Are you Voiceless, or Unheard?
I saw an interesting discussion on Twitter this morning(late night their time, remember I’m in India at GMT+5.5). A variety of #mediaagitators were discussing the term “voiceless.”
Here is a selection:
digidem “Tweets and Blogs: Social Media as a Voice for the Voiceless” @emjacobi invited to give talk at American University on community empowerment
SamGregory @DigiDem Is anyone truly voiceless? Or they are just being ignored if/when they use their voice?
audaciaray .@lksriv @SamGregory @DigiDem I really hate it when people are referred to as “voiceless” – so patronizing and disempowering
maymaym Yes! We’re not voiceless—they’re not listening. ♺ @audaciaray: Hate it when ppl are referred to as “voiceless.” Patronizing & disempowering.
emjacobi @audaciaray @lksriv @samgregory – i’ve been off twitter all day, but i agree completely that no one is “voiceless” & said so.
I fully understand that there is a distinction between being voiceless and being unheard or ignored. I am concerned that for the privileged, and lets be clear, anyone who has direct access to Twitter counts as “privileged” in my book, it can be problematic or worrisome to spend too much time discussing the semantics of our relationship to power and privilege.
Perhaps we can work toward an effective and meaningful definition of those we’d like to be collaborating with?
The primary issue I see with the term “voiceless” is that by defining someone you’d like to collaborate with as disempowered you have immediately created a power divide. You cannot help but stratify your relationship if you define your relationship as one based on their need and your support.
At Small World News we have primarily worked to see how we can use our privilege to support others to magnify their voice, to strengthen their broadcast, and, at our core, provide the skills and support that is asked for, and then get out of the way.
However, I’ve tried hard not to fetishize semantics such that I might exaggerate the capabilities of those with the least access. It can be equally difficult to help those who have never spoken for themselves to know what they have to say. How do we describe someone who does not know what they’d like to say, as a result of generations of disempowerment?
Today I am in India working on creating a loose network of Community Producers, social activists trained to be journalists who will help shed light on the disparate issues facing their communities that have, until now, never been accessible to the commons, to a wider community beyond a small geographic area. It is likely they have as much a need to be heard as to understand what they might say and how it might benefit their local community.
The willingness to listen and ability to have patience to a fault may be more important than trying to provide the tools for others to access the digital communications space.
Do you think the term “voiceless” is at all helpful?
Can we work together toward a more meaningful definition of those who lack access to the media commons, to the digital commons, who have never been listened to, and reflexively may at first appear to be “voiceless?”
Hi Brian,
Thanks for expanding on this and taking this discussion beyond a brief twitter exchange. Here are some quick follow-up thoughts to join your conversation.
I avoid ‘voiceless’ for the same reasons as you. In practical terms people may feel like they have been denied a voice, but it sets the power parameters and is fundamentally not true to begin with the assumption that anyone has no voice. In counterpoint if we start from an assumption that everyone has a voice, that doesn’t mean that a tool/quick fix will solve that when a person or community is used to not having anyone in power listen to you, and may have largely given up trying. i.e. we need to recognize that sometimes it can feel like ‘it isn’t voice if no-one seems to be listening”. Voice here is very closely linked to a sense of agency.
And if you’ve used your voice and seen no impact that can be pretty disempowering, as a second stage; that can apply either if you chose the story you want to tell, or someone asked you to tell a story. Patrick Pierce, who’s on a current New Tactics dialogue around human rights documentation at http://www.newtactics.org/en/blog/new-tactics/documenting-violations-choosing-right-approach#comment-3597 notes the frustration of refugees from Burma about ‘telling their story’ again when it doesn’t seem to serve their interests, i.e. ’suffering fatigue’:
“In 2003 during an assessment process to get a sense for what documentation efforts were already happening among Burmese communities and to gauge the willingness to form a network, a group of us met with refugee and migrant communities on the Thai-Burma border. After I introduced the idea of forming a network and asked for feedback – who had ever been interviewed, about what, and by whom – one woman basically said if another person comes through the refugee camp and asks her to tell her story, she’s going to start charging money for it. She was half-kidding, but her point was something akin to sympathy fatigue (hearing too much about suffering) – maybe “suffering fatigue,” (talking too much about suffering). She didn’t need a counselor, she didn’t need to be comforted, and she had originally been very willing to tell her story because she hoped it would lead to some benefit – exposure of the violence that the ethnic groups in Burma were suffering under military rule. But all she saw or perceived was rich Westerners – some journalists, some diplomats, academics – getting a dramatic story from her to put in their reports so they could raise money to write more reports (how she put it).”
So whether we’re acting as support to people telling their own stories, or intermediaries for stories, we have to be aware of the frustrations/history of storytelliny, inhibited agency and speaking that has gone before.
Sam Gregory
29 Jan 10 at 10:37 am
Excellent post, Brian, thanks.
I believe this is the same reasons why micro-finance programs are becoming so popular. Donate some money to a region where the people are suffering under terrible conditions — politically, economically, culturally — and it can feel like no guarantees that we aren’t helping them get through the next day, but not the next year. Lend some money to someone trying to start a business, however, through these new programs, and immediately you’re contributing to a sustainable, practical program.
“Voiceless” people need someone to speak for them. “Unheard” people are capable of telling their own stories, given the right tools, the right platform, and the opportunity. Using the right language can help make a difference in making sure they continue to be heard.
Rob
29 Jan 10 at 11:26 am
THIS: “The willingness to listen and ability to have patience to a fault may be more important than trying to provide the tools for others to access the digital communications space.”
…is so very dead-on.
In the digital and information activism communities, there is obviously a lot of excitement about shiny! new! tools! and the way they can revolutionize communications, advocacy, and social change. But it’s also important to check ourselves – access to digital communications is not The Answer (see: criticisms of the One Laptop Per Child initiative).
I think that probably the ways that new media can be measured/monitored (through traffic, links, views on videos, etc) is appealing to organizations that need to show the impact of communications work, so that might also be feeding into the push toward creating media that “gives voice to the voiceless” instead of spending more time and committing more deeply to listening.
Audacia Ray
29 Jan 10 at 11:37 am
Right. Moreover, just like any other tool, access to such things may actually empower destructive, rather than constructive forces. See this eye-opening TEDTalk rightfully criticizing “iPod liberalism.”
Rob, et. al., I think this comes down to providing value immediately. I see what Audacia is saying about the importance of listening as acknowledging the same fundamental truth that the success of these micro-finance programs you mention are doing: they don’t hide their value, they provide it first, and then they reap the even-greater rewards that come from empowering others. See also Free, Libre, and Open Source Software.
Are there voiceless people? I think there are. But I think there are far fewer of them than most folks realize. And even so, the more important thing is helping people help themselves. If you start from the assumption that they are “voiceless,” you’re not helping.
Meitar Moscovitz
29 Jan 10 at 2:40 pm
Hi Brian,
Great discussion. Thanks for allowing us to flesh this topic out. Referencing Sam’s post in which he connects voice to agency, I’ll add that “voice” also connects to participation + contribution.
If we seek to truly collaborate with people within communities that are disadvantaged (politically, socially, economically) to advance positive social change, we need to shift our thinking about who contributes to the “project.” It’s much more helpful to think of each other as equal partners who bring to the table various assets, resources, abilities, and time commitments. For example, one partner might bring access and resources, while the other one brings local learning, stories and knowledge. I’m not naive enough to believe that in our current system or in our way of viewing charity and social change, there isn’t a power advantage in being the one in control of the financial resources and of the avenues that distribute information. But we have to learn and teach a different perspective on what is contribution, what are valuable assets and resources, and who plays what position on the team?
In Sam’s example of the Burmese storytellers, they were contributing information and cultural assets. They weren’t voiceless– rather, they weren’t heard. And that isn’t a semantic difference. Yes, there are people who don’t know how to exercise their voice or don’t have the courage, and yes, there are a number of people lacking relevant knowledge or information. But that’s true for any group of people, disadvantaged and privileged alike. The point here is that it isn’t a waste of time to think about how we perceive the people we work with, or (to steal language from a “business” context) to define and value roles, responsibilities and contributions. And I don’t think the term “voiceless” has a place in social change, really, except in a very literal sense. In essence, calling people “voiceless” discredits their ability to contribute. All of us need to recognize participation and contributed assets as valuable tools, not for our own fundraising or report writing, but as leverage to effect positive change.
(I’m not certain if helps to name us “privileged,” either, because in the context of collaboration, that also perpetuates a power dynamic. Whether we are indeed privileged– and we are–is a different topic, so I won’t flesh that out here.)
Lina Srivastava
29 Jan 10 at 3:25 pm
[...] Speaking of Twitter, the title of the panel also sparked a great conversation on the medium between Digital Democracy, Sam Gregory, Lina Srivastava, Audacia Ray & Brian Conley. Brian wrote his own blog post on the subject … check out it and the great comments. [...]
Deconstructing “Voiceless” « Glean & Gleam
29 Jan 10 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for the post, Brian. I think Rob hits the nail on the head that:
““Voiceless” people need someone to speak for them. “Unheard” people are capable of telling their own stories, given the right tools, the right platform, and the opportunity.”
It may seem like semantics but it’s important. The words we choose reflect our worldview – and if we think people need us to speak for them, we probably won’t be doing them or ourselves much good.
I wrote my own thoughts down at my blog … http://bit.ly/a4a9yW … it’s good to see that we all see the need to listen as the foundation of any discussion about “voice.”
Emily Jacobi
29 Jan 10 at 3:50 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BaghdadBrian: A reply to @digidem @samgregory @lksriv @emjacobi @audaciaray @maymaym on the question of “voiceless” http://bit.ly/b4jP4I pls discuss!…
uberVU - social comments
29 Jan 10 at 9:27 pm
In my opinion, voiceless people are people who are not allowed to speak. Unheard people are people who can speak, or do speak, but no one listens. Some people here seem to be saying that voicelessness is a misnomer because everyone can speak. if you mean that literally — ie, unless you have a speech impediment your larynx is probably working properly and you can actually speak — then i agree.
But there are millions of people who are voiceless because they are not allowed to speak. Take your average rural woman in India. Many — not all — are literally not allowed to speak, except to her children when they are small. she is not allowed to speak to her husband about important matters. she is not allowed to speak to her inlaws about her needs. she is not allowed to speak in the panchayat/gram sabhas, the local village government meetings that are totally male-dominated.
So many of the issues of rural India are linked to voicelessness — one example is the high rate of female mortality in childbirth. women are literally not allowed to speak out by their health needs and their health issues, and so they many of them die.
It is not enough to simply improve the distribution of that voice, which is what is implied when we say people are simply “unhead.” the problem is at a much more basic level of what happens in communities with power structures and access to decision-making and public spaces, and age old discrimination. Voicelessness exists because society says that certain people (women, dalits, children, etc.) should not be allowed to speak.
Jessica Mayberry
30 Jan 10 at 2:43 am
Hi Jessica – I think your analysis works at a societal level, i.e. at a group level Dalits, and women, in rural India are denied their voice to intervene in decision-making, express their needs etc. But I’m not sure at an individual level that it can be simplified down to whether an individual has vocal cords or not. Do Dalits, women, not speak to each other within the same peer group about their lives? I suspect they mostly do (while recognizing there may be some instances where people literally are not allowed to speak to others) although possibly historically without much hope for change, or sense of agency. That’s my problem with voicelessness – I can see how it works to describe lack of agency at a societal level, but if applied to individuals it seems condescending and in most cases incorrect. And in all these cases we’re ultimately talking about sets of individuals who make up a group of people.
Sam Gregory
30 Jan 10 at 1:20 pm
Actually, Jessica, I think you prove the opposite of what you wrote by doing the valuable work you do through Video Volunteers. You reference women in rural India. I would argue this is not a group of individuals who lack voice or opinion across the board, though they are indeed denied access to decision-making or positions of influence across the board. To consider them voiceless when there are individuals trying to speak and be heard through the media noise, the governmental bureaucracy, and unfair societal norms is indeed a misuse of the term. And that doesn’t seem to match with your mission, anyway. Video Volunteers works with this group to train them in aspects of storytelling, critical thinking and curation, and the technical aspects of creating media. And, if I understand your model correctly, the ultimate goal is create a sustainable global community media network. So ultimately, Video Volunteers doesn’t create the stories, it provides a production and distribution platform. The stories are coming out of the community. In this case, your community partners are not at all voiceless.
Lina Srivastava
30 Jan 10 at 4:08 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Audacia Ray, Brian Conley, Brian Conley, Brian Conley, Brian Conley and others. Brian Conley said: Good Morning USA! What are your thoughts about using the term "voiceless" to describe those lacking access? mine: http://bit.ly/b4jP4I [...]
Tweets that mention Are you Voiceless, or Unheard? at Brian Conley's News & Notes -- Topsy.com
31 Jan 10 at 12:38 am
Terms like there need to be periodically renegotiated, understood anew for new power structures, new social structures, new technologies, new communication environments, so that there is a shared agenda and language among those who care about “voice” as part of a social justice agenda. We don’t understand “voice” the same way we did in 1960, because the context around us is fundamentally different.
This debate, which is part of one that has been happening for a long time in a lot of sectors, points up flaws in the metaphors we use to describe exclusion, inclusion, vulnerability – but it’s striking how persistently voice and voicelessness – meaning the ability to participate meaningfully in conversations that affect your life and rights, and to have your voice heard, and to have some prospect of influencing outcomes for yourself and your community – are symbolic of agency at some level for generation after generation.
On a personal note, I am more uncomfortable with the term “voiceless” where it does not relate to building or strengthening the long-term capacity to record, speak, analyse, publish, screen, share, debate, and so on, or increasing the diversity of perspectives in debates. It’s the approach that underlies the use of the word that matters more than the word itself.
Here’s a passage that I think gets to the heart of the relationship between power and voice in a very practical sense, transcribed from an interview with an Alabama sharecropper’s wife, from “Still Hungry In America”, by Robert Coles (http://www.amazon.com/Still-hungry-America-Robert-Coles/dp/B0007DRWCY):
“Do you do anything with those records you get out of that machine [audio recorder]? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, no sir. I just mean, well my son James, he was asking if you went home and played us, like we was on the radio, you know. The same with pictures. He said what do they do with them? Do a lot of other people see them, or do they keep hold of them to themselves? I said hey goes to a college, maybe, and shows them around, and maybe they’ll do something as a result, though to be honest I’m not sure what. I mean, people like you – I told my son that – they’re not the ones who makes it bad anyway. So probably there isn’t anything you can do to make it better. But James, well, he watches the cowboys and Indians, and he said no, that it wasn’t so bad that we couldn’t win somehow – because a lot of times if the good people really stick to their guns, they win, but if they don’t, that they lose, because they weren’t paying attention, or they just lost their nerves or something. And the boss man, his nerves are always good, yes sir. He just watches and he never shakes or loses his voice, no sir – not like us.” (p.11)
Sameer Padania
5 Feb 10 at 1:36 pm