|
|
Count Me In! Forums
Ottawa - March 3, 2006
Agenda | Notes | Photos
Notes
Flipchart words from string exercise:
- Togetherness
- Nobody left behind
- Self-esteem
- Reach all of your capabilities
- Attitude brought to daily life
- Comfort
- Many layers
- Respect/mutual respect
- Supporting public health services so everyone has access
- Access to power
- Acceptance without judgement
- Being on the same page with others
Reflection: what questions are arising
for you?
- We need to rethink our buzzwords – “high risk” etc
– [they are currently] framed in terms of behaviours, maybe they
should be reframed in terms of barriers. “High risk”
doesn’t capture what their barriers are (in youth employment program).
Could be reframed so “at risk” meant “at risk of being
excluded” which would be more helpful.
- How do you determine what belonging means to various groups that are
excluded?
- Who is equipped to take the lead in this – grassroots, policymakers?
- Comment: everyone has to lead
- How do we help health profs go past the traditional defn of health
being absence of disease?
- with Canadian society in particular, with lots of immigrants –
how long will it take? There are so many factors involved which
can exclude people – levels of interventions, behaviours that
need to develop – the iceberg is so deep, it would take a while
to make a change, make a difference in day-to-day life.
- Comment: That’s why everyone needs to do it.
- PS: Why don’t people?
- We’re afraid!
- The buzzwords we use take up too much time. The words aren’t
important, it’s getting to the point [that’s important].
- PS: This is where it gets multilayered – that we/them can set
up a power differential – the word might be mentioned, but looking
at power in its positive place seems to get more difficult. It
comes back to, who decides who’s included (and excluded)?
- Language can be loaded – avoid using terms like “poverty”
because then we’d have to do something about it. We use
other words to avoid it, medicalizing poverty so it becomes more acceptable.
- The question behind inclusion in the end is power – who has
the power, who is the “we” (with the power to exclude) and
who is the “they” (the excluded).
- Where do you start? It’s that micro/macro piece.
If the system we relate to each other with is to be based on inclusion,
that means the relinquishment of power
- Power can be very very complex – looking at immigrants, who’s
been here “long enough”, who has good jobs, etc. –
many things are invisible, particularly from the power perspective…
we need to pay attention to it because larger society doesn’t.
They feel excluded but they can’t describe it [why they feel excluded;
where the disconnect is]
- PS: Power is integral, ties a lot to that invisible place…
a lot of it is unconscious – we don’t always know we have
the power. There is an interplay and a dynamic – can be
hard to get to without blaming the victim, because of that interplay.
Sometimes we find that voice and sometimes we suddenly can’t speak,
no matter how much power we have.
The determinants of health and belonging…
or not.
Major theme: POWER
- determinant: culture (and gender): didn’t consider caring, cooperation
and trust; talked about exclusion, looked at cultre and the power issue
– access to resources, housing, income. Credentialling –
if credentials aren’t recognized [for an immigrant], there’s
a barrier that creates lack of power, self-esteem, & belonging.
The word we used was “ghetto” which is a strong word.
We didn’t agree that caring, cooperation and trust were the main
issues around belonging, other things seemed stronger.
- Meaningful employment for immigrants – so pervasive on its impact
on other determinants of health. because they feel excluded because
of their culture, credentials/experience, acceptance level is not there
– some determinants carry more weight than others, and employment
stands out because it has such an effect on other determinants –
housing, etc. Meaningful employment is not just any employment,
but employment that corresponds to your credentials/interests, etc.
It seems counterproductive to bring people in [to Canada] and not use
their full skills. Why don’t we have a system in place to
assess people’s credentials right away, so they can get on with
their lives?
- sense of belonging however defined – [immigrants] arrive with
identity intact, and then not only have to adjust to a general sense
of belonging [into society] but now they’re not being integrated
[into the workforce], it isn’t working – suddenly they’re
not able to be who they were before they came.
- use of power to determine deserving/not deserving poor, or funders
forcing us to work with a charity model. Not far removed from
the old English Poor Laws – Safe Streets act penalizing peddlars,
etc. As social service professionals, we help the system enclose
people in boxes sometimes – we want resources, but have to follow
the existing model to be able to do that – we tailor proposals
to get $$, so end up being gatekeepers for the existing power structure.
Because of our positions we have inherent power and need to acknowledge
that and hold that power responsibly and divest ourselves of it when
appropriate. Example of how power plays out: wal-mart commercial
before Christmas – shot of kids playing hockey, one kid
decides to go to wal-mart & pick out a gift for an [unseen, unknown]
poor kid. All white kids on hockey team. Kid goes to wal-mart, emerges
with gift for poor kid, looks happy. What’s the message
there, who are the poor kids? Not the ones shown. Symbolization
of positions of power. Not so progressive.
- children/youth: education – looked at through a lens of
power. Kids & youth don’t have power about what’s taught,
how it’s developed, who’s hired, their learning environment
– or anything like that – do current systems in any way
allow youth to have impact on that system? What would an inclusive school
culture look like that really valued children and young people?
Who’s defining what that means, and how with competing values
and language about what you believe belonging is, is it possible to
truly achieve an inclusive school environment?
After lunch:
- in order to be inclusive, we need to address people’s personal
values & beliefs – break that down to get at the core of what’s
driving exclusion. Looking at that, inclusion naturally happens, although
there are always levels of exclusion we’re not aware of.
E.g., the ability to vote – I live in Canada, of course
I can vote! Surprising to me to realize there are those who don’t
have that power – feels very exclusionary, but kind of invisible.
- It would be interesting to go around and see where people feel included
& excluded
- Inclusion is situational – might not have the same meaning for
all of us. Level of inclusion can increase, decrease, not even
be there sometimes. If you feel excluded/not included, that’s
a defeatist attitude – you have to strive to try to get there.
We have to name how we’re excluded, but not be defeated by it.
Personal experiences of exclusion:
- personal experiences shared with tables. Now think of one thing
that if it was different, could have lessened it a bit – either
in ourselves or in the circumstance. What would’ve changed
that exclusion in that moment?
- having more money
- support at the time
- inclusive language
- support and guidance
- supportive family or friends
- honest government
- having more information
- changing features, language, accent – personal features that
caused exclusion (racial profiling)
If we do understand exclusion, and don’t get immobilized
by it, and look at what needed to be there – we can look at inclusion,
because they’re likely still some of the same pieces. We can
build our inclusive capacities.
Think of a time when power has been an issue for us
– our power, that we have or lack – where the power has actually
changed the way you’ve done something. An immediate situation.
Something’s not working – power, exclusion. Share that
with the group, and give information for them to understand it.
How did it feel to have your back to your colleagues while they talked?
- wanted to turn around again – they were on the right track,
discussing a community issue. Got some good approaches that might
help, especially developing links with media to better control [the
messages getting out]
- wanted to clarify a few things so that was frustrating. Funny
because they had an insatiable urge to solve! Questions they were
asking each other were great, to help analyze the situation. Felt confident
with the group behind, and reinforced.
- sounded like they knew what I was going through more than I knew –
everything they said reinforced the complication of the problem, nothing
new was coming up, so it was really wow, they understand. Made
me understand my situation and identified more challenges beyond the
challenge. They really seemed to know my situation [although they didn’t].
Reinforced how much of a challenge it really is.
From peers, who were talking to the person’s back:
- Were looking at how to build relationships, how to work on certain
aspects of the problem. Dealing with the same people but doing it in
a different way.
- We wanted to solve it! No relief that they couldn’t solve
it. You know the problem, and you want to solve it. Interesting
to brainstorm, expand, find causes – why did this happen?
There are so many places it shou’dve stopped before it happened,
curious why it did happen.
- Tempted to solve. Difficult to have her turned away and not
get her feedback as we were discussing her challenge.
And now… is our horizon clear, blurry,
complicated?
Complex
Complicated
challenging
thought-provoking
Messages for us to take back (in our work):
- This needs to be more explicit about power, and about this work
to get it into the hands of policymakers, the community, etc.
- Gauge where the participants are from in advance, then focus on
those determinants
- Could go to government and other folks that have never thought
about the concept – the very fact that we [the government] has
gone back to the deserving/undeserving poor idea means that this concept
isn’t even on the radar
- How can we resolve [the tension between] diversity, which we all
seem to value, and the idea to create a place where everyone belongs?
There seems to be a contradiction there, sort of a catch-22.
It’s complex because it has lots of layers, but it’s complicated
because in the pure form I don’t know if it’s do-able
because there are so many things that are important to our structures,
processes and laws.
- Intersectionality – inclusion has many layers, and is complex.
We’ll never build a place where we all feel safe & happy,
but we can try to create a society that is so aware of our differences
that our differences are valued and accepted for our differences.
It doesn’t mean we’ll all be happy in the same square
– we’ll be different, and aware, in a place that values
those things
- It’s good, and it’s one of the positive aspects of
this dialogue – I would say is it possible that we’ll
reach that perfect world where everyone feels comfortable, respected,
included? That will never be. But can we work towards
it? Can we improve our situation? Definitely yes.
In that context these ideas and concepts are so important –
they bring us together to talk about it, and develop it in a way that
becomes a tool for us to move forward.
- Philosophy helps give us the value statements that give us where
we want to go – it’s a benchmark, a space we want to get
to, that we work toward. At least we have something to aspire
to.
- As health is not absence of infirmity, inclusion is not the absence
of conflict – it’s everything there, but having ways to
work it out, to have relations[with each other]
|
