This article originally featured in gal-dem magzine’s “Secrets” Issue. You can buy the magazine here.
In a last ditch effort to become one with my roots, I interviewed my grandma about her immigration story. I thought it would be a perfect setup; she would recount the traditional narrative of immigration from her perspective. We’d bond like never before and I would come out of the interview adorned head to toe in a glamorous sari and magically speaking Urdu.
Turns out it’s really hard to interview your grandma when she’s just not that interested in speaking to you (I’m grandchild number 31 – I’m not even sure she knows who I am). It’s especially hard when you don’t speak the same language.
Every question was a painful process of asking a question, my mother interpreting, and my grandmother responding with something quite vague or completely off topic. At one point I asked her about her trip to England and somewhere amidst the layers of translation, I gathered she was talking about how many times she had been to Hajj.
The next time I asked a question she replied with “have you eaten”? and proceeded to tell my mum to make me some food. The answers because increasingly confusing. Dates, especially, were up for debate. Like my grandma’s birthday; she’s 82 – give or take five years.
I was keen to find out how my grandma had been able to navigate life in a new country. I asked her how she got her children to school in England. She replied by saying her children didn’t go to school. Turns out they had all been to school, they just walked there and grandma wasn’t very involved in the process.
Soon the notion of translating was lost altogether – it became a chat about my grandma between me and my mum while my grandma looked out of the window like a bored, silent witness.
In the rare moments that my mum left the room, I was paralysed by fear. My grandma would say something to me in Urdu, I wouldn’t understand. She’d repeat again in a more exasperated tone. I still wouldn’t understand. I wished so badly in those moments that repeating something in a different language three times would magically make you understand, but instead, I’d jump off the bed and run to find my mum.
At one point, I thought we might be getting somewhere as my grandmother kept urgently repeating the same phrase. Turns out she was telling me to shut the door behind me.
I did get one quote from her though, and it’s a pretty great one: “People told me that England would be so full of marble that you would be slipping everywhere. And I did slip, on all the dog shit!”.
The final blow happened when I had spent hours cobbling together a workable piece. I sent it over to my mother who promptly responded “You cannot print this”. Turns out no one had clocked this was an interview that would be published in print.
My mother proceeded to write up her very own version of events. She sent me through a voice note detailing my grandmother’s story, written entirely by my mother. It began as I imagine any Bollywood movie does, a story “of a couple who loved each other very much and went on to have seven children together and remain very much in love”.
So despite my noble efforts to become at one with my heritage, it turns out my grandmother is just not that interested in sharing her story. Especially to a grandchild she barely knows and who can’t even speak her language. Her immigration story remains a mystery. But who knows, maybe one day I will finally learn Urdu, have some epic bonding experience with her, and learn the real story.
This article was originally featured in The Guardian. You can read the full article here.
I am 17 years old and I am a feminist. I believe in gender equality, and am under no illusion about how far we are from achieving it. Identifying as a feminist has become particularly important to me since a school trip I took to Cambridge last year.
A group of men in a car started wolf-whistling and shouting sexual remarks at my friends and me. I asked the men if they thought it was appropriate for them to be abusing a group of 17-year-old girls. The response was furious. The men started swearing at me, called me a bitch and threw a cup coffee over me.
For those men we were just legs, breasts and pretty faces. Speaking up shattered their fantasy, and they responded violently to my voice.
Shockingly, the boys in my peer group have responded in exactly the same way to my feminism.
After returning from this school trip I started to notice how much the girls at my school suffer because of the pressures associated with our gender. Many of the girls have eating disorders, some have had peers heavily pressure them into sexual acts, others suffer in emotionally abusive relationships where they are constantly told they are worthless.
I decided to set up a feminist society at my school, which has previously been named one of “the best schools in the country”, to try to tackle these issues. However, this was more difficult than I imagined as my all-girls school was hesitant to allow the society. After a year-long struggle, the feminist society was finally ratified.
What I hadn’t anticipated on setting up the feminist society was a massive backlash from the boys in my wider peer circle. They took to Twitter and started a campaign of abuse against me. I was called a “feminist bitch”, accused of “feeding [girls] bullshit”, and in a particularly racist comment was told “all this feminism bull won’t stop uncle Sanjit from marrying you when you leave school”.
Our feminist society was derided with retorts such as, “FemSoc, is that for real? #DPMO” [don’t piss me off] and every attempt we made to start a serious debate was met with responses such as “feminism and rape are both ridiculously tiring”.
The more girls started to voice their opinions about gender issues, the more vitriolic the boys’ abuse became. One boy declared that “bitches should keep their bitchiness to their bitch-selves #BITCH” and another smugly quipped, “feminism doesn’t mean they don’t like the D, they just haven’t found one to satisfy them yet.” Any attempt we made to stick up for each other was aggressively shot down with “get in your lane before I par [ridicule] you too”, or belittled with remarks like “cute, they got offended”.
I fear that many boys of my age fundamentally don’t respect women. They want us around for parties, banter and most of all sex. But they don’t think of us as intellectual equals, highlighted by accusations of being hysterical and over sensitive when we attempted to discuss serious issues facing women.
The situation recently reached a crescendo when our feminist society decided to take part in a national project called Who Needs Feminism. We took photos of girls standing with a whiteboard on which they completed the sentence “I need feminism because…”, often delving into painful personal experiences to articulate why feminism was important to them.
We were told that our “militant vaginas” were “as dry as the Sahara desert”, girls who complained of sexual objectification in their photos were given ratings out of 10, details of the sex lives of some of the girls were posted beside their photos, and others were sent threatening messages warning them that things would soon “get personal”.
We, a group of 16-, 17- and 18-year-old girls, have made ourselves vulnerable by talking about our experiences of sexual and gender oppression only to elicit the wrath of our male peer group. Instead of our school taking action against such intimidating behaviour, it insisted that we remove the pictures. Without the support from our school, girls who had participated in the campaign were isolated, facing a great deal of verbal abuse with the full knowledge that there would be no repercussions for the perpetrators.
It’s been over a century since the birth of the suffragette movement and boys are still not being brought up to believe that women are their equals. Instead we have a whole new battleground opening up online where boys can attack, humiliate, belittle us and do everything in their power to destroy our confidence before we even leave high school.
It is appalling that an institution responsible for preparing young women for adult life has actively opposed our feminist work. I feel like the school is not supporting its girls in a crucial part of their evolution into being strong, assertive, confident women. If that’s the case for a well-established girls’ school, what hope does this generation of women have in challenging the misogyny that still pervades our society?
If you thought the fight for female equality was over, I’m sorry to tell you that a whole new round is only just beginning.
Altrincham Grammar made the following comment about the feminist society:
“Altrincham Grammar School for Girls has supported Jinan in setting up the society, providing administrative assistance, guidance and proactively suggesting opportunities to help members to explore this issue which they feel passionately about.
“We are committed to protecting the safety and welfare of our students, which extends to their safety online. We consider very carefully any societies that the school gives its name and support to.
“As such, we will take steps to recommend students remove words or images that they place online that could compromise their safety or that of other students at the school.”
Our culture devalues female experiences of violence, while men, such as Ched Evans, who are convicted of rape are often pitied in the media.
This article was originally featured in The Guardian. You can read the original article here.
Media coverage of sexual violence never seems to be higher, yet it paints an inconsistent and incomplete picture that has left many of us confused. From reports that complaints of sexual violence are on the rise, to the public naming for the second time of the woman who was raped by professional footballer, Ched Evans, we learn that more women are coming forward but that they are far from always being believed.
Police figures released by the Office for National Statistics reveal that the number of rapes reported increased by 29% in the year to June. The police are quick to point to the growing confidence in victims to come forward and report rape. Yet police forces continue to woefully underperform when it comes to investigating rapes through to successful convictions. In the year 2013-14, a third of rape cases were dropped. This continued record of failure discourages women from reporting rape as institutions repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot deliver justice.
Beyond police forces, universities too are failing rape victims. One in four students at university receive unwanted sexual advances, yet only a tiny proportion of these incidents are reported.
In the Cambridge University Student Union’s women’s campaign survey into sexual harassment at the university, 88% of respondents who said they had experienced sexual harassment did not report the incident. Moreover, in many institutions policies to stamp out sexual harassment fail to provide adequate support for victims or to encourage them to come forward.
At my college in Cambridge, for instance, the harassment policy fails to state that it will investigate any complaint that is made, or that students who do make a complaint will be protected from adverse social or academic consequences. Instead, it warns that those who make false accusations will face severe consequences for disrupting the college community and “causing much stress. This is emphasised more than once in the policy. The focus on false accusations feeds into the culture of fear that intimidates victims from reporting rape.
The harassment policy also suggests one should speak to the perpetrator of the harassment to “reconcile”. It says: “Complaints of harassment may often, it is hoped, be resolved informally in consultation with the complainant.” This is obviously a distressing and potentially traumatising prospect for most victims of rape or sexual assault. What’s more, the policy does not even list what constitutes sexual harassment, thus leaving any victim feeling helpless and cautious when considering whether or not to report an incident. The body of support that is so desperately needed to encourage victims to come forward does not exist in most universities.
The cultural context that we live in also plays a role in discouraging the reporting of rape, along with adequate penalties for rapists. Men convicted of rape are often pitied in the media and, like Evans, quickly vault back to positions of fame. When US National Football League player, Ray Rice, viciously beat his fiancé unconscious, the media circulated a video to feed the public’s morbid curiosity. When men kill their partners, (twice a week in the UK) the world forgets the woman victim’s name as in the case of Reeva Steenkamp.
Coming forward in a culture that devalues female experiences of violence is extremely difficult, and if we really want to see a dramatic shift in how rape is dealt with as a crime we need to change our society’s treatment of violence against women. But there are still so many women who are terrified of reporting rape because the institutions that ought to be helping them threaten, traumatise, vilify and ultimately fail them. The attitudes of institutions and the backdrop of popular culture leads rape victims to doubt themselves, internalise feelings of shame and guilt and to suppress their experiences.
This article was originally featured in The Guardian. You can read the original article here.
Rape and sexual assault are rife in British universities: men and women need to be taught that sex requires enthusiastic verbal agreement.
The meaning of sexual consent is often misunderstood in disturbing ways by young people. There’s the idea that if you wear sexy clothing you’re asking for it; that silence during a sex act equals consent; and that women are always falsely accusing men of sexual assault and rape. Surveys have shown that one in two boys and one in three girls think it is OK to sometimes hit a woman or force her to have sex. All of which suggests a new approach is necessary. We need to teach young women and men about affirmative, enthusiastic and informed consent.
This year colleges at Cambridge University have introduced consent talks and workshops after a student survey revealed 77% of respondents had experienced some form of sexual harassment. This culture isn’t restricted to Cambridge. It’s estimated that more than 400,000 women are sexually assaulted each year in England and Wales, and I have friends in universities across the UK who have described being raped, assaulted or coerced into sex. One friend, who has been sexually pressured on a number of occasions, confessed that she was afraid of men walking out on her if she didn’t do what they wanted.
The introduction of consent education in Cambridge sparked controversy among students. It was suggested that the workshops and talks would be patronising and useless, because everyone already knew about consent. Some students reacted to the idea that consent workshops should be compulsory by saying this would be a “contradiction in terms”. One, writing in Cambridge’s Varsity newspaper, was furious that consent workshops equated rape, “a criminal act”, with “behaviour they [women] find offensive”. Others responded: “As future leaders, it is our responsibility to support [consent workshops].”
It’s an odd argument that these talks and workshops should be supported simply because students will soon be in positions of power. It’s also worrying that their introduction fuelled such a backlash. Universities are in desperate need of consent workshops because rape and sexual assault are rife in these environments. The Hidden Marks report by the National Union of Students showed that, from a nationwide sample of 2,000 female students, one in seven had been seriously physically or sexually assaulted, 68% had been subjected to sexual harassment, and 16% had experienced unwanted kissing or touching during their time at university. In other words, ask any female student and it’s highly probable that she will have a story to tell you about sexual harassment, which either she or someone she knows has experienced.
I think some of the fear around consent workshops stems from the way they bring rape so worryingly close to home. They acknowledge that a rapist isn’t just a stranger in a dark alley – it’s more likely to be the person next door who you were too drunk to consent to sleep with, or the friend who refused your request to stop halfway through. We need consent classes to teach students that sex is an activity that requires the enthusiastic verbal agreement of all participants. No absolutely means no. And yes absolutely means yes.
But the workshops are also a chance to discuss the subtleties of particular situations – those in which a person may not be able to consciously consent to sex, or those in which “yes” is assumed. Consent has to be a conscious, willing agreement, made without pressure or coercion.
Consent workshops aren’t about preaching or judging. I attended a training session earlier this year that explained how they would work, and we discussed the sorts of things in everyday life we typically ask consent for. This ranged from seeing if a chair is free, to going to the toilet during a class. It revealed that we ultimately ask for people’s consent all the time, so in sex it should be no different. We also discussed how to “check in” with your partner, to see if they consent at different stages of an encounter, and the ways in which people in ongoing relationships can negotiate an understanding of consent. When feeding back to the session, the phrase that kept being repeated was “Just ask”.
The idea of affirmative and enthusiastic consent encourages people to regard sex as a positive, willing action. It’s about teaching women and men not to be ashamed of sex, and to proceed consciously and confidently. An understanding of consent engenders respect for everyone: from those who choose to refrain from sex to those who are in relationships, and those who engage in sex in a wide variety of situations. Consent is about ensuring that people are completely comfortable in their sexual decisions, whatever those might be.
Colleges at Cambridge have taken a big step by introducing consent talks and workshops – but I’d like to see these made compulsory in all universities across the UK. The workshops bring home the difficult truth that we are all capable of violating someone else’s consent, while creating a safe space to discuss the meaning of consenting positively and enthusiastically. They are empowering, and absolutely necessary.
This article was originally featured in gal-dem. You can read the original article here.
Recently an image of a woman, Saffiyah Khan, protecting another Muslim woman went viral. In this photo, Saffiyah is seen standing up to a raging EDL protester, unphased by the abuse being hurled at her. This image has fast become a symbol of Muslim women’s resistance to Islamophobia. Saffiyah was defending a fellow Muslim woman in a threatening situation and she should be applauded for her bravery. But we should not restrict ourselves to solely celebrating Muslim women’s defiance.
Women in broader society have begun embracing the value of vulnerability and Muslim women also need the space to express their whole selves. In a TED talk that went viral in 2010, American Professor Brene Brown explained the power of vulnerability. In her research, she explains that “we associate vulnerability with emotions we want to avoid such as fear, shame, and uncertainty. Yet we too often lose sight of the fact that vulnerability is also the birthplace of joy, belonging, creativity, authenticity, and love.” This message had a profound impact on women all over the world, with her talk racking up almost 30 million views.
“But this defensiveness shuts down the space that Muslim women should be allowed in order to question things”
For Muslim women, however, it still feels too dangerous to be vulnerable. Hate crimes have doubled since Brexit, and Muslim women who wear headscarves are particularly at risk. In March, the European court of justice ruled to ban the hijab in the workplace. With attacks from all sides, Muslim women around Europe, understandably responded with fervour, protesting outside the French embassy in London in March, and across Sweden on International Workers’ Day.
As others tried to threaten or control them, Muslim women answered with the defence of symbols like the headscarf – extolling its virtues, celebrating it as a form of liberation, and protecting it as a core part of their faith. But this defensiveness shuts down the space that Muslim women should be allowed in order to question things like the headscarf, to wonder if it is the right choice for them, and even to change their minds about whether or not they want to embrace it.
The need to present a unified front in the face of challenges to their identity is stifling Muslim women. Muslim women deserve to have a space to explore their multifaceted identities. They should be afforded the same nuance that others are given. They should not feel like they have to carry the weight of defending Islam on their shoulders and silence the parts of themselves that are uncertain in the process. It is time to develop spaces where vulnerability is allowed, accepted, and celebrated alongside defiance.
“Muslim women are complex, multidimensional, and have layers of identities”
A recently published anthology entitled The Things I Would Tell You: British Muslim Women Speak, is a valuable start. This anthology, filled with poems, plays, articles and short stories celebrates the art created by a variety of Muslim women in all media. It is not prescriptive, it does not make every writer talk about their experiences of being a British Muslim woman. Instead, it offers a space and platform for Muslim women to openly express their vulnerabilities through their art. The anthology showed that Muslim women are complex, multidimensional, and have layers of identities. They’re not one monolithic force.
I have been embracing my own vulnerability by sharing my own experiences. I wore a headscarf for years. I defended it to the hilt when people questioned it – despite being unhappy with wearing it. Then I decided to take it off. As a result, I felt like I had lost a part of myself, and like I had betrayed my family and my Muslim friends. Living as a Muslim woman can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be frustrating, complicated and confusing. Admitting that makes me feel stronger.
This article originally featured on gal-dem’s website. You can read the original article here.
Monday saw the biggest single massacre of Palestinian people since 2014. 58 Palestinians have been reported killed and at least 2,700 were wounded in Gaza, as Israeli military shot into crowds of unarmed protesters.
People within Gaza were protesting the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem. They were also protesting in the lead up to Nakba day – named by Palestinians to remember the day May 15, 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes, displaced and without promise of return, to make way for the creation of Israel.
Since March 30, Palestinians in Gaza have been taking part in a number of demonstrations known as the Great Return March to protest their dispossession and their right to return as refugees. Since this date, at least 109 Palestinians have been killed and around 12,000 injured.
Yesterday in Downing Street, a demonstration was called to show solidarity with the Great Return March in Gaza, protest the unlawful killing of civilians in Gaza, and to call on the UK government to stand up for Palestinian rights in accordance with its obligation under international law.
Maisam, an attendee of the protest, left her family and friends behind in Gaza three years ago to do a masters degree in the UK. She hasn’t made it back to see them since. “Yesterday was one of those days that I feared since I left Gaza”, she says. “It’s so hard to be so far away. Sometimes, because of the internet issues, I have to wait overnight until I can hear from them just to know if they are ok. When something like this happens I don’t know what I can do to protect my family. I had to take the day off work today, because with everything that’s happening, how can I maintain a normal life?”
When I ask Maisam what this protest meant to her, she tells me that demonstrations like these are powerful acts of solidarity with those in Gaza: “I know that if people in Gaza are watching this now, they’re going to feel like the world is finally taking notice.”
Bashar, another Palestinian protester from Gaza tells me what he demands from Theresa May “We’re here to tell Theresa May to get her act together. The British government portrays itself to be a protector of human rights and humanity, yet humanity is being killed every day in Gaza.”
The crowds chant “Free free Palestine” and “1234, occupation no more, 5678, Israel is a terror state” and banners demanding a “stop [to] the massacre in Gaza” and “stop arming Israel” float above our heads.
Another protester speaks to me about her relation to Palestine through her Israeli roots: “My family is Israeli and some of them try to fight for Palestinian justice from within Israel. I’m here today in solidarity with the incredible power and resistance and resilience of the people in Gaza who are doing these protests every week. They’re walking out every week and they know they’re going to get shot. Can you even imagine the bravery that takes?”
The protester also comments on the politics that uphold a system of occupation in Palestine: “I don’t think people talk enough about the extreme rise of fascism within the Israeli state as a way that the Israeli state maintains its occupation. I think some serious political analysis of the politics of the Israeli state is necessary if we are to help dismantle the steps on which the occupation stands.”
As I speak to people whose lives and families have been destroyed by the Israeli occupation, I think back to the last protest I’d been on. It was protesting Donald Trump’s inauguration, and tens of thousands gathered in the very spot I stand today to show their anger at the appointment of a racist, misogynistic bigot as the world’s most powerful leader. Yet as I look around at the protest today I am shocked at how few of my peers attended.
Some cited their busy schedules – which on a London weekday for an emergency protest is perhaps fair enough. But others cited something I have heard over and over again from my peer group in the past years. It’s the idea that they “just don’t know enough” to attend a protest, sign a petition, or share a post about Palestine and Israel. Wanting to not come across as overly political, or worse still, anti-semitic, they shy away from all interaction with the topic.
I am the first to say that there are deep gaps in my knowledge around certain areas of history, politics, and religion. But, attending this protest has shown me that understanding is consolidated and built on through these events, and through hearing other people’s stories and experiences.
I know that I believe in fighting for the dignity, human rights and freedom of a people who have been immorally subjugated for 70 years. And after attending this protest, I feel like I can say that with more confidence than before.
As one protester says, “Gaza is essentially an open-air prison, with people not having access to the most basic human dignity. And, in the most recent attack, we’re seeing their right to life is also being denied.”
This article originally appeared on The Social Change Agency blog. You can read the original article here.
These were the words of Andrea Figari, Director of Community Engagement at Tactical Tech during the Activism in the Quantified society workshop at The Glass Room. Technology is growing at a rapid pace, and our awareness of our digital rights and privacy aren’t growing at the same rate.
That’s why The Glass Room has come to London. For those of you who don’t know, The Glass Room is a tech pop-up exhibition. Walking around it, you feel like you’re in an episode of The Black Mirror as statistics and toy models and books about how much data huge companies have on you litter the room.
As The Glass Room put it, they are a “disruptive intervention that urges visitors to reevaluate how we use technology and offers a space for reflection”. And it’s completely necessary.
These are topics that must be addressed if we want to live in a world that promotes freedom and democracy. However, some of these changes can happen from within.
The question of data protection and privacy does not only apply to the corporate sector. The charity sector is also responsible for ensuring the data of their supporters is adequately protected. Often, it’s even more important in the charity sector, who may be dealing with marginalised communities, to protect the data of their supporters or beneficiaries.
Charities are doing a fantastic job of protecting people’s civil liberties and providing huge amounts of people with a route to speak to power. But there’s been a growing amount of mistrust between charities, the public and decision makers, and trust is essential in mobilising people to create change.
Technology, data protection and digital privacy are all intertwined in digital campaigning, and we need to address this problem creatively and collaboratively.
Glocalisation refers to the concept of adapting global ideas, processes or products to local environments and contexts. Businesses have been adapting a glocal mindset for years, understanding that international success is best achieved when local perspectives are accounted for and products are adapted to appeal to local cultures.
Organisations should be adopting a glocal mindset not just when it comes to the expansion of their products, but also when it comes to the expansion of their Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. A glocalised Diversity and Inclusion strategy would allow for local cultures to either adapt a centralised strategy to their own culture and values, or to create their own strategy altogether to appeal to the local perspective.
In “Is Glocalisation the future of D&I”, Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett explores three models that multinational organisations use to address, elevate and celebrate the multicultural and multifaceted nature of their teams.
The first model, “When in Rome” speaks to creating an individual strategy based on the local culture, values and environment. This would be a decentralised approach that gave full autonomy to local regions to create a strategy that fit their local perspectives.
The next model, “Embassy”, speaks to creating a sub-set of the central HQ Strategy. This would be an adaptation of the central strategy based on local culture and values, with some key common values weaved throughout.
The final model, “Advocate”, speaks to a position in which the organisation believes that there are some universal values that supersede local perspectives, such as LGBTQ+ rights or the rights of women. In these instances, organisations would like to use their power to influence behaviour, rather than compromise on what is believed to be objective truth.
While these models have power in enabling an organisation to unify under a global approach, I believe that the rigidity of these models does not allow for real, authentic and diverse innovation. Any diversity strategy will most likely be an amalgamation of aspects of each of these models, or at the very least have room to allow for an agile shift from one model to another.
Rather than wedding an organisation to a particular model, I argue that there is a body of work an organisation needs to undertake to appropriately understand the values, meaning and principles that underpin any diversity work. A framework in this manner would allow an organisation to interrogate their current diversity strategy with a view to build a global strategy with local perspectives.
The “Glocal Engagement Framework” is a framework developed by Fay Patel particularly aimed at glocalisation within a higher education context. Fay describes the Glocalisation Engagement Framework as “a learning and teaching quality paradigm embracing equity, inclusivity and diversity as a sustainable, forward looking international higher education paradigm”.
Source: Fay Patel 2019
The Framework aims to encourage communities to find common ground, and to cultivate new shared meaning in order to action change. It especially aims to encourage the “respectful and negotiated exchange of cultural wealth”. The framework is made up of Global Engagement Dimension (GED) and Principles of Global Engagement (PGE). The GED is based on the values that determine the fairness of any actioned outcome, while the PGE is based on Klyukano’s principles of intercultural communication which allow for the successful, fair and just development of a new shared meaning.
The Global Engagement Dimensions aim to ensure that any outcome is fair and just. These dimensions have been developed by Patel and address the core traits that one must hold to create any truly glocal strategy. The Dimensions focus on traits such as Intellect, Morality, Emotion and Action.
Intellect refers to knowledge, education and wisdom. Emotion refers to sensitivity and compassion. Morality refers to integrity, virtue and fairness, and action refers to the desire to change situations.
The Principles of Glocal Engagement refer to the values that underpin a genuine, respectful exchange of cultural wealth. These values have been adapted from Kluykanov’s Intercultural Communication Principles which outlines principles that allow for constructive, continually negotiated and sustainable interaction between people with diverse cultures, traditions and identities.
Source: Fay 2017
Fay describes the framework in a higher education context as “a forward thinking, proactive framework. In committing to mutually acceptable norms of engagement (respect, voice and trust, for example), stakeholders engage respectfully in the consensus seeking dialogue.”
I believe we can adapt this framework to work in a Diversity and Inclusion context. A diversity strategy that genuinely seeks to support the global employee group whilst adequately addressing local perspectives will benefit from a strategy that is based on a glocalised framework, i.e. a framework that speaks to the engagement of multiple stakeholders with multiple global perspectives, mutually agreeing on a shared vision.
I will use an example to showcase how the Glocalised Engagement Framework (GEF) can be used in practice. In this instance, the GEF will be used to test whether a strategy is truly glocal in nature. I believe that the GEF can also be used to create a strategy in the first place, to ensure that a glocalised approach is at the very heart of the strategy.
Let’s take international law firm Herbert Smith Freehill’s 2018- 2021 Global Diversity Strategy as our example. Herbert Smith Freehill’s diversity strategy focuses on the inclusion strand of D&I, with the aim to “place the creation of a truly inclusive culture front and centre of our strategy”.
Their Leading for Inclusion strategy takes us through four key pillars of inclusion. These pillars range from Talent to Clients to Innovation and Values, ending with a section on how they will measure success.
Herbert Smith Freehill’s strategy is rooted in values of connectedness, collaboration and leadership. The strategy does reach each of the Glocal Engagement Dimensions as set out by Patel. The strategy clearly displays Intellect by outlining the ‘why’ behind the strategy, such as the benefit of inclusive teams and the centrality of inclusion to reach authentic diversity. The strategy also displays an appreciation of emotion as it discusses the impact of diversity on the psychological safety of individuals within an organisation, “there is a high level of psychological safety within an inclusive organisation”. The strategy’s sense of morality can be seen in their values to connect, collaborate, excel and lead. And their resolve to build and change situations can be seen not only in the creation of the strategy, but in the fact that they have publicly shared their strategy online.
Glocal Engagement Dimensions (Patel 2017)
Herbert Smith Freehill Diversity Strategy
Intellect – Ability to demonstrate knowledge, education and wisdom
Yes – a reference to the “why” behind the strategy and knowledge of the context behind the need for diversity
Emotion – Sensitivity, understanding, intuition and compassion
Yes – a discussion of the positive psychological impact of developing an inclusive organisation
Morality – Act with integrity, virtue and fairness
Yes – a focus on values to connect, collaborate, excel and lead
Action – Resolve to build and change situation
Yes – creation of a strategy which is shared widely online to inspire other organisations
So far, Herbert Smith Freehill have ticked every box of the Glocal Engaement Dimensions. This is a fantastic start, and their actioned outcomes are much more likely to be fair, inclusive and diversified. However, on greater interrogation, it becomes clear that the strategy Herbert Smith Freehill have created is global rather than glocal in nature. When we run the strategy through the lens of the Principles of Glocal Engagement, it misses some crucial principles that would root a diversity strategy in a glocal context. While the strategy focuses on some brilliant routes to collaboration through networks and client relationship building, encouraging a building of shared meaning and a shared vision, there is little to show for the local contexts in which this global strategy will be carried out.
For example, “Multiple Global Perspectives” (Principle 6) and “Ground[ing] oneself in Context”( Principle 4) are lacking in this strategy, thus firmly positioning this strategy as a global, centralised strategy with little tailored local implementation. There is little information about the make-up of Herbert Smith Freehill’s global team, the local cultures that make up the company, and current diversity data. The strategy, which is at one point referred to as “Global one-firm inclusive culture”, seems firmly rooted in a non-glocalised approach. However, that is not to say that the strategy is not brilliant in many ways. By taking the strategy through the Glocalised Engagement Framework, we can see the individual strands of the strategy that may need a little more work, and the areas that are well thought out and destined for success. The Glocalised Engagement Framework in this manner is a brilliant framework that allows for a nuanced, well-analysed strategy.
The Principles of Glocal Engaement below refer to the stakeholders most involved in the benefits / impact of the Diversity Strategy.
Principles of Glocal Engagement (Patel 2017)
Herbert Smith Freehill Diversity Strategy
1 – Draw mutually acceptable boundary lines
Yes – developed a governance structure to ensure that there is clear accountability.
2 – Negotiation and sharing of relevant information
Yes – a focus on the role that ERG networks have to increase engagement and share information.
3 – Cultivate new shared meaning
Yes – an established definition of Diversity and Inclusion from their perspective. “Defining what we mean”, ensuring shared meaning.
4 – Position or ground oneself in a context
No – very little information about the context in which HSF have built this strategy, who it will affect, how it will vary in a global context, an appreciation of local nuances.
5 – Find common ground among stakeholders
Yes – a focus on client collaboration and network profiling.
6 – Consider multiple global perspectives
No – little discussion about perspectives from a global nature and the potential impact this might have on the global nature of the strategy.
7 – Consider ongoing interaction in negotiating shared meaning
Yes – working with networks to develop their annual plans based on wider strategy, allowing for local nuance whilst still feeding into wider strategy.
8 – Transaction component of global community building related to exchange of cultural wealth and indigenous knowledge
Yes – found in the ‘Values’ pillar, to connect, collaborate and lead. The aim here is to share cultural wealth via networks and clients.
9 – Cooperative nature and integration of global community building
Yes / No – a focus on collaboration but little discussion of the global nature of community building.
10 – Long term mutually respectful relationship
Yes – a governance and accountability structure in place to ensure that targets are met, and that the strategy rooted in collaboration is followed.
This example serves to showcase how a Glocalised Engagaement Framework can be used to test the glocal nature of a strategy. It is through this framework that we can understand the nuanced nature of the strategy and can identify the key areas that require further development. A Glocalised Engagement Framework can thus be used to rethink certain aspects of a strategy whilst also celebrating the aspects that are working well.
Organisations that wish to expand their global strategy into authentic, local implementation, should adopt a glocal approach, using the Glocalised Engagement Framework as a route for interrogation and adaptation. As a result, Diversity and Inclusion strategies have the potential to be far-reaching, powerful in their capacity to effect change, and serve to unify organisations through consistent collaboration, negotiation and compassion.
This article was originally featured in The Guardian. You can read the original article here.
From ‘no-muffing’ events to sexist chants: sports societies can be hives of sexist activity and it’s time things changed.
In my college bar at Cambridge University, I tried to say hi to a friend. He didn’t speak to me. I could see his mouth attempt to move, and I could also see his friend’s penetrative stare stop him in his tracks.
We stood in awkward silence until my friend pulled me away, whispering in my ear that this was part of a rugby social game. The game is called “no muffing”. Its rules are as follows: no speaking to a female unless she is your waitress. If you break this, you get punched in the face.
Cambridge sports teams are not alone in having incredibly sexist themes to their social events. There’s the rugby group in Oxford, whose social secretary sent an e-mail to the team encouraging them to spike a fresher’s drink. The title of the e-mail was “Free Pussy”.
We have been bombarded with images and news stories showing the ugly side of sports teams. Their activities, laden with sexist overtones, are reflective of a wider culture of hypermasculinity and sexism at university. Students are starting to recognise that this needs to change.
A student from DeMontfort University, Leicester, regards the people in the rugby and football societies as “disgusting”. The student says: “When they’re out on the town they seem to think they have the right to touch or grope any girl they want.”
Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, says: “Sports culture reveals that there’s a huge amount of pressure on boys, a hypermasculinity that they’re pressured to perpetuate.
“Some young boys have said that they would really like to stand up and be able to support girls, but when they’ve tried, they’ve been ridiculed’.
For many, sports teams are a place of security, especially when suddenly unsettled by the switch from home to university life. One boy at Cambridge University described being part of a sports team as the “easiest way of being accepted”.
Yet he also mentioned the pressure that ensued once becoming part of the team, saying he was “sucked into” the lad banter.
This lad banter usually entails the humiliation of women. I spoke to one member of a university rowing team who said: “When we row we instantly rate the girls rowing near us. I know it’s chauvinistic, but I don’t give a shit”.
Another dismissed the idea of the “no muffing” game as being offensive: “it was pretty harmless, the confusion on the girls was funny”.
Bates describes the effects of this sort of attitude: “It dehumanises women. In order to prove yourself as a man you also have to show this disrespect of women.”
This is a problem that has been recognised by many university sports teams, and it is being increasingly addressed through workshops and conferences. A programme set up by students and graduates in Oxford called ‘The Good Lad Workshop’ aims to tackle the existence of lad culture in sports.
“Traditionally sports teams and groups of men are seen to be quite masculine,” says Dave Llewellyn, who runs the programme.
“When people actually sit down and chat they realise that everyone is on the same page, that no one is endorsing this behaviour. They just do it because they think that’s what everyone else does.
“I think in some cases there are students who feel ostracised by some behaviour and so don’t join a team or don’t stay as part of a team and I think that’s disappointing.”
In Stirling University there are efforts to address the struggles and barriers that women face in sport, culminating in the Women in Sport conference in October.
Rebecca Gracey, organiser of the conference says: “There is no denying that at time the atmosphere within [sports] clubs can be negative and offensive to others. The real aim and vision is to have a level playing field and slowly but surely we are seeing small steps in achieving this.”
It’s time that university sports teams critically assess the image that they give off to prospective participants. Sports teams have the potential to be powerfully inclusive, welcoming and community-forming environments.
University sports teams need to divest of the cult of masculinity that alienates other men and degrades women. They need to start making steps towards creating a safe environment that isn’t based on humiliation, intimidation or pressure.
