – and which makes exerting cognitive effort even less necessary.
But the cognitive downside is that we have now hit a point where our reflexive behaviors and the humanist values we have come to treasure have come to a tipping-point.
We need to transition into a different reflex mode if we want to continue to benefit from modes of belief, attitude and behaviour that guide the good things about our civilization.
Okay, so I have just identified a ‘threat’. Why so? Anti-woke sentiments that have been stirred up, increasingly on a global scale, expose a serious weakness in ‘progressive’ politics. This is a reliance on sentiment and moral argument which renders advocates for ‘wokeism’ inarticulate when defending their position against frustrated opponents who have been rehearsing and refining their counterargument for decades.
It is cognitively and emotionally easier to advocate from an emotional and moral position. That way you get the status you desire and the job you want. But it also entrenches failure to achieve compelling changes and leaves us with a trickle of successes – because doing better than that is impossible because we are facing a moral brick wall of denial.
The alternative is to ‘call a spade a spade’ in clear no BS terms that remain civil, respectful and professional. But this triggers a real problem for Disability Inclusion advocates and activists. It is generated by the power imbalance in organizations and communities, and the absence of a culture of genuine accountability at the top of many organizations and governments.
Saying you don’t tolerate discrimination or unkindness is like reciting a magical incantation with no actual magical powers. You can recite all you like – but in the end you must make the change yourself if you really mean what you say.
Change is hard
Organizational change so hard there are books on the subject, and admissions that most organizational change initiatives fail. My beef with Disability Inclusion efforts in organizations is that organizations and Disability ERGs imagine they can do what highly paid consultants and academic experts routinely fail to do – and with no particular insights or skills.
We don’t like change at the best of times, unless it promises less cognitive effort and more pleasure or reward. Not all desired changes are easy – especially aspirational ones. This is why we don’t talk about New Year’s resolutions anymore. This why, if we are serious about an aspirational change, we will seek out coaches or mentors or communities of like-minded devotees. We understand that these changes must demand our attention, and hence our cognitive and emotional effort.
There still must be a recognizable sense of threat to focus our attention and effort. The rights campaigns of the 1960s were responding to powerful sense of threat – the denial of equal rights. The outcome was a range of laws and policies upon which we now rely. But that was at least 56 years ago. The rights are secured (though some have been eroded), but the freedom and support to realise them has not been won by everyone. A right must be honoured and protected in deed, not just in word.
Conclusion
For very good and understandable reasons we are locked into beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that innately resist our efforts to transform good intentions into aspirational and beneficial actions.
There’s a reason why governments continue to spew passive avowals of intolerance for what is actually tolerated pretty well and make declarations of accountability for behaviors that are never held to account.
It isn’t a moral failing in the sense of supporting what is actually wrong so much as a failing in not staying up to date with what we really do know about behaviour in organizations and communities. We know why discrimination and bias occur. And we do know what to do in response.
And yet those paid by the public purse appear to believe that they have no duty to engage in greater intellectual effort and explore what contemporary science and philosophy can add to strengthening their assertions that they are honouring shared values and bringing about conforming changes.
This is a quote from a very current anti-racism post from the NSW government:
We all have a role to play in eradicating racism in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone should have the resources and confidence to report instances of racism if they witness it and support colleagues who might experience it.
Pay attention to the language – disengaged, remote and passive:
• We all have a role – not play a role
• should have the resources – not must have
• if they witness – not when they witness
• who might experience – not who do experience.
Let me revise this a little:
We all play a role in eradicating racism in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone will have the resources and confidence to report instances of racism when they witness it and support colleagues who experience it. See the difference?
My point is that here is a government website promoting anti-racism while undermining it in the same breath. This the most recent example of a mindset that has been undermining Disability Inclusion for years.
This kind of pretend caring is everywhere. It explains why changes haven’t moved at the pace desired. Governments serve their own interests (which is to look like they give a damn) and ‘advocates’ and ‘activists’ routinely fail to move the dial.
It isn’t that we don’t care, just that we don’t know how to do so in a genuinely effective way – and some want the status of being an advocate or an activist without bothering to put the effort into being good at the role.
Finally, I will rework that paragraph just a little more:
We all play a role in eradicating discrimination against staff with disabilities in our workplaces and ensuring a safe and healthy working environment. Everyone will have the resources and confidence to report instances of discrimination against staff with disabilities when they witness it and support colleagues who experience it. We have clear and accountable strategies and actions that will ensure that this happens.
You do deserve to understand why ‘Caring is more than saying that you do.’ Please do think deeply about this – and then do something.