philosophical underpinnings inspire us to develop systemic communal resilience and creativity? For ideas on radical listening to
power and not made space for others’ perspectives and needs; my words faltered as I considered my own participation in what I considered to be unfair societal and organisational practices because “that’s the way things are done and I can’t change them”. I sometimes miss my comfy relationship
with T atcher-bashing. I remain appalled at the destruction wreaked by a political credo of individualism and dog-eat-dog capital acquisition. But by constructing more systemic descriptions of events beyond crude binary blame and ‘us’ and ‘them’ oppositions, and by acknowledging our own contributions to the power pat erns in which we fi nd ourselves, we also prime ourselves to identify opportunities for responding diff erently. It brings discomfort and some agency for change.
Tenderness and mobilisation I am walking slowly beside my grown-
up daughter on a Silent Walk for Grenfell, near her childhood home. T ere was an important protest that same evening outside the Houses of Parliament, demanding action to re-house residents. For us, on that night, this smaller gathering seemed a bet er fi t with our wish to show quiet respect and solidarity with a community still wracked with shock and grief. As the hundreds of silent marchers
turned along Ladbroke Grove, I noticed a tall young man bend low to off er his arm to an elderly woman who held a candle and faded photograph of her husband, killed in the fi re. She tapped his arm
8
in gratitude and they walked together slowly until we doubled back towards the tower. T e fi re crew who come to show their respects at each gathering put their helmets on the ground, their hands on their hearts, and bowed their heads as the community march went by. T e elderly woman went up to one fi re offi cer and liſt ed his head so their eyes met. She then kissed him on his forehead before resuming her silent walk with her young companion. Later, I remembered Glenda Fredman’s
(2016) explorations of emotional postures, and refl ected how this community had created a context in which people could express and receive emotional expression from others. T is was a collective outcry threaded with tenderness, a collective emotional posture of both “tranquillity” and “mobilisation” (Fredman, 2016, p. 66, citing Griffi th & Griffi th, 1994, p. 66). Social action and nuanced relational responsivity can co-exist if contexts for doing so are nurtured with care.
Towards systemic praxis for social change
Ignacio Martín-Baró, a priest,
psychologist and community activist, killed in El Salvador in 1989, urged practitioners to “recover historical memory” to rediscover what might prove useful in challenging oppression; to identify links between distress and social circumstance; and to build on relational creativity and resourcefulness (Martín-Baró, 1994; see activity based on Martin-Baro’s 3 tasks, Box 1, p. 9). Might remembering our own modality’s radical practices and
diff erent views and experiences, I am inspired by SallyAnn Roth’s Public Conversations project, the pioneering work of Gerry Cunningham (2018) and other systemic practitioners in Northern Ireland, and beyond our modality, the relational creativity and sheer courage of ‘T e Forgiveness Project’ in developing dialogue between those who have “used their agony as a spur for positive change” (Cantacuzino, 2015, p. 8). Pearce’s (2007) poignant analysis of the media coverage of 11 Sept 2001 explores the potential of appreciative, richer narratives of ‘others’, ourselves and historical contexts beyond binary descriptions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. I am drawn to Wilson’s (2007; 2017)
and Afuape’s (2011, 2016) passionate commitments to resisting dehumanising social, political and practice beliefs and structures. Vikki Reynolds’ work brings me hope as well as pragmatically useful frameworks for collective community action (Reynolds, 2011). I am impressed by Collins’ (2015)
frameworks for exploration of intersectionality and wonder if we might adapt these to develop new understandings and practices that prioritise social justice. By substituting ‘systemic’ for ‘intersectionality’, the frameworks give us three areas for collective consideration: one dealing with the history, ideas, tensions and debates within systemic practice; another seeking to apply systemic theory as analytical strategy to examine how social institutions might perpetuate social inequality; and the third formulating systemic practice as a critical praxis, to consider how social justice initiatives might use systemic approaches to bring about social change. To these I’d add a fourth key area
for consideration – what the systemic community might learn from social justice action beyond our modality. Might we, for example, create or connect with groups such as Psychologists for Social Change, providing a forum where people feel safe enough to explore dilemmas and possibilities, gather examples of humanising and creative practice and consider advocacy, policy infl uence and organisational networking: or the
Context 164, August 2019
Towards systemic praxis for social change: The politics of practice and practices of hope
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
