Looking at any issue, it’s helpful to consider things from three angles:
1) personal stories from experiencing the issue
2) definitions, measurements, indexes, policies, etc.
3) the systems that lead to producing the stories
If you uphold one or two of those dimensions above any other, there’s a strong chance you’re silencing someone’s reality/(ies) and no longer seeing the whole picture.
[fragment/incomplete thought:]
Rely solely on personal stories, and you risk missing the opportunity to translate it into actionable change while being at odds with the remaining realities that make up the big picture.
Rely on standard definitions and policy, and you bar the validity of perspective individuals may have by requiring a transactional fluency in bureaucratic standards — this requires more resources than the average person might have available to effectively navigate and contend with. Meanwhile, a bureaucratic or academic bias toward definitions puts people at risk of denying nature and the larger institutional or environmental factors that really determine whether the definition and policy works at all.
Rely on systems and the complexity shuts out those who don’t have the capacity to be in community with seeing those realities at work in their day to day life
No comments:
Post a Comment