Power, intersectionality and voice in a digital world
For me, this week’s work/reflection really built on/could not be separated from the discussion question from my EDUC 6103 course from Week 4:
“Which of the five social entrepreneurs described in Catherine O’Brien’s book (Activity 5.3 and you might want to look up more info on some of them) inspires you the most and why?”
To frame this work, I used this question, as well as some issues I had with the inclusion of the WE organization in O’Brian’s book to begin with, along with the concept of the personal identity projection in the digital age that Gardener and Davis (2014) put forth where they that, “the identities of young people are increasingly packaged. That is, they are developed and put forth so that they convey a certain desirable – indeed, determinedly upbeat – image of the person in question” (p. 61)
*References can be found in the description on YouTube, and are also incorporated below.
^If you would like to share thoughts on this topic, feel free to leave me any form of feedback you would like on Flipgrid, using this QR code:
Breaking this Down/Connecting
As I state in the video above, I have always felt Craig Kielburger to be an exemplar of “white saviour” thinking since I first became aware of him on the Oprah show in 1999. I also think that wrapped up in these issues is how the concept of “the packaged self” for consumption in a digital age can actually further promote the concept of white saviourism, as Klassen points out in her article from 2020, where she reflects on her own experiences travelling overseas to volunteer with the WE organization:
“This performative task was clearly more for our own experience than it was for the benefit of local stakeholders.”
“Local tradespeople could carry out construction for a fraction of the cost of our trip’s price. Some may argue that the benefit of voluntourism lies in the perspective change of the volunteers, but I question why we need to become a tourist to the poverty of others to confront our own privilege.”
“I believe that much more impact could have been created by directly donating the money spent on trip costs to local community organizations who understand their own issues and can propose their own solutions.”
Particularly, I think Klassen this the nail on the head when she connects why many acts that white people view as helping others are truly more akin to performative allyship than they realize because “it’s easier to go on an exotic trip where you do a bit of work, tour around, and then get to upload your pictures to social media” (Klassan, 2020).
To me, this exemplifies how the idea of personal branding on social media can lead people into the trap of white saviour/deficit-based thinking as “This packaging has the consequence of minimizing a focus on inner life, on personal conflicts and struggles, on quiet reflection and personal planning; and as the young person approaches maturity, this packaging discourages the taking of risks of any sort” (Gardner & Davis, 2014, p. 61).
However, I don’t just see this as an issue that youth have to deal with. I see and feel this tension in myself, in my colleagues, and in the world of academia more broadly, particularly when researchers are “studying” groups they do not belong to themselves. When one considers the competitive world of research/academia, and how personal branding and presentation affect who get opportunities, there is a “calculated effort to maximize one’s value in order to achieve academic and professional success” (Gardner & Davis, 2014, pp. 66-67), and for many people “their motivation may stem more from a desire to pad their resume than to give back to society” (p. 70).
In an age where we are all concerned with presenting the most positive, least messy/complicated versions of ourselves online (which absolutely includes us as “academics” or “researchers” who are participating in this online program, creating resources digitally), HOW are we making time and holding space for the really complex problems of white saviourism and performative allyship in research? Because as Westley et al. (2007) point out, “disasters can occur when complex issues are managed or measured as if they are merely complicated or even simple” (p. 10).
I do not feel any time or space has been dedicated in my program as I have experienced it thus far to really look at this in a way that could lead to transformational learning for prospective researchers (which we all are). Simply including materials in a lengthy syllabus that touch on this topic of positionality, and getting people to reflect on their own positionality doesn’t seem to be doing enough to create change in our systems. In my personal experience, these are topics that are most often brushed off by white academics/researchers, or considered in a surface-level way when I raise these issues.
In trying to understand why this is, I considered that once researchers clear the formal ethics review processes for their work, they have “checked all the boxes” of ethics they must consider. However, I often wonder who makes these rules, and who comprises the panels that decide which work gets cleared to proceed? Furthermore, how is the promotion of one’s academic work considered in connection to the ethical issues of white saviorism/the deficit lens?
Or more to the point, whose voices are missing in these processes, and why are they missing? Because from my perspective as a white person who has lived in an Indigenous community for the last 14 years, I encounter so many practices and work that still feel so problematic to me. I have not yet found an effective way to voice my concerns around this in a manner that I feel is understood by other white people, so this week I took another crack at this in a different way as part of work for my EDUC 6115 course on Research Methods:
References
CanadaHelps. (2021, March 11). Reviving and Preserving Culture: Pitquhirnikkut Ilihautiniq/Kitikmeot Heritage Society. YouTube. https://youtu.be/G--txCoT3WU
Dubinsky, K. (2020, August 26). The other WE Charity scandal: White saviourism. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-other-we-charity-scandal-white-saviourism-144331
Galla, A. (2008). The First Voice in Heritage Conservation. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 3, 10–25. https://tinyurl.com/2p8s5xfs
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2014). The app generation : how today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world : with a new preface. Yale University Press.
Harpo Productions Inc. (2008, July 10). Children Changing the World. Oprah.com. https://www.oprah.com/world/oprah-and-free-the-children-launch-o-ambassadors/all
Loreto, N. (2010, August 10). WE is actually we. Briarpatchmagazine.com. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/we-is-actually-we
Klaassen, R. (2020, July 15). We Really Need To Talk About WE’s White-Saviour Problem. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/we-charity-volunteer-white-saviour_ca_5f0e0652c5b648c301f07314
O’Brien, C. (2016). Education for sustainable happiness and well-being. Routledge.
Pitquhikhainik Ilihainiq Inc. (2021a). Features. Kaapittiaq. https://www.kaapittiaq.ca/features
Pitquhikhainik Ilihainiq Inc. (2021b). Our Story. Kaapittiaq.
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe : how the world is changing. Vintage Canada.
Comments