Community Voices In Interventions: An Afterthought?

I recently participated in a Climate Change Championship, focused on community-driven solutions. Each civil society organization presented an idea or a solution to a climate change problem. The team presenting the ideas had a community representative and an intra-preneur. I was the intra-preneur and my colleague who belongs to a tribal community the representative. This led me into thinking about the nature of community, representation and power dynamics within all of it.

Several questions within the statement, what constitute the community? The uncertainty whether working with or for the said community. Who should be the intra-preneur? Does the idea of working ‘for’ comes from a place of superiority, a sense of knowing better? Is the notion of working ‘with’ stemming from the idea of representation of voices and social justice, again knowing better? Does community representative refer to the idea of social inclusivity? Were the voices of community an afterthought in the proposed solution? When we talk about representing voices, are we propagating the neocolonial idea of ‘The Other‘? Is the community separate from us?

Defining The Voices?

Representing community voices in global issues like climate change isn’t new. But how do we define these voices, and who should be represented? Is intersectionality an elusive concept? My co-fellow has shared beautifully her thoughts on defining community and importance of intersectionality.

In defining community and representation of the unrepresented voices. One thinks of a diverse group of people each with their own set of interests and goals. The set of interests and goals are interlinked with multiple identities of the individual. These identities/intersectional elements as a whole create the individual. But when we think representation are these identities considered as part or whole of the voices? Where do we think the representation should exist? Is it within the problems, solution or thinking of the solution? Who should be the primary voice in shaping solutions? Should it be the community representative, the intrapreneur or a collaborative effort between the two?

Who Hears The Voices?

We, the society should hear the voices. The community can/should not be existing as a separate entity. Rather The idea of The Other and Them vs Us, should be considered obsolete. This idea of a separation existing between the civil society and the said community creates additional inclusion. The inclusion should be at every step of decision making rather than a last step of checklist. These additional, last step inclusion creates for nominal representation. The intersection of one’s entire identity is never considered. An individual is separated from the entire ecosystem and a relevant identity is centralized.

To break down the ‘Us vs Them’ paradigm, collaborative partnership between civil society organizations and communities are essential. Mutual understanding is the key to fostering these partnerships. The idea that one knows better increases the rift between both. Words of Dayal Chand Soni comes to mind. In a letter known as An Illiterate’s Declaration to the Literacy Preacher. He has written the letter in the voice of a farmer to an educator who comes to the village. The farmer voices concern about knowing everything about topics relevant to himself. But the educator comes to ‘teach’ him ‘better’ ways to do the same. He provides the educator a clarity about how her modern views would lead to backlash. This in turn would result into breaking down of her own concepts and realities.

The perception of knowing better often stems from a lack of understanding of diverse perspectives and experiences. This leads to unauthentic representation of the individual and their issues.

Authentic Representation Or Tokenism?

The representation cannot be seen as additional layer. The idea of intersectionality shouldn’t be an afterthought rather a mindset. When thinking of a solution for an existing issue. The interaction between identities should be considered. An individual experiences oppression as interplay of all identities rather than an overlap. For example, a widow in a tribal village belonging to a minority tribe would experience an event positive or negative as an interplay all her identities. Rather than experiencing misogyny+ racism+social exclusion separately she experiences it as a whole.

The existence of separate multiple layers of identity works for initial understanding of intersectionality. A holistic approach to intersectionality is necessary for effective social inclusion and representation. It is idealistic to think that every identity can be fully represented. However, we can start by taking small steps.

In context of racism, the starting point can be conversations around the underlying assumptions of understanding about race and identity. A lot of conversation about racism focus on Western concepts of colorism, but in India, our society intertwines colorism with social class, sect and gender. So, anyone who is not fair but is a male and belongs to higher social class in India would have an entirely different experience. When compared to a woman of a lower class from a tribal community experiencing the same construct. The lack of consideration of entirety of these interaction results in problematic representation. These representations in turn leads to policies and advocacy groups that lack authenticity.

Is There A Solution?

The concept of community is a complex intersection of identities thus the solution of representation is the same. Solution can be multi-faceted, and inter-linked, few ways are:

Intersectionality should be a continuing process, rather than an afterthought.

This would be an arduous task however continuous efforts need to be put forward. The idea of knowing how to talk ‘about’ and ‘for’ should be tried to replaced with ‘by’. The voices would be authentically represented ‘by the community’, on their issues and experiences. The complexity of these identities and voices might appear daunting. However, intersectionality is not just a concept but representation of the complexity of identities and lives. If considered as a base framework, this would be possible.

The civil-society organization should practice critical self-reflection. Regular assessment of practices and biased to ensure inclusivity and equity. Any step and intervention planned should have a reflective model with community present. Community dialogues are a great tool to do so. Practiced at every step of an intervention can decrease biases.

Community centered approach should be priority. While designing an intervention simple inclusion of a community representative is not enough. The needs and aspiration of the community should be the root of the intervention. Empathy map can work as a great tool to understand the stance as well as needs of the community.

Community-led initiatives rather than ‘dumbing down’. We should not limit inclusion to dialogues and assessments. Involvement at every step of intervention in form of active and relevant participation should be the norm. The representation should not occur at final stages rather in one’s own voice from initiation and ideation to fruition and reflection. This means considering intersectionality and participation in decision making processes.