On intent, justice, consequences and accountability

How do we get more comfortable acknowledging that there is a spectrum of behaviours, actions and attitudes which deny people justice. A lot of the time we reflect on our intent rather than the consequences of our actions. This is understandable, I myself have ended up in a neurotic and depressive state by focussing on my part in perpetuating negative consequences and results for people. Yet we can never be held accountable for our intent, and we need to think through and understand more about the consequences whilst trying to still exercise a degree of self-compassion and compassion for one another.

Another problem with focussing on our intent is that we can create romantic images of right and wrong, of forces for good and forces for evil. The results of our actions very rarely play out in as clear cut a way as this. We are unlikely to always be on the ‘good thinking, right side’ of justice because this black and white dichotomy of right and wrong sides doesn’t exist. We need to find a space where we can explore the results and consequences of our actions. It is who gets justice which matters, rather than simply whether we would like there to be justice for all.

The 5 principles of social justice are said to be:

Access to resources

Equity

Diversity

Participation

Human rights

It often feels like those of us on the left can spend too much time assuming there is a group of people on the right side who want these things, and a group of people on the wrong side who don’t. Whilst there may be differing degrees in people’s commitment and desire for justice, the uncomfortable truth is that most of us perpetuate injustice from time to time. We have to able to look at this honestly without tearing ourselves apart over the thought we might be a terrible human being. It shouldn’t feel this hard to be someone who is basically doing the best they can within an inherently unjust system, but who knows they make mistakes and still wants to make a commitment to do better.

At one extreme end of the so called culture wars are a tiny minority of people who seem to want to shame and humiliate everyone whose actions perpetuate injustice. These are the people, some real and some imaginary, who the right have weaponised as the ‘social justice warriors’. People whose dogmatic approach can lead to some people just disengaging from conversations about how to do better. They might even start to rally against ‘woke mobs trying to cancel them’ and start to double down on the righteousness of their own actions and beliefs.

Maybe some people with lots of power and resources, who use them in the most unjust of ways need to be shamed, they need to suffer real consequences. But is this the right approach to working with people with some power and some privilege who are trying to navigate this stuff and do better? To scold and confront anyone who gets this stuff wrong sometimes? my sense is this is probably counter productive.

However, I don’t believe we should shy away from having any form of conversation which might highlight some of the consequences our actions, attitudes and beliefs have. Regardless of our intent, we need to understand the consequences. It might be counter-productive to shame and harangue, but the answer isn’t to instead do nothing, to pat each other on the back for being the great and the good and ignore the suffering which still exists in our society despite all of our best efforts and good intentions.

So how do we get more comfortable entering spaces where we explore how our own actions (both individual and collective) may have perpetuated individuals and groups not getting fair access to the resources they need. With adequate housing, heating and food becoming increasingly sparse, what role do our own actions play in perpetuating this?

How willing are we to accept and prop up an inequitable system in which senior leaders often get paid in excess of 100k a year whilst so many people are having to give their labour for free? What active steps are we taking to resist this?

What active steps to resist and reject decision-making spaces feeling unsafe & unwelcoming for people other than middle class, heterosexual, cisgender white people?

What active steps are we taking to ensure that everyone can participate in spaces in a way which feels safe and equitable for them? How are we ensuring everyone has autonomy over how they participate and that we aren’t just wheeling people in and out at the most convenient points of public service procurement processes for us?

What steps do we take to promote human rights and dignity for all? Can we look ourselves in the mirror and say we’ve done all we can within the realms of our own power and influence to further this?

We don’t want a counter-productive wokescold directed at anyone and everyone who has failed to fundamentally shift power and bring about equity regardless of their own level of individual power, agency and autonomy. We don’t want an attitude of who killed Davey Moore, where we collectively point at the actions of others as being the cause of injustice. We don’t want to slap anyone on the back whose manages to show slightly more commitment to the pursuit of equity than Jeff Bezos. Somewhere between these extremes lies a space for honesty, growth and an environment in which we expect better of one another. It probably isn’t helpful to focus on categorising those on the right side and those on the wrong side. Within these spaces it also needs to be explicit that more accountability and more responsibility rightly sits with those with the most power to decide and the power to act.

Take Grenfell as an example. After a tragedy such as this would anyone ever think it acceptable to say that the families of those who died shared the same level of accountability for changing the system as those responsible for building safety? Is it acceptable to say to people in these circumstances ‘we are all the system and we should all assume good intentions on all parts and equal levels of accountability for making things safer going forward’? In all likelihood no-one wanted anyone to die, so does that mean everyone is on the same team? Or do we have to name the reality that some are benefitting from creating and maintaining the system which allowed this to happen and some are suffering at the hands of it.

The problem with focussing solely on intent is this, few people would deliberately take risks with people’s lives if they had a full understanding of the context, the risks and probabilities and consequences. No individual set out thinking there was a high likelihood their actions would lead to anyone’s death, but the reality was that they did. We need processes which encourage people to think harder about the consequences and results of their actions, as opposed to just the intent.