Navigating the I and the Us within the We: Where We Are Coming From

Friday, April 10, 2015 HUMN Identity Taylor Stocks

Navigating the I and the Us within the We: Where We Are Coming From !

One of the more difficult problems to address when building or changing an institution is

how to manage individual members within larger institutional goals. Institutions can be lopsided

at times, with certain people participating more than others and methods of interaction favouring

one style of communication above the rest. What’s more, institutions can often simply “function

to maintain various social hierarchies,” reducing the generative capacity to come up with new 1

forms of interaction and institutional processes. In this chapter, I will be exploring ways to

navigate non-homogenous institutions, using differences and other group associations to the

strength, rather than the detriment, of the organization itself. I will put forth a number of topics

that facilitate both the recognition of differences and redistribution of conversational resources

accordingly. By calling attention to not just the individual and institutional level, but also the

meso-level analysis of groupings and group associations that come into play within

conversations, I will tow a middle ground between communitarian ideology and liberal 2

philosophy. Asking the general question, where are we coming from? can guide the discussions

necessary for both recognition and redistribution.

The two dominant models of institutional formation come from communitarian and

liberal streams. Communal models generally privilege the institution over the individual, often

citing the necessity of the institution for the good of the individual. As we have seen over

Page � of �1 44

Kevin Kumashiro. “Introduction.” In Troubling Education, by Kevin Kumashiro. London: 1

RoutledgeFalmer, 2002, 1.

For the purposes of this discussion, the individual means one (1) person, the institution means 2

all members within a single unit, grouping means two (2) to institution-minus-one (n-1), and group affiliation means an individual who is strongly connected to a grouping (along whatever lines) outside of the institution.


numerous instantiations of the council system of decision-making, there are quite a number of 3

negative consequences that stem from consistently placing the institution above the individual.

First is the question of who gets to decide what is beneficial for the institution. Lenin’s approach

to this problem was to create a ‘revolutionary vanguard’ whose job it was to oversee the the

specific forms and processes of revolutions. This attempt betrays the underlying issue- as soon 4

as there is reasoning based on what is best for the institution, there are almost always a small

group of people who gets to decide what that actually is. Very rarely is the process to choose that

group transparent or democratic in any form. This leads to the second issue, the entrenchment of

power and the disconnect within the institution between decision-makers and passive

participants. Given that our final goal is the increase in democratic practices within institutions,

the divide between membership and control is something we want to avoid. Finally, the

separation between passive and active membership often serves to erase differences of groups

and individuals that need to be taken into account. The number persons killed within the First

and Second World Wars is fairly common knowledge, but less known is the number of people

who died of starvation under the Soviet Regime. This horror was a direct result of poor planning 5

and non-recognition of what grows better where, that is, geographical and agricultural

differences of communities. Hence, if we want a strong institution, privileging it above all else is

not the best way to go.

Page � of �2 44

Starting predominantly with Russia, 1906, 1917, moving through 11 other revolutionary 3

episodes across Europe in the 20th century.

Vladimir Ilʹ′ich Lenin. What is to be done?. Edited by Sergej Utechin. London: Panther, 1970, 4

70.

6-8 million people.5


Procedural liberalism, on the other hand, vaults the individual above the institutions of

which they are a part. It tends to focus on rules that allow the equitable pursuit of interests.

However, there are problems with this ideology as well. To begin, the procedures set in place

generally need to be set before any activity takes place. This resembles the issue with

communitarian models, namely the need for a small group to decide what’s important and how it

should be handled before the main membership even gathers. Once again, we see the possibility

of entrenching power in non-transparent and non-democratic ways. While procedural liberal

forms may implement democratic strategies to choose who and how the rules are made, there is

still a disconnect between the decision-making members and the members who must accept the

decisions. Secondly, procedural liberalism often comes with the ‘stripping down’ of the

individual to a few key characteristics. While it’s a nice idea to get down to what is universal

about us all, what that leads to, again, is the erasure of differences.

Both communitarian and procedural liberal models have the tendency to entrench power

within the hands of a few and erase individual and group differences. The problems with

particular power are obvious- it works against democratic modes and it often gives power to

those that have been given power before. The erasure of differences is a danger to the institution

as well. First, it can feed into entrenched power dynamics, because the ‘stripped down’

individual still assumes normative character traits. More often than not, these norms are

historically, socially, and politically placed within categories of persons who have held power in

the past. That means that a person who does not fit within the norm may inherently have less

power, but with no words to explain why that is going on. Secondly, there is a concern with the

need to disconnect from particular parts of oneself in order to participate in the institution. I

Page � of �3 44


should not have to leave the fact that I am trans at the door in order to sit at the table. In fact, not

having a choice in what I leave at the door can lead me not to participate at all. A recent study

from the field of leadership in business shows that gay and lesbian leaders who feel they cannot

come out at work can overcompensate in ways that are harmful to the organization and others

around them. It should not be a requirement to leave parts of oneself, especially those that fit in 6

marginalized categories, at the door. While the individual or institution may benefit if a person

chooses to bring nothing but their interests to the table, it is of great importance that this remains

a choice and not something that is forced or coerced. Lastly, when we attempt to homogenize the

membership of an institution, we risk not taking advantage of the differences that can strengthen

the organization. Diversity of background, practice, interests, and experience can lend an

institutional dexterity that can be missing from homogenous organizations.

This leads us, then, to a fairly liberal politics of difference, that sees diversity as an

opportunity for strength, change, and new growth. It is only through unpacking difference that 7

we can move away from typical group norms and fashion an institution that takes into equal

accounts both the individual and institution. Some may argue that it is impossible to hold two

priorities at equal value. Through the rest of this chapter I will show how we can balance the

two, or at least switch between them with ease, by adding a third level of group analysis to our

thinking. Furthermore, I will show how while recognition comes easily from a treatment of the

individual, redistribution necessitates examining groupings and group affiliations.

Page � of �4 44

Roxanne Beard, Robyn A. Berkley, Catherine Daus, Nicole Cundiff-Meyer, and Nicholas G. 6

Hoffman. “Come Out and Lead: Emotional Labor as a Framework for Understanding the Impact of Hidden Stigmatized Identities on Leader Behaviours.” Emonet Conference, 2014, 23.

Which includes discussions unpacking norms and privilege as well.7


Within the politics of differences, there have been two main solutions put forward, fitting

under the labels of recognition and redistribution. Recognition involves seeing differences, often

tied in with cultural heritage, and having respect for these divergences in thought and practice. It

is the opposite of the 90s ‘colour blind’ movement. Charles Taylor is a champion of recognition 8

politics, which have played out quite differently within Quebec and the rest of Canada. 9

On the other side of things, stemming from a history of class struggles, comes the idea of

redistribution. Redistribution generally involves taking resources from those who have a lot and

giving them, directly or through services, to those with fewer resources at their disposal. Any

state with public health care or graded income tax participates in redistribution in some way.

Over the years, recognition and redistribution have come apart, with the rise of identity politics

often resulting in claims for recognition trumping those for redistribution. Nancy Taylor argues, 10

however, that it is only with a harmonization between these two methods that meaningful

representation can happen. 11

Along this same vein, within the politics of institution building, it is both important to

recognize differences and redistribute conversational resources accordingly. When I speak of

recognizing differences, I am predominantly concerned with differences that will affect the form,

function, climate, or general unravelling of the institutional conversation. This includes people

Page � of �5 44

…which had me apologizing to my best friend from grade one for not realizing she was black 8

until I was in university.

Charles Taylor. "The politics of recognition." Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of 9

recognition 25 (1994): 25-73.

Nancy Fraser. “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and 10

Participation.” In Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, by Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, London: Verso, 2003, 8.

Ibid, 9.11


who are shy, those who have had no or a bad experience with the type of institutional

conversation at play, those who value silence and time to think complex ideas over to

themselves, or folks who are training in one conversational skill or another. The recognition of

these types of differences gives us information about where the conversation might go and things

that the institution should keep in mind when moving forward. By conversational resources, I

mean three things: the type of participation in the conversation, the time spent talking, and the

subject matter discussed. For instance, if someone had experience in facilitation, that person

might get less time to talk about their opinions in the group, but more time to direct the

conversation, pause it, call for someone’s opinion, etc.

Within the next few pages, then, I hope to show certain possible conversations that can

help navigate individual and group differences within the process of institutional formation.

Namely I will be advocating for the use of the question where are we coming from? as a useful

starting point that will then follow into conversations around what we might bring to the table,

where we might go, and what we’ll use to get there, the following chapters in this journal. By

beginning with the individual and then moving to group analysis, I betray a particular liberal

bent, delaying the conversations regarding the institutional level until the next section.

!Where are we coming from? !

As discussed above, in order to get equitable representation within our institution, it is

important to both name our differences and shift conversational resources accordingly.

Answering the question where are we coming from? is a good starting point for institutions who

are looking to avoid the problems of communitarian and procedural liberal models.

Page � of �6 44


The discussion around where we are coming from is one of placement. This is in contrast

to another question we might be compelled to ask to meet equitability, who are we? The latter

evokes unsituated identity tags, which can often bring us too far into the individual realm and

can lead to particularly divisive conversations. In contrast, the question of where recognizes not

only our situatedness, but also the possibility of movement from that place to another, specially

to the table around which we are all gathered. This question also helps us see where people might

need help getting into the room and around the table by expanding our idea of accessibility. It

isn’t just making sure the door is wide enough for our member in a wheelchair, it is also about

watching how we speak, where that mode is embedded, how particular vocabularies may alienate

persons, all so we can democratically construct our institution according to its membership.

There are a lot of informal ways to answer the question of where we are coming from that

will yield significant information about the institution. These can come in tangible, intangible, or

mixed forms. For instance, a region council might ask, where are you from? Who are you

representing? An interest group could glean information by asking why each of its members

cares about the fight at hand. Within a university institution, an obvious and useful question is

what are you studying? What discipline does that fit into? Most questions we can think of that

can fit under the umbrella of where we are coming from will yield fairly fruitful results in terms

of where the differences and the similarities within the institution might lie.

Within the literatures in the purview of this journal, we can break down the associated 12

conversations in three themes: what we care about, what we do, and what we’ve experienced.

These are separate but overlapping categories, with each largely connected and influencing the

Page � of �7 44

Political science, education, business. 12


others. Within the next few pages, I will outline each of these themes as they apply to the

individual and then show how they overlap between moving to group analysis under the same

headings. In each section, I will give an explanation of what is meant, a translation to make its

usage in institutional conversations easier, and a few suggestions of activities that will begin to

show how grouping is related to these conversations at the individual level. I will move through

the sections with the understanding that having the informal conversations around these themes

is useful, but for brevity’s sake, I will only be focusing on how the literature can direct

conversations.

What we care about ! Much of theoretical basis of the field of political science is concerned with what we care

about. The level of analysis of these cares varies from the individual to the inter-state level. The

rational actor model, taught as a basic theory within mid-level political science courses, 13

revolves around the idea that a rational actor is someone who a) knows what they want and b)

knows the steps necessary to get what they want. Neo-liberal models of international relations 14

operate off the basis of states’ economic desires and how the attainment of these desires affects

and is affected by power relations between states. Given that political science has a focus on 15

power, resources, and relations, it makes sense that a necessary building block is why people

engage in these dynamics in the first place, i.e. what their cares and motivations for action are.

Page � of �8 44

i.e. relevant enough to be occasionally applicable13

Mark P. Petracca. The rational actor approach to politics: Science, self-interest, and normative 14

democratic theory." The Economic Approach to Politics: A Critical Reassessment of the Theory of Rational Action (1991): 172.

David A. Baldwin. “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics.” in Neorealism and 15

Neoliberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, 3.


The cares of political science can be broken down into three main categories: preferences,

interests, and values. It is important to see conversations surrounding these three topics as a

shortcut into the broader discussion of what we care about and thusly where we are coming from.

Preferences, interests, and values are words that provide a good way into this larger conversation.

Nonetheless, by focusing on one over the other, we can yield different and specific information.

It is up to the members of the institution itself to choose what conversations will be most useful

to have. There is no one right way to having an institutional conversation and discussing our

placement and cares.

Preferences ! The notion of preferences is particularly vibrant in the field of political economy. To 16

have a preference is to be able to choose one thing over another. It is strongly linked to taste, and

neither preferences nor taste have to remain constant for them to be acted upon. Preferences are

highly individuated and can be quite arbitrary. The ability to rank a set of things is inherent in the

idea of preference. They can either be separate or tied to interests or values. You might have a

preference for blind voting because you value the ability to be anonymous, or you might have a

preference for chocolate ice cream, just because you like the taste over vanilla.

Having conversations about preferences can show, often in superficial way, how an

individual is situated in terms of their likes and dislikes. While there may be some folks who are

particularly attached to their preferences, it is generally a low-emotive discussion when

exploring what people prefer. Translating into the vernacular, we can ask a room: how do you

Page � of �9 44

See, for instance, Joshua S. Gans, and Michael Smart. "Majority Voting with Single-Crossing 16

Preferences." Journal of Public Economics 59 (1996): 219-237.


prefer to interact with others? What is your seating preference? Would you prefer we work

through the hours or have a break or two?

Sorting people by their preferences can be a fun way to make connections without

evoking the highly political. Almost any preference category can work as a good ice breaker-

moving people around the room based on if they like dogs, cats, or other more, or sorting people

according to their favourite dessert. Alternatively, if you’ve got some markers and chart paper,

have a number of pens in each colour and see who picks which. These are some low key ways for

people not only to get to know each other, but to also point to extra-institutional activities for

bonding.

Interests ! Interests tend to be slightly more permanent and emotionally involved than preferences,

though these two are often connected. Someone might have a preference of pizza over burgers,

so they might have an interest in pizza being served at the meetings. To have an interest, in the

way it is discussed in political science, is to have a desire for a particular outcome. It is different

from being interested in something, which is more of a curiosity or association than it is a want

for something to happen or to exist. They can be short term or long term, and can either end once

fulfilled or evolve into an interest that is related. Interests can be narrow or broad and they can

support each other or be in opposition to one another. For instance, I might have an interest in

sharing the extent of my thought in a discussion, but I also have an interest in learning as much

as I can. The balancing of interests can involve a give and take of time and resources and a

temporary prioritization when the situation puts multiple interests in conflict. Interests are tied in

Page � of �10 44


with political concepts like stakeholders, that is, anyone with a particular interest in the outcome

of organizational processes.

More often than not, interests are how we talk about political groups, especially those

who are seeking the protection or the betterment of a particular population. Interests are useful 17

to speak of because they are most directly tied with a particular action and thus are more tangible

than other possible avenues. Translating into the conversational sphere, we can ask: what do you

want to come out of this conversation? What potential outcomes brought you to the table today?

What should be the interests of the organization? How might an organizational interest affect

your individual interests?

Bringing folks together under the scope of interests is a bit trickier than with preferences.

Interests are usually tied to something that exists or could exist. People tend to be a bit more

defensive of their interests than with their likes and dislikes. For a group activity, it may be best

to pick some broadly agreed upon interests, like an interest in a well-rounded life or in caring for

the world, so that we don’t go too far down the rabbit hole.

Values ! Values are the most stable and emotionally saturated marker of what we care about of the

three listed. They often underpin both interests and preferences, but unlike them, are generally

intangible. I value democracy so I have an interest in an accessible government and a preference

for the party that will get us there the fastest. Values can be very deeply entrenched and are 18

closely connected with beliefs, which also direct interests and actions. It is debatable how much

Page � of �11 44

Scott Ainsworth. "Regulating lobbyists and interest group influence." Journal of Politics 55, no. 17

1 (1993): 41.

Hah. Unlikely. 18


choice we have in our values. In the very least, though, we can rank them and make decisions

between them much as we do for interests and preferences.

Political parties are hotbeds for values, generally using them as a basis for policy

creation. Values can be a useful shorthand that can predict where one might fall once 19 20

questions of what to do arise. Being placed in a particular value camp does not directly lead to

homogenous preferences or interests, but they can be salient indicators. When speaking

institutionally about values, it can be useful to ask: what are the core values you are bringing to

this group? What is valuable about coming together in the first place? How might be our

institutional actions reflect some of these individuated values? What would be a institutional

action that would betray one of your core values?

Given the highly emotionally saturated nature of values, it’s important to be cautious

when sorting individuals according to them. In the same way as interests, it may be useful to pick

a few that might be relevant to the institution at hand and get folks to rank them. Or play out a

scenario where two agreed upon values are at odds and how they might handle the situation. 21

In sum, we can come together in conversations about preferences, interests, and values

and learn a good deal about what people care about and thusly where they are coming from. By

highlighting what is important to individuals, we can start to see how we might accommodate

certain likes or desires into the structure of the institution itself. And there’s no need just to stick

Page � of �12 44

Gian Vittorio Caprara, Shalom Schwartz, Cristina Capanna, Michele Vecchione and Claudio 19

Barbaranelli. “Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice.” Political Psychology 27 (2006): 1-28.

See also the last NL NDP convention, where the party claimed a number of values tags, and 20

in fact, to be a values driven party.

(ask everyone to submit their top 3 for the institution)21


to these three topics; in fact, some of the richest conversation might come from a discussion that

more broadly addresses what we care about and leans on these shortcuts only in part. In the end,

it is up to the institution to decide for itself what the relevant conversation to be had is and the

best way of getting there.

What we do ! Moving on from speaking of what we care about, another way we connect as groups and

find meaning as individuals is in what we do, or put more academically, the practices in which

we partake. These are activities we engage in either alone or with others, publicly or privately,

once or repeatedly, broad or narrow, voluntarily or not. It could be anything from buying

groceries, to playing in a band, to working a certain job, to speaking a language, or attending

school. Institutions built from shared practice can thus be incredibly varied. Shared practice can

be doing the same thing as someone else or doing something within the same overarching 22

structure as others. The latter are characterized by the interdependence of action, communication,

and knowledge production. Thus, we can say that participating in an MPhil class is an act of

shared practice, even though there is a professor, students who have done the readings and

participate, and those who prefer to listen.

In the discussion of practice as it relates to the institution, it is useful to keep in mind

three ideas: general practice, conversation practice, and language that comes from practice. We

talk about general practice quite easily: what do you do? What do you do in your spare time?

What do you want to do today?

Page � of �13 44

Indeed accounting for individual variation and the different emotional states it might produce.22


Sorting people according to how they generally spend their time can be useful in seeing

who might be best suited for what job. Grouping according to profession and discipline of study

are good indicators, as well as seeing who has had any practice with setting up or changing

institutions.

Conversational practice ! More relevant, perhaps, to the task at hand, is the subject of conversational practice.

Since we are taking the conversation as the main mechanism with which we are building our

institution, knowing people’s experience and comfort with particular modes of speaking will 23

provide a lot of insight as to the balance of the conversation and who might need to be more

consciously brought to the table. There are lots of ways of having conversations. Marking out 24

past practices of individuals is important when deciding how to have the conversation at hand,

and to see when one set of practices may trump another. For example, if there are a few debaters

in the room, there is an incredibly high likelihood that the debate style will set the tone of the

conversation, if there is nothing else that is working against that force. Folks who have no

familiarity with the dialogic form of conversation advocated in the previous chapter may need

some support as to what that looks like and how they can participate to the best of their ability.

When discussing conversational practice within an institution, useful questions can

include: have you interacting in this type of group conversation before? In what styles of

Page � of �14 44

This being said, it is not enough to commit to certain things, we also must act on what we say. 23

For the purposes of this chapter, we are going to assume a close connection between what is done and what is said. See Sara Ahmed. “The Nonperformativity of Antiracism.” Meridians 7 (2006): 104-126, for a fuller discussion on what is said vs. what is done.

As outlined in the chapter on space: debate, discussion, negotiation, mediation, dialectic, 24

dialogue.


speaking do you feel most comfortable? Do you talk more or listen more? Have you ever been in

charge of a conversation? Would you interrupt a person if you had an idea that related?

Parsing people according to their histories of conversational practice can be very

interesting. Even more useful is to sort along these lines and then purposefully spread people out

along the table, making sure that each are sitting next to a person from a different group. This

can help with lopsided tables where all the frequent talkers are at one end, leaving the other

partially disengaged.

Language of practice ! One of the other fruitful shortcuts relating to what we do comes with the understanding

that different activities come with their own language. In some cases this is obvious, as with 25

those who all speak a linguistic language. In others less so; with music, dance, and any other

artistic endeavour, each has its own vocabulary, principles that it takes for granted, and relations

that frame information, time, and space in a certain way. Even looking at the differences between

the trades and the academy will show drastic differences in the ways that people communicate.

Each discipline in the academy has not only different words for the same thing, but different

meanings of the same word. Where can you find the differences in languages? In training

manuals, books, institutional founding documents like constitutions, and above all, in

conversations between members of shared practice institutions.

The change in language also marks a change in associations and a change in what is

privileged. Therefore, bringing in a multiplicity of languages of practice, like interdisciplinary 26

Page � of �15 44

For the purposes of this discussion, I mean a particular vocabulary and set of associations 25

that is often situated within other actions. This can be verbal or nonverbal.

Robert J. Yinger. “Learning the language of practice." Curriculum Inquiry 17 (1987): 296.26


programs, bring in different ways of doing, but also different paths of representing concepts and

their relational characteristics. In the room, then, one might ask: how might the fact that we

speak in differently situated languages affect our ability to communicate with one another?

Where are your languages based? Which language do you find yourself speaking in the most?

What are some key worse that you have learned through working that you find particularly

useful? What are some languages of practice that make you feel uncomfortable or alienated?

Sorting according to languages of practice is be difficult, as we don’t often conceive of

language in this way. An internalized conception of how language relates to practice is a

precondition to grouping folks in this way.

To review, by talking about what we do, including how we communicate and how that

relates to what we do, we can begin to think about what it might look like to share practice as an

institution. Differences in practice can help to show where strengths might lie and who might

need support to come into the room fully. Answering questions about what we do furthers the

exploration of where we are coming from.

What we experience ! The last shortcut seeking an answer to where we are coming from is what we have

experienced. This theme gets at the situated aspect of the initial question most clearly. These

include conversations about what our individual reality has been until this point, which, while

placing us in a context, does not necessarily determine our ability to move to another place. 27

Experience is by far the most broad category in our discussion so far, as individual history

encompasses pretty much everything. Within the fields of education and politics, there are

Page � of �16 44

Namely, around the table. 27


generally two shortcuts we use to talk about our experience, narrative and identity tags. Each

provides a different set of insights into what we as individuals have experienced and thusly

where we are coming from.

Narrative or Storytelling

One of the most common ways to get across information about what we have experienced

is to tell a story about it. Think of how often we do this- someone asks how your day was, you

tell them about how you were splashed walking to school and how you were soaked and

miserable for the rest of the day. Or a friend asks why you were so upset watching a death scene

in a movie and you tell them the story of how close you were with your grandmother when she

passed away after a long battle with the same disease as the protagonist.

There are a number of different literatures that unpack narrative, including those in the

literary, anthropological, psychological, and sociological traditions. Most stem from original

work by Labov and Waletzky in 1967 that outlines six components of a story: abstract (what the

story is about), orientation (setting of time, place, and characters), complication (event),

evaluation (commentary on the event), resolution (how event worked out), and coda (bringing

the story back to the present). These categories are helpful analytical tools to begin to parse the 28

different section of someone’s narrative. However the stories that I am interested in, those that

communicate personal experience, do not necessarily need all of these components. They can be

“small stories”, or “tellings of ongoing events… shared (known) events, but also allusions to

Page � of �17 44

William Labov and Joshua Waletzky. “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal 28

Experience.” In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts: Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, edited by June Helm. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967, 14-20.


tellings, deferrals of tellings, and refusals to tell.” These may be fractured, partial, and without 29

one of the key components listed above, but still can provide very useful information about

where a person might be coming from.

Storytelling is not a passive activity; it is not only the simple relaying of a set of events.

In fact, “Tellers may use verbalization to relive past experience. Retelling can put them back in

touch with details and emotions they could not access otherwise. Questions and comments from

their auditors may also influence their perception and evaluation of past events.” Hence, when 30

an individual is telling an experience that relates to the institutional work before them, it can be

an opportunity to take what was felt then and apply the learning to the current situation. By

exploring stories that come up in dialogic conversation, we not only gain insight into a person’s

life history, but we make the narrative relevant at the table by using it to inform us on what is

important and where we might go.

Many of us know how to elicit stories around the table, and further more, how to ask

questions that will extrapolate the pertinent information. We can call up ‘small stories’ by asking:

How was your day? What happened to you before you got here? What did you get up to last

night? We can look for longer stories, more closely resembling those within traditional narrative

analysis with questions like: How did you get to the table today? What was your experience with

other institutional settings that are similar to this one? When was a time that you felt particularly

Page � of �18 44

Alexandra Georgakopoulou. "Thinking Big with Small Stories in Narrative and Identity 29

Analysis." Narrative Inquiry 16 (2006): 122.

Neal Norrick. “Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk.” Amsterdam Studies in 30

the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 203 (2000) 4.


useful in an organization? What was the cause of the last time you decided to end your

membership with an institution?

Storytelling games are a great way to build communication from the personal through to

group and institutional levels. You can each tell a story about a particular topic or event, or you

can build a story from person to person that describes a mock event. It’s possible too to

incorporate non-verbal ways of storytelling, like narrative through pictures or physical

movement. Given our propensity to tell stories, this is a very safe way to begin to see groupings

along similarities and differences of both storytelling performance and subject matter.

Identity Tags

One of the other shortcuts we often use to relate personal experiences are identity tags, or

more broadly, labels that describe us. These can be proper names (Paris, Suzie, The Harris

Centre), nouns (lesbian, father, drug addict), or adjectives (black, shy, broke). These

categorizations do not necessarily reflect an essential identity that is ever-true and unchanging, in

fact, we go through a host of labels through our lives as our demarcation shifts with the passage

of time and what is important to us. Rather, they are nominal tags, indicating attributes that often

affect the way we experience life. For instance, my identity tag of ‘trans’ indicates that I have

discomfort with woman pronouns, a tendency to present myself with a particular gender

expression, a difficultly navigating binary bathrooms, and a deep knowledge how gender

permeates our day-to-day lives. That being said, the identifier trans might mean something very

different to someone else, which shows that these tags are generally personalized at the

individual level.

Page � of �19 44


Unlike the topics we have discussed so far, identity tags are unique in that they are

chosen both by us and other people. There exists a very complex relationship between internally

and externally placed labels. Even the ego-champions who might be able to maintain integrity of

their internally chosen tags in spite of contrary externally given tags cannot totally avoid the

changes in people’s behaviour that result because of those externally placed categories. Without

going to far down the rabbit hole, it’s safe to say that internal and external identifiers play off one

another to varying degrees given the person. But unlike our interests and our professions, our

identity tags are not entirely our own, even if they are describing only us.

A number of liberal theorists are against bringing identity into the room at all, citing the

significant problems with identity politics over recent years. I will deal with their concerns

within the next section where I deal with group affiliations and identity tags. However, the other

option is to censor these descriptors, which, since we are quite good at putting labels on things,

avoids the problem rather than unpacking it at the table. And where would we draw the line at

what tags to ban from the table? Is it okay to say that we are shy, but not that we are a person of

colour? Or perhaps I can say I’m gender-variant, but I really shouldn’t say I’m trans? Here we

see the problem again of who gets to speak for the institution and claim which words should or

should not be in the room. If later, upon democratic institutional agreement, it is decided to keep

certain identity labels from entering the room, then censorship may be permissible. However,

there is no a priori way of deciding what identity categories will be relevant to the conversation,

and thus we must assume that our table needs to be able to hold as many of them as possible.

Similarly to stories, we are all quite proficient at picking labels for ourselves and others.

An institution could ask: What are three words that describe yourself? What are the five most

Page � of �20 44


important identifying tags to you at this time? What is a label that someone ascribed to you but

you felt didn’t capture who you were? How have your identity tags changed over the years? How

might different identities come into play in the institution? What is a piece of learning that is

directly connected to a label that you have chosen? How is a descriptive tag connected to the

experience of your life?

Sorting people into their identity categories is something we do quite naturally. After

asking people to list their three descriptive words, ask them to see if anyone else chose those

words. If you are undertaking an exercise that is focusing on how external labels are given, try to

stick to positive labels, as there’s no need to start a riot even before you get going. Try sorting

people according to labels that have relevance on the conversation, like loud, talkative, shy,

quiet, listener, performer, leader, etc.

Talking about experience both through stories and identity tags is a very meaningful way

of answering where people are coming from. Descriptors will give you the shorthand version,

with the need to further extrapolate to see where the definitions are fitting, and storytelling gives

the long version, where questions are best used to crystallize important information. By knowing

where individual members are coming from based off their past, it becomes more clear as to

what folks are bringing to the table and where the institution might go.

Thus far, we have spoken of what people care about, do, and experience as three distinct

ways of having the conversation about where people are coming from. However, these are

overlapping and generally influence the other. For instance, I value democracy so I do work in

democratic theory and have experienced many instantiations of a democratic decision-making

body. I am trans, so I am a person who binds my chest and I have an interest in making all

Page � of �21 44


bathrooms gender-neutral. Chances are, a conversation about one of the above listed topics will

also include answers about the others. It is interesting to see not only how they align, but where

there might be disconnects and why those might occur. If someone values participation in

government, why don’t they vote? If someone is gay, why don’t they march in the Pride parade?

Asking questions into why what people do, care about, and experience that seem at odds with

one another will, once again, provide good insight into where people are coming from.

Grouping and group affiliation

Up to this point, this chapter has focused on the recognition of individual differences and

how they might play out for the institution. However, we have not yet addressed the second part

of the equation necessary for equitable representation, redistribution of conversational

resources. In the next section, I will explore how grouping and group affiliation can be used 31 32 33

to help determine the appropriateness of giving or taking away conversational resources. By

moving through the same topics as explored above, I will make a case that redistribution must

only take into account differences in practice and experience, leaving what is cared about to the

side. I will also show how attentiveness to the way smaller intra-institutional groups form and

how inter-institutional groupings affect the conversation can further our understanding of how

our institution might unfold.

Redistribution can be done on a case-by-case basis. However, there are a few problems

with the individual approach that the group approach deals with better. First is the fact that it is

Page � of �22 44

I.e. Time spent participating, form of participation, and subject matter discussed.31

By grouping, I mean the way smaller groups form within an institution.32

By group affiliation, I mean how a person is connected with a group outside of the institution 33

and how that plays out within the institution.


generally a reactive solution. There first needs to be a problem for an individual then to make a

case for the institution. That makes the whole process of redistribution a much more lengthy one.

Second is the amount of energy it takes for an individual to make a case to the institution in the

first place. Given that those alienated from the conversation are already in a precarious position,

the likelihood of them simply leaving the institution rather than having this heavy emotional

conversation is high, especially for voluntary associations. Third, it takes a lot of institutional

energy to properly hear a concern and come up with a solution when an individual does make a

case. Not only does there need to be a fairly quick turn around time, but the institution needs to

be ready to hear these claims at all times, because you can’t predict when someone might talk to

you about an issue. Setting up redistribution frameworks alleviates some of these concerns, by

trying to address the issue before it happens and by having the scaffolding for action for when a

individual does raise a complaint. There need not be hard and fast rules of who gets what in a

conversation for there to be some a priori institutional awareness of potential arenas where

redistribution is necessary.

Before moving on, let’s make one thing clear. Conversations do not have an equal or

equitable distribution. They have heavy contributors and those who only listen. They are

lopsided. They tend to move about without a lot of concern for how they are moving. Certain

group-talking methods have attempted to address this. Having speaking times is a useful way of

trying to even the playing field, but even in those cases you have some who dominate the

conversation and those who relinquish most of their time. So we aren’t actually talking about

redistributing conversational resources from a neutral point. Rather, we are acknowledging the

Page � of �23 44


inequality of the conversation and instead are looking for ways of increasing equitable

participation.

What do redistributive acts look like? Redistribution of conversational resources include:

asking someone to wrap up their point, asking for someone’s opinion who hasn’t spoken a lot,

asking someone to translate or further explain a concept, holding silence in the space, limiting

the amount of time a person can speak for, giving someone more time to speak to fulfill certain

conversational duties, directing the conversation toward or away from particular subject matter,

limiting the forms by which a person can participate in the discussion, or pausing the

conversation entirely. Anything that has to do with the amount of time someone is speaking, the

way the are participating, and the subject matter which is being discussed can be considered as

conversational resources that can be redistributed. For the purposes of brevity, when I say that an

institution ‘should be aware’ or ‘should reallocate’, I mean either a facilitator who is working on

behalf of the institution, or a combination of members who are playing a facilitative role. Within

the rest of this chapter, I will lay out potential arenas where redistribution would be

advantageous.

What we care about

Different people within the institution will most often group around what they care about.

This could be rather benign, like enjoying the same TV show, or it could bear more weight, such

as having a particular desire for the direction of the institution. In this section I will be calling

attention to grouping tendencies within the institution as well as how group affiliations based on

what is cared about impact how a person might participate in the conversation.

!Page � of �24 44


Preferences

Since preferences are the least emotionally saturated of our cares, it is unlikely that there

will be a preference-based group affiliation that has significant bearing on the institution. Try to

imagine it- Chocolate Lovers Anonymous has a campaign to increase the amount of chocolate

that is consumed at all organizational meetings. A bit ridiculous no? Within the scope of

preferences, it is important then to look at the groupings that can occur rather than the group

affiliations.

In terms of preferences, groups can form around typical likes and dislikes. Often, people

have a preference to know what sort of environment they are walking into, or at least having the

option to know. This includes how long they will be there for, what they might be doing while

there, and what they are going to get out of it. Depending on how large the group who cares

about this facet, the more the institution will likely have to accommodate that preference.

Fortunately, those who have a preference for a bit of planning will often also be willing to put in

the effort to make that planning possible.

There may also be groups of people who would prefer a particular style of conversation

over others. Shared preferences can help determine meeting times, length of the conversation,

location, types of participation welcome, and other basic planning aspects to the institution. More

than anything else, catering to these types of preferences will help keep people in the room and

coming back to the table.

Interests

Interests are significantly more emotionally saturated and politically tied. Here it is

important to look at both group affiliation and grouping within the institution. To begin, it can be

Page � of �25 44


advantageous to know if there are members of any active interest groups within the membership

of the institution at hand. It is beneficial for two reasons: first, to see if there are any conflicts

between the two groups, and any institutional processes that might be hindered by this

connection. The second is to see what information and processes this person might bring on

behalf of an interest group that might support the institution and connect it with other

organizations. That Common Ground knows my position with Happy City is very helpful for

them when it comes to any City issues they might be facing; they have a resource to give them

information and to help navigate the bureaucracy that is local governance.

The intra-institutional interest politics are just as, if not more, salient to our discussion.

Looking at members’ political interests as they pertain to the institution will help to show some

of the driving forces that might direct where the institution goes. Important to notice are what the

desired outcome is, the degree of that desire, the direction that it would take the institution, and

how it is meshing with others’ interests. If there are three people in an eight person institution

that have a strong desire for it to be a resource provider, chances are the institution will grow in

its capacity to provide resources.

Seeing where different interests are complementing or competing with each other can

prove quite fruitful. In the end, it is about balancing interest forces within the institution and

coming to common agreement about the final direction(s) the institution should go in. Within the

next chapter, I will further explore what it is to come to an institutional interest, taking into

account my analysis of the individual and group levels discussed here.

!Page � of �26 44


Values

As was mentioned in the above section, values are a common way for people to unite and

are often used as shortcuts to policy prescriptions, as with political parties. Here again, it is

useful to see how both values-based group affiliations can come into play in the institution as

well as seeing how groups are forming along values lines.

If a member is a part of a values-based community, such as a political party or a spiritual

association, this may have impact on the institution. The member may bring in desires that fulfill

particular values on behalf of a community. In these instances, it is helpful to re-individualize

these values, i.e. ask questions that facilitate that member’s own analysis and differentiation of

their values from the community of which they are a part. This can help to minimize possible

representation that can occur, where one individual is claiming to speak on behalf of an entire

values group.

Within the institution, it’s wise to keep an eye on how particular values are lining up and

how groups are being formed accordingly. Watch out for pockets of values which may lead to

overly strong connections with some members while distancing others. Knowing where values

lie in terms of how they sit within the membership can bring attention to both sticking points,

where a particular idea or action will almost always be shot down, and possibilities for collective

group action. Members who share similar values may enjoy working together on small projects

that allows for the fulfillment of their ideological framework. If there are a few members who

value transparency and design, these folks might be well suited to writing the institution’s

constitution.

Page � of �27 44


Because preferences, interests, and values can all be separated from the individual or

groups that hold them, there are not necessarily good indicators for redistribution. After all,

everyone has a desire to do something, but without further contextualization, there is nothing

inherent within the concepts of what we care about that dictates any sort of pre-formed hierarchy

or ranking we should follow. Instead, redistribution can be seen as what ends up creating this

prioritization of one interest over another; we will need to look toward the next two sections if

we are to determine some loose parameters of how conversational resources get reallocated.

What we do ! As was discussed above, the practices we in which partake are diverse and can affect the

way we interpret the world and choose to act. Histories of practice may lead to particular

behaviour within the scope of a conversation, whether that is through directing the subject matter

of the conversation, using a certain mode of speaking, or employing words that are familiar to a

discipline.

Group affiliation regarding those who share practice is unlikely to influence the

institutional conversation. In fact, institutionalized group formation around shared practice is not

usually done under the banner of ‘people who do x’, but rather the associated identity tag with

the practice, such as teachers, lawyers, millwrights. We see this most often with unions, who

broadly protect the rights of workers, which might imply people who work, but generally leads

to a different conversation that includes the continual definition of who a worker actually is. By

reframing the discussion back around the practice descriptor rather than the noun that follows, a

wider net can be cast and there is not as high a requirement to define the category at hand.

Page � of �28 44


Within the institution, you might find that people who do similar work or activities in

their spare time bonding together. It’s important to notice any blind spots that a group may have

because of their shared practices. If there are quite a few from a particular practice background,

an institution should be aware of how the conversation might be pulled in a direction that

reaffirms the group at the expense of others. This isn’t to say that all those who teach will share

other attributes, but it is a possibility that should be kept in mind when unpacking group

dynamics of the room.

Conversational Practice

While discussions of general practice can lead us to possibilities of reallocation of subject

matter, it is within the realm of how people act in conversation particularly that will guide us to

redistribute according to time spent and type of participation. By exploring the tendencies of how

members might talk within the institutional setting, we can start to mitigate the effects of those

who dominate the conversation by purposefully curbing their participation and inviting those

who appear open to contribution, but have not spoken yet because of their conversational style.

Group affiliation is useful in this instance only in the shortcuts it can provide to a person

or group’s style of speaking. Hence, as a person who has debated for many years (and thus

associated with the group of people who debate), I know that debate is a form of talk that I am

comfortable bringing out at a moment’s notice. The institution should be aware of this and step

in to stop that style when it is unproductive to the conversation. As discussed in the previous

chapter, debate is not a very useful style when it comes to institutional development and

generation of new forms of interaction. In the same way, people who are associated with those

Page � of �29 44


who give speeches need to be monitored for the frequency of speech-giving and its impact on the

conversation.

Groupings according to conversational practice may necessitate some of the more heavier

handed redistributive tactics. It is one thing for a debater to bring in their group associations, it’s

another for a group of debaters to be sitting at the table. Intra-institutional group formation along

talking style lines can lead to very lopsided conversations. Typically, it is those who are louder,

more aggressive, faster paced, and comfortable who will dominate the conversation, unless there

are forces working against it. Some may argue that this is simply the way a discussion will go

and that’s perfectly fine. However, a number of conversational models, such as the Harkness

method, stress the need to not interrupt, look around the room to gauge where everyone is, and

leave a moment of silence after each person talks. There is no one right or wrong way to have a

conversation, and the use of different styles over the stretch of a conversation will help all

members feel like they can contribute, not just those who follow typically masculine norms of

communication.

Languages of Practice ! When thinking about the languages that derive from how people do activities, group

affiliations are not necessarily something we need to worry about, as there are not necessarily

external group ties that revolve around this category. What we do need to be concerned with are

ways of speaking that may need to be translated- my use of the word institutional generally needs

to be defined quite specifically before anyone really understands what I’m talking about.

Groupings within the institution that share similar languages may create pockets of

communication that isn’t accessible to the rest of the table. While these may create

Page � of �30 44


disconnections, they are also an opportunity to enrich the institutional vocabulary by asking

someone to expand on what they mean and its relevance to other discussed concepts. This is a

very minor but important form of redistribution that facilitates sharing words and developing an

institutional shared language of practice.

In sum, when considering what we do, and especially what we do within groups, we can

begin to see possibilities for the redistribution of conversational resources. Within the scope of

general practice, keep an eye out for how subject matter is being pulled by a group who shares

practice. When it comes to conversational behaviour, a firm hand may be needed to reduce the

speaking time of those who are contributing at the cost of others and to bring the

underrepresented into the arena of participation (given that they are willing). Finally, our focus

on languages of practice gives us indications of when we might want to give someone more time

to clarify and translate out of a certain vocabulary so that other members can fully understand

how the initial person’s idea relates to the conversation at hand.

What we experience The last way we can explore groupings and group affiliations is through our category of

what we experience. Certain personal experience might require special care from the institution,

especially if they contain negative impressions of any processes similar to those within the

institution. If there are groups of people who have negative experiences, it can be helpful to

investigate further similarities and use their expertise to try and come up with ways to avoid the

specific instances that made them wary of conversational processes of institution building. Time

should be allocated to discuss any wariness or fear about about how the institution will develop.

!Page � of �31 44


Narrative

In the last section, I discussed narrative as an individually-based activity. However,

storytelling within conversations is generally polyphonic, with one story leading to another, or

one person filling in details that another missed. It’s advantageous, then, to look at how 34

grouping occurs within the process of conversational storytelling. This can include who

contributes to the initial story, who tells a related story after, who is listening, who is having an

emotional reaction, or who is being labelled as ‘in’ the story or ‘out’ of the story. Watch for what

members tell stories together the easiest; watch also for who is often left out in group

storytelling.

Any stories that are about the institution itself are naturally quite relevant. Those stories

will say a lot about how the smaller group perceives the institution to be functioning. It is not

uncommon for some members of an institution to stay behind after the main meeting is done to

rehash, dissect, and analyze the conversation that just occurred. While the stories told from these

people are not to be taken as ‘the truth’ of what happened, they certainly provide insight on the

internal workings of the institution, or in the very least this group’s particular interpretation.

Keep in mind that the stories will be affected by not only the individuals participating in the

post-discussion, but the sum of the persons into the group. If A, B, and C get together and chat

after, their analysis might look quite different than a conversation with B, C, and D.

Finally, it’s wise to keep an eye out for any stories that are told that are claiming to

represent a larger group. If the group spoken about is in the room, it is fairly easy to check the

accuracy by asking other members (though this may need to be done in private). When

Page � of �32 44

Neal Norrick. “Conversational Narrative.” 2.34


referencing a group affiliation, on the other hand, should be taken with a grain of salt, since the

group discussed may not have given their consent to be represented in this way. Asking a person

to specify who they mean and how reasonable it is to be speaking on behalf of a non-present

group of people is a good way to allocate speaking time to reduce the potential harms that come

from this type of representation.

Identity Tags ! Identity conversations are often the most emotionally-saturated and highly political

discussions out of those surveyed so far. Hence, I will spend the rest of this chapter exploring

how grouping and group affiliations come into play with regards to identity labels and arguing

for the necessity of identity conversations while trying to mitigate some of the problems with

large scale Identity Politics.

Before moving into that discussion, however, let us first note that within our set of

identity labels (proper names, nouns, adjectives), we can recognize that some of these tags evoke

the connection with a specific group of people and the attached political movement, and some do

not. We can consider the labels that have little-to-no association with a specific group as low-

political tags, and those that invoke a meta-group as high-political tags. It’s helpful to think of

the low- and high-political tags on a spectrum, with descriptors like thoughtful, trainee, and nice,

on the low end of the scale, and words like trans, gay, and immigrant on the high end. Some

labels move along the spectrum, depending on how people self-identify and to what degree they

politicize their own identity, what the political climate is surrounding that identity, and how 35

often a person is impacted due to their association with the identity. Words like woman, father,

Page � of �33 44

I.e. use it as a category to legitimize political action.35


student, and worker are examples of those that shift accordingly. It didn’t matter for a long time

that I was a student at McGill, but as soon as the Montreal student strikes started occurring, my

identity tag as a student became highly politicized.

When we speak of bringing identity labels into the institution, few take issue with those

tags that fit within the low-political end of the spectrum. As I’ve argued earlier, it can be very

help to see who self-describes as shy, or talkative, or overenthusiastic. Noticing how persons

identify with the same words can be an advantageous predictor of behaviour and it can be wise to

spread out similarly-tagged individuals to mitigate the effects of grouping. Critics of identity

conversations tend to focus on the high-politicized identity tags as those are labels that (by

definition) are attached to some sort of identity politics. We can think of this association as being

connected to a ‘meta-group’, containing and implicating individuals that the member in the room

will never meet. This is noticeably different from our earlier discussions of group affiliation that

is comprised of persons the member generally knows.

Those who do not want identity politics coming into the room typically point to the

problems experienced within identity movements of the last fifty years. The first issue is with 36

the fact that there is meta-group association at all, which can rope people into a political battle

they did not choose simply because of a nominal label that they or others chose for them. Second

is a homogenization that occurs when any group is trying to forward claim- identity meta-groups

contain hierarchies as do most groups, and it is those with the most power who typically define

the parameters of that group, minimizing the diversity actually present. This homogenization also

Page � of �34 44

See, for instance, Joan W. Scott. “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity.” October 61 36

(1992): 12-19.


often asserts a particular essentialization, ignoring the fluid and changing nature of identity. 37

Next is the way that identity politics not only describes an experience, as was argued in the

discussion above, but begins to put expectations on both what persons do and what they care

about based on their affiliation. Identity politics also can reinforce and oppressor/oppressed

binary and keep those in the latter category marked as the victim. Critics would rather not bring

identity politics to the table at all, citing the disruption to the potentiality for a non-fixed

institutional identity.

What detractors of high-politicized identity conversations are ignoring, however, is the

fact that identity politics are already coming into the room in two ways. First is the actual

presence of individuals with a visible or invisible high-political label. The second is the fact that

the space created will generally form around normative characteristics, unless we are specifically

attentive to processes that would make it otherwise. We cannot forget that ignoring identity

politics within a room is a treatment of identity politics itself; we are never in a neutral place, and

pretending that we are will simply reify normative power structures and continue to keep the

marginalized on the margins of our institutions. I will first explore why we cannot keep identity

politics out of the room, then I will try and mitigate some of the harms that stem from identity

discussions, and I will end by arguing for redistributive mechanisms that facilitate an

antioppressive space.

Identity politics come into play almost as soon as a person affiliated with a visible

minority walks into the room. This person is explicitly seen, and seen as different, than the

categories of persons who have historically held power. We might want to believe that this

Page � of �35 44

Margaret R. Somers. “The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network 37

Approach.” Theory and Society 23 (1994): 630.


doesn’t influence interaction in anyway, but more likely than not, there will be someone who will

act toward them differently because of their visible status. This difference in behaviour can be

quite innocuous, like being extra polite to the woman at a table, or it can be highly problematic,

like asking the question ‘what are you?’ to a mixed race or gender variant person, revealing latent

sexism, racism, or other -isms or -phobias. Part of being privileged is being entrenched in a

system that caters to their identity, and many do not recognize how much they have internalized

their identities as what is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’. There is so much misogynous, homophobic, racist

behaviour that is excused under tropes like ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘we can’t expect to know

everything about them’, that it can become invisible…except of course to the member of the

visible minority who is routinely getting the bad end of the deal. By having a person who is

visibly different in the room, identity politics is already at play. When there are multiple persons

who share a high-politicized identity label sitting at the table, the stakes can be even higher.

But let’s pretend that we have a visibly homogenous group- there’s no need for these

discussions here, right? Unfortunately, invisible identity tags also necessitate conversations

around identity politics. Gay and trans identities are often those that can remain under the visible

radar, but still constitute as marginalized groups. Comments like ‘that’s so gay’ or ‘a man

wanting to be a woman is unnatural’ can make people feel like it isn’t safe to come out. While a

person might not want to disclose these aspects of themselves, the choice becomes very different

when the person knows they will be ostracized if they do share. As was mentioned earlier, gay

and lesbian leaders who are closeted at work can overcompensate in problematic ways, affecting

Page � of �36 44


their leadership and their team around them. No one should have to out themselves in an 38

institutional setting if they do not want to. No one should have to hide themselves in fear either.

Identity politics do not just come into play when a person of a visible or invisible

minority comes into the room. The space itself takes on normative aspects, dictating who feels

most comfortable and thus who can move the most freely in the room. Sara Ahmed points

specifically to the ‘whiteness’ of spaces, made true and invisible by colonization. “‘Doing things’

depends not so much on intrinsic capacity, or even upon dispositions or habits, but on the ways

in which the world is available as a space for action, a space where things ‘have a certain place’

or are ‘in place’…whiteness is an orientation that puts certain things within reach.” She goes on 39

to tie in into the space of institutions:

“Spaces also take shape by being orientated around some bodies, more than others. We can also consider ‘institutions’ as orientation devices, which take the shape of ‘what’ resides within them. After all, institutions provide collective or public spaces. When we describe institutions as ‘being’ white (institutional whiteness), we are pointing to how institutional spaces are shaped by the proximity of some bodies and not others: white bodies gather, and cohere to form the edges of such spaces.” 40

!Ahmed is pointing to one of the normative defining aspects of space, whiteness, and how it

determines the ways in which certain people can or cannot move. We might also name categories

of man, able-bodied, middle/upper class, heterosexual, cisgender, and neuro-typical as other

normative characteristics that a space will embody over a series of repetitions. Since the space

itself inevitably contains discourses that include some and exclude others, it’s of dire importance

Page � of �37 44

Roxanne Beard et. al “Come Out and Lead.” 23.38

Sara Ahmed. “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory 8 (2007): 153-154.39

Ibid, 157.40


to see what patterns of behaviour are simply including those who are almost always included and

excluding those who frequently experience the margins. Even without a member who has a

visible or invisible high-political identity tag, we cannot escape the reality of identity politics as

it already stitched into the fabric of the institution.

Since our institution is one that already contains some level of identity politics, let us now

turn to how we might mitigate some of the problems outlined above. The first issue we can

navigate by not assuming that all persons who could be described under a label should be

described in that way. There is no need to invoke identity politics onto another person in the

room, especially if they do not want to be associated in those ways. We can also recognize that

even if a person does identify in a particular way that they might not agree with everything

included in the typical politicization of that identity tag. By asking a person to individuate their

tag, we can start to break up our assumptions about that label and free it slightly from the politics

of which it is a part. When it comes to the homogenization of identity tags, there is a big

difference between saying ‘queers are discriminated against’ and ‘I, as a queer, and my queer

family, have experienced discrimination’. The first implicates all queers, the second makes it

clear that I am talking from my own history and about those who are close enough to me to give

their consent. This is a common strategy in identity-based support groups to keep the room safe.

Breaking apart the tag from the shoulds regarding doing and caring is a bit more difficult. But

outlining how the identity tag connects to the other topics of conversation set out in this chapter

can break those apart and show where some tension might exist between how a person identifies

and the expectations that they have of themselves because of their descriptor.

Page � of �38 44


As for maintaining the victim-oppressor dichotomy, let us first say that pointing out

discrepancies in the ease of movement does not make one a victim. In fact, the naming itself can

be empowering, as can finding solutions that locally work for the relevant institutions. Saying

that I’m trans and that people have a tough time with my they/them pronouns doesn’t inherently

make me a victim of their incorrect use of pronouns, it just means that within the places that I am

spending my time and energy, I expect to be an effort made. An analogy might help here.

Recently, I sprained my ankle very badly, which means I move about much more slowly. I may

be ‘walking’ with a group of friends who keep going a bit faster than I can. Asking them to slow

down so I can catch up seems fairly reasonable. They are generally happy to do so,

understanding that I’m in a different way. If I have to ask them again and again, I’ll probably get

pretty annoyed and might choose not go out with this bunch for as long as I am injured. While I

am asking them to change their actions because I have a different mobility, at no point do I need

to take on the victim-status to either ask them to slow down or to decide not to spend time with

them because accommodation isn’t present. Still, it is wise to keep an eye out for vocabulary that

would imply a victim status, so that it can be worked through in a compassionate way that

doesn’t fracture the institution. At times the person may very clearly be the victim, as is the case

with a homophobic violent attack. At others, it may be a culmination of microaggressions that

are leading them to feel powerless within the institution. As Susan Bickford puts it, “A claim of

victimhood is not automatically an assertion of powerlessness or innocence; it is an assertion of

the exercise of unjust power…[it is] an assertion of alternative [relations of power]…[it] is to say

Page � of �39 44


that I am a peer.” Nonetheless, identity politics cannot be swept under the rug in the fear that 41

‘victim’ might come up as an identifying tag.

So far, we have discussed both the inevitability of identity politics in the space of the

institution and how to mitigate some of the more problematic effects of an open treatment of

identity. I will now conclude this section looking at possible arenas of redistribution that help

facilitate an antioppressive space. To begin, it may be important to give some time to talk

specifically about how identity issues might play out. This is particularly important if you have

clear stratification along identity tag lines. For instance, a group of Gwi’chin youth came to visit

the MPhil class for two sessions. In the first class, the topic of discussion was the Gwi’chin

nation. But the room was clearly divided, and the MPhil students did not necessarily know what

their role as host and contributor should be. Race issues were clearly at play, but there was no

institutional preparation for obvious divide in the room. A conversation about what it meant to be

a graduate class inviting high school students in and a predominantly white group of students

hosting a group of native persons would have set up some expectations that would have allowed

to the conversation to flow a bit better.

Time might also be spent calling attention to the way the room is running and the

particular identity tags that those functions may be privileging. It may not be the case that all

those within a minority group are staying silent, but any alignment between lack of participation

and marginalized identity should be explored. This could be as simple as calling attention to the

notion that people should just talk in conversation as opposed to indicating their desire to speak

with a raised hand or other gesture. We need to recognize where our identity-laden bias is

Page � of �40 44

Susan Bickford. “Anti-Anti-Identity Politics: Feminism, Democracy, and the Complexities of 41

Citizenship.” Hypatia 12 (1997): 126.


playing in to how we set up the dynamics of the room and take it seriously when someone raises

a concern about how those practices might be alienating some around the table.

There also could be a basic need for institutional learning about different identity groups

and what is needed to ease their access to the table. This could be contacting the Independent

Living Resource Centre for information on how to make any institutional event more accessible,

or checking out some internet resources that explain basic notions of gender identity and

pronouns. Alternatively, if there is a marginalized-identifying member who decides it is in their

best interest to teach about the implications of their labels, the institution should do its best not to

discredit the possible learning and give the appropriate time and space to explore the topic.

All of these possibilities for redistribution contribute to an antioppressive environment

that allows the marginalized to participate in the centre of the conversation with everyone else.

Kumashiro outlines four strategies for antioppressive educative practices: learning for the other,

learning about the other, learning methods of being critical about privilege and othering, and

learning how repetitive citation shapes the institutions of which we are members. Keeping 42

these in mind, it’s possible to imagine other opportunities to redistribute conversational resources

to mitigate the effects of colonization on our local institutions.

~

In this chapter, I have explored the need for the recognition of difference and the

necessity of redistribution of conversational resources to get equitable representation of all

members within the institution. By asking the question where are we coming from? and its

conversational offshoots around what we care about, what we do, and what we experience, we

Page � of �41 44

Kevin Kumashiro. “Theories and Practices of Antioppressive Education.” In Troubling 42

Education, by Kevin Kumashiro, 31-72. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002.


can begin to make clear the differences that we can use to the benefit of the institution and how

we might accommodate variation at the table. Within the first section I explored the

consequences of these discussions at the individual level as a way toward recognition. In the

second section, I explored possible domains of redistribution, focusing especially on groupings

and group affiliations of conversational practice and high-political identity tags. It is my hope

that these conversational avenues will prove as useful tools to allow the balance of the

individual, group, and institutional levels when building or changing an institution.

!

Page � of �42 44


Bibliography

Ahmed, Sara. “The Nonperformativity of Antiracism.” Meridians 7 (2006): 104-126. !Ahmed, Sara. “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory 8 (2007): 149-168. !Ainsworth, Scott. "Regulating lobbyists and interest group influence." Journal of Politics 55, no. 1 (1993): 41-56. !Baldwin, David A. “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics.” in Neorealism and Neoliberalism, 2-28. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. !Beard, Roxanne, Robyn A. Berkley, Catherine Daus, Nicole Cundiff-Meyer, and Nicholas G. Hoffman. “Come Out and Lead: Emotional Labor as a Framework for Understanding the Impact of Hidden Stigmatized Identities on Leader Behaviours.” Emonet Conference, 2014. !Bickford, Susan. “Anti-Anti-Identity Politics: Feminism, Democracy, and the Complexities of Citizenship.” Hypatia 12 (1997): 111-130. !Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Shalom Schwartz, Cristina Capanna, Michele Vecchione and Claudio Barbaranelli. “Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice.” Political Psychology 27 (2006): 1-28. !Nancy Fraser. “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation.” In Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, by Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth, 7-26. London: Verso, 2003. !Gans, Joshua S., and Michael Smart. "Majority Voting with Single-Crossing Preferences." Journal of Public Economics 59 (1996): 219-237. !Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. "Thinking Big with Small Stories in Narrative and Identity Analysis." Narrative Inquiry 16 (2006): 122-130. !Kumashiro, Kevin. “Introduction.” In Troubling Education, by Kevin Kumashiro, 1-26. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002. !Kumashiro, Kevin. “Theories and Practices of Antioppressive Education.” In Troubling Education, by Kevin Kumashiro, 31-72. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002. !Labov, William and Joshua Waletzky. “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience.” In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts: Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, edited by June Helm, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967. !

Page � of �43 44


Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹ′ich. What is to be done?. Edited by Sergej Utechin. London: Panther, 1970. !Macey, Jonathan R. "Promoting public-regarding legislation through statutory interpretation: an interest group model." Columbia Law Review (1986): 223-268. !Norrick, Neal. “Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk.” Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 203 (2000) 1-10. !Petracca, Mark P. "The rational actor approach to politics: Science, self-interest, and normative democratic theory." The Economic Approach to Politics: A Critical Reassessment of the Theory of Rational Action (1991): 171-203. !Scott, Joan W. “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity.” October 61 (1992): 12-19. !Somers, Margaret R. “The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach.” Theory and Society 23 (1994): 605-649. !Taylor, Charles. "The politics of recognition." Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition 25 (1994): 25-73. !Yinger, Robert J. "Learning the language of practice." Curriculum Inquiry 17 (1987): 293-318.

Page � of �44 44

Navigating the I and the Us within the We: Where We Are Coming From

Documents

Transcript of Navigating the I and the Us within the We: Where We Are Coming From