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)

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.

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!…

““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.”

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.)

it’s also important to check ourselves – access to digital communications is not The Answer (see: criticisms of the One Laptop Per Child initiative).

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.”

I believe this is the same reasons why micro-finance programs are becoming so popular. […] 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.

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.