The big gaps between rhetoric and reality – Dr Liz Gordon

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about ‘enablers’; leaders who provide a discourse that can be taken up by others. I mentioned Donald Trump and racism, and the #MeToo movement and anti-harassment, among others.  The main thesis of enablement is that people who hold views that cannot be expressed find, as a result of the enabler, that they can express their views.  Whether these be proto-Nazism or nascent feminism, the enabled feel able to share their views.

In this blog I want to talk about the opposite to enablement, where old views or practices, deeply held and rarely questioned, flourish while the world is changing around them.  I have been thinking about this because of some of my research in the social sciences, but the trigger for today was a headline about the sexual predatory practices of some men at cricket matches.

In essence, it is claimed that some of these men acted like a pack of dogs, feeling up women, taunting them, calling them names and providing unwanted comments on their sexuality.  It was also claimed that security guards stood back and allowed it to happen.

I wasn’t particularly surprised at the behaviour.  Sports in New Zealand are massively sexist, with men getting 90% of the funding, TV time, attention and admiration. Male clubhouse behaviour has long been reprehensible, I believe.  There is the old double standard of the treatment of women in general (the slut-whore genre) and one’s own women (sacred-pure-untouchable).

The leadership around this deplorable behaviour has been, for a long time, equivocal.  But change is now occurring at the top, and it was good to see the emphatic statement by NZ Cricket that it is wrong “to accept these anti-social behaviours on the basis that it’s just ‘part of our national culture’”. Indeed, although it is interesting that NZ cricket sees such sexual violence as part of our Kiwi culture.

The recent encore of the Tony Veitch affair, which saw this violent abuser nearly end up back on our TV screens, while he has been hosting a sports show on radio for years (this is not a coincidence), reminds us both that things have changed and that they haven’t.

It is not just in gender relations that ‘part of our national culture’ still marches on. There is plenty of evidence that progressive policies founder when subject to implementation ‘down the line’.  There are two areas of my work where I have recently encountered what I now call the ‘murky world between policy and practice’. Which is, I think, essentially the same thing as that ‘part of our national culture’ mentioned by NZ cricket (but never embraced by all).

The first example is the treatment of people by many Work and Income staff.  When I was researching grandparents raising their grandchildren, I was astounded at the treatment many, indeed most, of them experienced when approaching Work and Income for the Unsupported Child Benefit.  What should have been an interview getting information to ensure eligibility, often became a nearly abusive attack on the grandparents for needing the support. Read my article on this (in Kotuitui) if you want details.

Essentially, the attitudes of staff heavily interfered with the welfare transaction. This is despite clear rules (which are NEVER displayed in WINZ offices) and a lot of money paid to consultants to bring about culture change in WINZ offices.  The practice of putting down beneficiaries is alive and well at many of these sites (there were some exceptions).

The second area, and in some ways worse, is trying to bring about change in prisons.  The Department of Corrections, at National and indeed Regional levels, is a reasonably progressive organisation committed to reducing re-offending and improving options for rehabilitation. Yet, when I volunteer at a prison, I find that the staff are often far less progressive. In the murky world of the prison lurks a range of attitudes that militate against the kind of change desired at the national level.

It is possible that these views are part of some national culture.  It is certain that such a culture is highly contradictory, is not the only ‘national culture’ that exists and is amenable to education (although it takes a bit of time to change such attitudes).  Enablers in all fields, presenting alternatives clearly and explaining their benefits, can lead most people to change.

There is the opportunity now for strong leadership on the cultural issues (gender oppression, racism) and the policy problems (in the social and justice sectors in particular) to bring about deep change through committed leadership.  It is what Labour did between 1935 and 1940 in particular. Our ministers get the big bucks to lead this change, and I know many of us would be happy to work with them on these kaupapa in 2018.