Home
Sep 21
2016
3 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
General Sir Richard Barrons has been quoted today as saying that the UK and NATO forces are under-defended in terms of resource should Putin or others become aggressive. In addition to this there are countries within the EU who are not spending the minimum 2% of GDP required for defence, so mobilizing an effective army could be a slow process.
This has made me reflect on a theme that has been playing on my mind for some time: who would volunteer to protect the UK should we come under attack? In World War I, 478,893 men joined the army between 4 August and 12 September 1914. There was a sense of patriotism and duty to King and Empire fuelled by posters such as “Your Country Needs You”. In World War II 1.5 million volunteers joined the Home Guard alone.
But the UK is a very different place today. The Empire has been disbanded and our population is far more diverse. This makes me question whether there wouldn’t be some emotional conflict for some of today’s residents should there be a war and a need to defend our country from attack. After all, even people who have lived here for twenty years and taken up British citizenship might nonetheless support their original home cricket or football team rather than a British one. How might they feel about fighting for England now, should it be required?
In 1914, 1939, and even in my childhood in the 1950s, to be patriotic was something to be encouraged. Today, being patriotic is sometimes confused with being a “Little Englander”, a Brexiteer, or even a right-wing nationalist. It seems to me that this holds some dangers and does not reflect a balanced way of describing the emotional connection one has with one’s home country. After all, we have just had a visual example of this in the Olympics and Paralympics where one sees Italians, French and Brazilians waving their flags as much as we do. But would those same people choose to fight for their country today as their predecessors did at the beginning of the twentieth century I wonder? The world is far more complex.
Our history shapes our mental models and responses. Something that seems to have been little talked of in the Brexit debate is the different recent history of the other 27 EU countries compared to ours and I wonder whether this difference hasn’t, in fact, been a factor in the resulting outcome of Brexit. For we were one of the very few countries not to experience either a dictatorship, Communism, an invasion, occupation or an ideological regime in the twentieth century. Yes, we had to fight Germany to protect ourselves and our allies but we have not been invaded or occupied for centuries and have not had to live under a dominating force that limited our way of life, freedom of speech or cultural norms. In fact the twentieth century was a period that was increasingly democratic and egalitarian. Perhaps this history has had something to do with influencing the 52% of people who voted for Brexit? Perhaps our free democratic past has drawn them to have an emotional, perhaps even unconscious, distrust of Juncker’s talk of federalism?
In many of the other 27 countries thought and free speech were limited and fear was endemic within harsh regimes: Germany lived under Hitler, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Portugal under Salazar. Bulgaria had an army coup and royal dictatorship, France was occupied by Germany, Greece had the Metaxas dictatorship and right-wing army coups, Hungary a dictatorship followed by Russian invasion. Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Yugoslavia were all ruled by dictatorships and, following that, communism and the Cold War impacted many countries in Eastern Europe, limiting their ability to interact with others.
A country’s history impacts the way information is shared between generations and forms how people think. Family narratives are shaped by events. The experiences of grandparents influence the responses of their grandchildren. On our recent visit to Russia we met people whose parents still warn them to be careful of what they say. This kind of fear, a fear of reprisal for saying or doing the wrong thing limits the ability to see opportunities beyond the everyday norms. Coercion rather than persuasion is even reflected today in the words of Slovenian leader Robert Fico, currently European President, threatening the UK with punishment for its decision to leave the EU. He is waving his stick to stop other countries following suit rather than demonstrating the benefits that would hold them together.
I really wonder whether our differing past isn’t a major influence on the way the governments of Europe are responding to federalism. Perhaps it is, in some way, more comfortable to others to conceive of being ruled by a European President than it is for us, as many of them have experienced a dominant or occupying one party order previously. Whereas for us it might seem like anathema. I am, here, literally, as my blog explains, “Thinking Aloud” and I would be interested in other people’s perceptions.
But we need to learn from our past. The birth of these regimes in the twentieth century was stimulated by the global economic disaster and the 1929 Wall Street crash. Democracy was threatened as people’s livelihoods were threatened. As the economist Arthur Salter wrote in Recovery, in 1932: “The defects of the capitalist system have been increasingly robbing it of its benefits. They are now threatening its existence. A period of depression and crisis is one in which its great merit, the expansion of productive capacity under the stimulus of competitive gains, seems wasted; and its main defect, an increasing inability to utilise productive capacity fully and to distribute what it produces tolerably, is seen at its worst.” One can see this tendency mirrored today in the anti-capitalist movements and we need to beware of repeating mistakes of the past.
The severity of the 1930s economic slump directly threatened democracy and the old liberal capitalist order was replaced by state intervention. People sought strong leadership that promised relief. There was a rise in far left and far right movements, a depletion of the centre ground. In much of Europe various forms of dictatorship came to replace parliamentary systems that had become associated in people’s minds with the economic disaster, leading governments to take more responsibility for economic revival.
With the global economy today still under some threat, we need to consider how to avoid a similar experience of hard left or hard right regimes taking over. We are already witnessing this, both in the UK and in Europe. In Germany’s recent election the AfD and communist parties both did well. Whilst capitalism has its faults it has, nonetheless, provided millions of people with work and income. If we keep knocking the extraordinarily good – in historic terms – lifestyle we have in the UK we jeopardise its future. Life will never be completely equal – we all have differing gifts and cannot legislate for perfect parenting – but if you read Johan Norber’s new book Progress (OneWorld Publications, 2016), you will find statistics to demonstrate that we are witnessing the greatest improvement in global living standards ever, with malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty, child labour and infant mortality falling faster than ever before.
There is still more to do but we need to balance the critical analysis with appreciation of what we have in this country. It isn’t perfect but actually it is still a very good place to live in comparison to many other countries. The fact that so many people want to enter and live in the UK is surely evidence that we are the envy of much of the world. Our problems are mirrored elsewhere. After all, if you look at what is happening in the rest of Europe we are no worse in general attitude to others. We are currently the fall guy of Europe for expressing the concerns that many others are experiencing. Our general tendency to apologise for everything we do won’t help us negotiate our new place in the world. Despite Brexit, despite the problems, can we not take pride in our institutions of government, law and industry that support democratic stability?
Is not regard for one’s country and its history natural and to be encouraged in order to protect the values and freedoms that we have fought for and developed over so many centuries? The difference in my own rights and lifestyle as a woman to those of women elsewhere is tangible. Can we not feel patriotic without being accused of being a small-minded Little Englander? A work team can be proud of their company but have trade partnerships with others; a family can have an emotional bond but still be open to friends. Pride in our country does not prevent us being open to relationships with the world.
In this increasingly complex world, if we were under threat how many of us would find it in ourselves to stand up and fight for our country’s way of life should the need arise? I wonder…
Sep 19
2016
1 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
Well, it’s done. I have come to the end of my time as Managing Director of Positiveworks. Quite a moment!
Human beings appreciate rituals, I think, and so we celebrated the handover of Positiveworks with a thoroughly enjoyable party at the Pushkin House in Bloomsbury. Joe Ouseley of WildGoose, http://wildgoose.co/ gave us delicious canapés and Catriona Freeman of SugarCoatMe, http://www.sugarcoatme.co.uk/ provided us with the fun and tasty yellow cake pops you see in the photos, all photos taken by Jon Kempner, www.jonkempner.com
Handing on a business has, it seems to me, parallels to raising a child and seeing them marry. One puts one’s best efforts into raising the child and then hopes that they will find love with the right person as they become adult. With a business one hopes that one will find a good owner to take it on… In my case, as I have said before, I feel I have definitely found, in Jackie Sykes and Chris Welford, the right well qualified and positive people to take on Positiveworks. What more could I wish for. See below, The Sixth Sense Team, Gloria Groves, Chris Welford, Jackie Sykes, Larissa Klinke:
It has taken several years to reach this moment. Unlike Sir Philip Green I was focused on finding people who would value the legacy and treat my clients well. I was hopeful, also, that Positiveworks would also add value to their business, Sixth Sense. So far so good on all fronts and my clients have been extremely happy with the work that they have been doing.
The speeches gave me a chance to thank those who have helped and supported me over the years and to talk about the fantastic adventures I have had in setting up and running the business – alongside the inevitable challenges. Nothing prepared me for this journey. I could never have envisaged that I would meet such wonderful and interesting people nor have imagined all the fascinating places I have had the joy of visiting on business.
After the party, people commented on how interesting it was to bring together people from so many different areas of my life – family, friends, colleagues and clients. So often, I think, we partition our contacts into groups and don’t give them the opportunity to meet people from different areas of our lives. I don’t think that it’s just we Brits who do this compartmentalising, is it? The retirement party and my book launches have been so enjoyable because they have given me the opportunity to enable clients and colleagues to meet my sons and conversely for my family and friends to gain insight into my business life by meeting those professionals who have been involved with my coaching practice. So, the party on Wednesday represented a completion for me, marking an ending of my relationship with Positiveworks, the handover of the business to Chris and Jackie, and the beginning of I-know-not-what!
Perhaps appropriately the first day of the next part of my life began – after some clearing up – with my doing a poetry gig for Rough Diamonds Poetry Group in Ringwood. It was a delightful evening above an Italian restaurant, Lovitaly, with an interesting group of people joined in the appreciation of the written word. I enjoyed reading my poems to them and listening to their work. A selection of my poems are on www.babyboomerpoetry.com.
People ask me how it feels now, to have let go of the business. The honest answer is that I don’t really know. It still feels a little unreal that I don’t have to get up and think about clients or the need to prepare coaching or training courses, nor have to record invoices for VAT etc. That feels like a relief and a sense of freedom. I know I shall miss the client contact as I have found it so fulfilling – one always learns as much from clients as they may gain through the coaching process.
The transition inspired me to cast my mind back to when I was moving from freelance historical research for the historian Alistair Horne, working on The Official Biography of Harold Macmillan, into running a professional coaching and training business. This required that I think about my image, body language and voice tone. I had to buy new clothes to meet client expectations. So now I have begun to go through my wardrobe to see which clothes might fit my needs in the next phase of my life. Which of my formal business suits might I might give away to charity, and what shall I enjoy wearing now that I am out of the business world? On Tuesday I have arranged a massage which I shall use as a moment to reflect on moving out of the physiology of a professional woman and allowing in the me that will be more relaxed and open to the opportunities that this next phase of my life might present me.
The idea of retirement is outdated. Previous generations would frequently die by the age of 65. Our generation may well have another 20 years plus to live post-retirement. The concept is to be able to choose what you do rather than be forced to do things you have to do. We are incredibly fortunate that there is so much on offer for us to become involved in – voluntary work, choirs, book clubs, classes, degrees, creativity, art, music and more.
But too much choice can be confusing can’t it? Personally I prefer small shops to large ones – I sometimes find the range of choice in large supermarkets or department stores to be thoroughly overwhelming. In the excellent book by Renata Salecl The Tyranny of Choice she argues that the freedom to choose what we do and who we are can create confusion and anxiety, even paralysis. We are never totally free and have to make decisions within society’s limits and the confines of our personal environment.
Choice of what I might do and who I might be next is both exciting and also a responsibility. What if I make the wrong choices? What if I over-commit and take on too much? What if I do the opposite and get lazy and complacent, not challenging myself to experiment and do new things? How shall I balance my needs and the needs of others, the time to be in nature, with my relationships, the grandchildren, plus disciplining myself to do enough writing and creativity to feel fulfilled. Choice is not a simple matter, it seems. We shall see how I get along!
Aug 25
2016
2 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
There’s Something about Ireland
The peat bog for a start. Seeps its way into everything, including the water supply in the cottage we rented on the Ring of Kerry. The bath a delightful brackish brown as one stepped in and I wondered idly whether it would top up a tan. The water in my glass likewise looked like mud and we questioned whether the well was pure enough to drink. But being close to nature felt right in order to shake off the London neurosis for bottled water and slide into the Irish ways where possible. The views outside our window across the water to the Kerry mountains took our breath away and we relaxed into its beauty.
I remember a colleague of mine who was raised in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, saying he had Africa and its big skies with him all the time. There are things about Ireland and the Irish that I would like to bring home with me to England. The banter for one thing. It’s everywhere – in lifts, on pavements, at a bar, on a bus, in shops, people starting to chat and banter with one another. Strangers, family, friends. It’s friendly, witty and upbeat and there’s much laughter to go with it. You are left with a sense of connection and that all is well with the world. I decided to try this friendly open approach more often back home rather than follow the typically English way of avoiding a stranger’s eye. I shall let you know how it goes!
That sense of community and connection. In every conversation our Irish friend had with apparent strangers as well as family and friends, he discovered that in every county we visited – Kerry, Clare, Limerick – people knew someone he knew. It’s good to remember how many contacts one knows around the British Isles, from childhood, work, family and adult life. Often more than one has kept in one’s consciousness. I have just taken a mental tour of the world and brought to mind people I know or have met in a surprising number of places and countries. It feels good.
The music – that’s everywhere too. Irish music is a stirring blend of jigs and reels and music that starts one’s foot tapping with involuntary immediacy interspersed with soulful slow airs that conjure up the wilds of the moors and the history of troubles and hardship. One cannot but have one’s emotions stirred one way or another. I have brought home CDs and downloads to enjoy here too.
So, having recently discovered that I have some 24% Irish DNA, I shall bring home with me all this rich experience and landscape. I want to keep in mind those hills and valleys, the clear night skies we enjoyed and that sense of good-natured humour and camaraderie … let’s see how long it lasts in the midst of the crowded city streets of London!
And where might you want to bring into your mind and take around with you, I wonder?
Aug 03
2016
1 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
Reading is not a Luxury
I hadn’t a clue how to run a business when I set up Positiveworks. I had to learn about book-keeping, marketing, invoicing, planning and preparing the coaching and training programmes, how much or little to keep in contact with valued clients and much more. I can’t imagine what had made me feel, in 1992 aged 42, that starting my own business was less scary than applying to a big corporation, especially when there is no sick pay, holiday pay or pension and, with no regular salary, one might earn £1,000 one month and £100 the next! But part of this decision was based on the fear of going through an assessment centre and having to do mental arithmetic and problem solving. As I had been a freelance historical and picture researcher alongside being a Mum and housewife, I simply couldn’t imagine being successful going through these processes. And so Positiveworks was born.
Looking back on it I realize that the work involved in running Positiveworks brought together all the experiences of my life. I found myself laying up the training tables for clients and greeting them as they arrived, just as I had done for my guests when I was a corporate wife. The History I had studied at A level and university enabled me to help clients gain perspective when events could be put within themes and trends of time. Having written poetry since I was a teenager, I read poems to clients – Managing Directors of fish packaging companies, lawyers, bankers and town planners. I would encourage clients to go to the theatre to open their minds to new ideas and to a deeper understanding of human nature and behaviour. I took others to lunchtime concerts in City churches to help them find inspiration or to art galleries to create stillness in the middle of a working day. I don’t know what they thought of it all but I was sharing with them what has helped me to feel happy in my own working life.I would frequently slink into an art gallery for an hour on the way to a meeting and slip into the occasional matinée on the way back. I would take long weekends in the apartment I had in Nice and I found that I had more creative ideas walking around that beautiful city or sitting in a café watching the sea than I ever got when I was at my desk. Whenever I could, I would take a walk in Kew or Kensington Gardens or some quiet city square. I felt a tad guilty but what was wonderful was that my clients seemed to appreciate this ability to run the business at the same time as creating work-life balance.
Time away from my desk together with the arts all helped me to stay sane. One certainly needs some kind of inspiration when one is often working very long hours for less than the living wage when one is building up a business! But at the heart of everything was reading. So I was saddened yesterday to hear statistics that there are approximately five million people, 16% of our UK population, who could be described as “functionally illiterate”. This is equivalent to having the reading skills of someone less than 11 years old and being unable to pass an English O level. It made me reflect on the delight that reading has brought me over a whole lifetime and how essential it has been to my sanity and development as I have run Positiveworks.
I’ve never known any trouble than an hour’s reading didn’t assuage. Arthur Schopenhauer
People tell me that they have no time to read or go to the theatre or are too tired to do so. But I have found that when people do take time to see a play or read a book they actually feel refreshed by the experience. And reading is an essential ingredient of work and life, not a luxury. Reading is civilising. It brings knowledge, thought, ideas, wisdom and innovation. It stretches the mind, and opens doors to perception that may have been closed. Is it a dying art? I hope not. We witness children acclimatizing themselves to speed – digital games and movies that provide the creativity that reading would otherwise develop. I thank my parents for the education they gave me where an appreciation of the written word and of music, theatre, poetry and art were embedded within me and I am delighted to see my five-year old granddaughter being introduced to similar riches at her school.
But she and I are fortunate as many schools do not necessarily instil this learning into their pupils. Some even shrug it off as elitist and so deny children the opportunity to be exposed to the arts. It need not cost money. Some schools play classical music during assembly or break periods. They scatter posters of fine art on their walls at minimal cost or project them on walls for free. Volunteers frequently support reading and last year I supported and judged a poetry prize in our local primary school for children in Years 3-6. Children seep in the culture that is offered to them within their educational environment.
The UK specialises in the creative industries. We gain both wealth and respect throughout the world for our thriving theatre and cultural contributions. But young people will find it difficult to get anywhere in life if they can’t read well. It is the equivalent to teaching people fine art without the basics of observation and perspective. Whatever one might think of Michael Gove as a man, he did have a passion for the basic skills of grammar and literacy and there is a grain of reason in what he was endeavouring to do.
Reading opens the door to all the arts, to science, philosophy and everything both good and bad. I have trained people in speed reading skills for over twenty years now and it is universal that the experience of reading is to whip the written words off the page and create images, emotions, and sensory experience in the mind. If one reads of someone being hungry one can feel hungry. If one reads of the loss of a child one weeps despite it not being one’s own child. It develops opinion and also empathy.
Reading also opens up philosophy which is the key to the art of living well. The thoughts and ideas of philosophers thread through all our lives and I have found them to be particularly important when clients were reflecting on their current lifestyle decisions. Personal and professional development depends on the ability of each one of us to apply the skill of reviewing priorities so as to be able to live authentically, speak one’s truth and make decisions aligned to one’s values.
And philosophers since the Greeks have advised us to feed mind, body and spirit in order to make the most of ourselves and our lives. This includes pronunciation and deportment. All those boring classes of enunciating a,e,i,o,u and walking around the classroom with books on our heads can pay off in helping us stand tall and project ideas in adult life. If a young person can’t speak clearly then it will be difficult for them even to get a job on a help desk. Or if they see the solution to global warming but just whisper it then the world suffers. Knowledge and wisdom are for sharing.
So I wanted to share, then and now, these small practices that helped me stay sane within the busy and demanding world of running my own business. Client work has always been very fulfilling. But the admin of filing, the uncertainty of client needs and the juggling of many tasks could be tiring. So I found I could bounce back by discovering a stimulating new idea in a book or listening to uplifting music and then sharing those experiences with clients. I suspect they thought I was somewhat eccentric but I hope that they do occasionally still enjoy the beauty of words, the quiet of a lunchtime concert or the drama of a Shakespeare play and, in turn, share those experiences with others. Life without the arts would be a dull and dry experience.
Visit www.sane.works
Emotional Healing for Dummies by Dr David Beales and Helen Whitten (Wiley)
Jul 20
2016
1 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
In May we went to the Hay Literary Festival and listened to an excellent but disquieting talk by the journalist David Aaronovitch on the subject of no-platforming. This is where student unions cancel talks by people who hold opinions with which they don’t agree. In recent months this has included both Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell. Neither of them are dangerous people. Neither of them are inciting murder or hatred. They are simply expressing opinions and yet they have been denied a platform on the university lecture circuit.
Surely this is a direct contradiction of what education is all about. Is university not a time when a student’s mind can be stretched and honed, teaching them how to counter ideas and be curious about information and opinions that differ from their own? In short, to make them think and to challenge their own perspectives as well as those of other people? Instead, it seems, there is a trend towards them just wanting to hear talks that confirm their own opinions.
I read of students who are demanding that they should be warned if there is a challenging scene, such as rape, in a book they are studying, in case it upsets them. Don’t we actually need to explain to young people that life is upsetting, difficult and can be unfair and that there is no law of the universe to prevent this? And if they don’t accept these challenges they will be both disappointed but also blindsided by problems when they arise and limited in their ability to deal with them.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that, in the aim of not offending people, we are moving away from honest debate. To solve the world’s problems we need to identify them realistically. To achieve this we need many minds and many perspectives in order to break through any personal perceptual blinkers we may have. We can’t do this if people are only willing to listen to the opinions that support their own. Both businesses and governments also require independent-minded individuals who are capable of listening, analysing and being open to innovation.
I would wager that those who are making these no-platform decisions would ardently quote Article 19 of the Human Rights Act at other times. Perhaps I could remind them of this Article: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. It seems they can conveniently forget this message when it comes to the freedoms of those whose opinions they dislike.
We all have to beware the cosy appeal of confirmation bias – of choosing to be among those people who support our views and reading only those newspapers that confirm our own prejudices. It is much easier to feel good about ourselves if we read opinions that reflect our own and yet actually we need to challenge ourselves by reading other opinions and consulting newspapers that we perceive may have articles that oppose those we hold dear to us. Reading only one newspaper, whether it is the Guardian or the Daily Telegraph, will inevitably shape our neurons and opinions and limit our thinking.
As a coach trained in Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (www.albertellis.org) and Cognitive-Behavioural psychology (http://www.babcp.com/Public/What-is-CBT.aspx ) my raison d’etre is to enable clients to compassionately challenge their perspectives, to seek clear evidence in facts, to question distorted viewpoints and dispute whether the beliefs they hold are relevant to them today or are simply a groove from childhood or a previous time in life. It is designed to help them analyse their responses and develop more rational and helpful approaches where appropriate.
On a personal level, having not gone to university when I left school in 1967, I did choose to read history at King’s College London aged 40 because I somehow knew that I lacked the skills to research, collect supporting facts for an argument or present a case with evidence. The degree did give me the techniques I needed to present my own viewpoint even if eminent historians had written opposite accounts. This is what university is about – giving a student the confidence and skills to forge new ideas and perspectives.
I was further depressed the other evening when I heard a debate on the Moral Maze on Radio Four. There were speakers who argued both that people should not only not be subjected to opinions that might offend them but also should be informed of a “Statement of Privilege”. In my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) this is where the speaker has to record any aspect of their life that could be considered a privilege – eg having a white skin, being middle class, having a university degree. Somehow it is not considered acceptable simply to make a Statement of Birth, eg “I was born white but had no control over the fact” nor a Statement of Hard Work “I was born in a council estate, worked hard to get to University and now have a good job”.
Instead, it is as if people have to wear their list their suffering and non-privilege as badges of honour worthy of special attention. Aaronovitch spoke of this approach potentially encouraging people to seek to be offended and victimised. In my view this feeds inequality rather than heals it. Making people special because of their misfortune does not help them manage life. There is no way that I can see any usefulness in a conversation that goes “my suffering is worse than yours” as it is not, in any case, readily quantifiable. Just because someone holds a university degree, is white, professional or even upper class does not signify that they have not been exposed to major difficulties such as losing a parent, being cruelly treated or experiencing sickness. None of these experiences will necessarily be worn on their sleeves. Comparison of privilege is therefore, in my view, subjective and also a potentially corrosive practice.
As a coach I meet people from all walks of life, some of whom have come from apparently privileged backgrounds, the homeless, and those who have worked their way into a good job from homes where their parents did not go to university. They couldn’t always control what happened to them but they could control how they responded to it. This is where individuals have choice. There are those who have had difficult backgrounds who make a success of their life – in whatever way success is meaningful to them. There are others who hold on to their resentment at a perceived or real incident for the rest of their lives. In my area of work we endeavour to move people out of any focus on where they may feel or perceive they are victimised and to empower them to take control of their lives in whatever way they can.
I think there can be a confusion between the difference between a right and a gift. The Articles in the Human Rights Act have been written by governments. They are a human construct and they become law but I think it is a slippery slope to then conclude that we have other rights, such as not to be offended or upset, or to be given a “safe space” where one’s opinions will not be challenged. Taking it down to a personal level, if I was in dire straits I might turn up at a friend’s house and ask for shelter but I would not regard it as a right that she should give it to me. It is a gift.
Diverse perspectives can be shared without causing offence. It is how you share the words that makes the difference – the intention, the voice tone, the body language will all demonstrate whether you are intending to cause offence or are merely, as is your right, expressing your opinion. In Cognitive-Behavioural coaching we apply Socratic dialogue to question whether a client’s perspective is both rational and helpful to them managing a situation. For example, one could question “Who says you have a right to a safe space?” or “What law of the universe states that there is a right not to be offended?” or “How does it help you to believe that you have a right not to be upset?” The reality is that there is no law of the universe that gives these students a right to protection from difficult information, and while they believe they have this right they will continue to be upset and unprepared for life itself.
A French friend of mine, writing to me in the aftermath of the tragic murders in Nice last week, said that he felt that the French educational system is not teaching critical thinking sufficiently to help young people question attempts to radicalise them. This is reflected in the UK system too and we must surely resist those who seek to silence reasonable expression of opinion. We must encourage rational thinking, dispute and debate.
I am not sure why those in charge of the no-platforming decisions in universities think they have the right to limit free speech in this way. Perhaps we could all remind them of Article 19 of the Human Rights Act should we hear an attempt to keep reasonable speakers off the university platforms.
Jul 05
2016
0
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
I can’t remember a period in my lifetime when there has been so much talk of politics – in homes, offices, at parties and with complete strangers. “Remain or Leave, what do you think?” And many people, including myself, were quite torn, endeavouring to distinguish between a sentimental love of Europe and the Europeans versus doubts about the way the EU Commission is run.
30 million people turned out to vote. That’s more UK voters than had supported anything else in history. People of all types thought about the issues and cared. I believe both Remain and Leave campaigns let down the British public with both lack of information and misinformation. The leaders of all parties took us to the edge of the cliff and then stepped back, without leaving us with any plan. This was totally irresponsible.
That said, I voted to remain but am discomforted by the frequently disparaging way that my fellow Remainers talk about those who voted Leave. They accuse the Leave campaign of inspiring hatred and division and yet, now that they have lost, those on the Remain side seem to be in danger of perpetuating that division and hatred. Think how we would feel if the boot were on the other foot.
OK, so the Referendum was a close call and those on the Remain side are gutted. Personally, I did sign a petition for a second referendum but am concerned that it is unethical to expect 17.4 million people, 52% of the population, just to shut up and go back to the previous status quo with no promises of reform. The result has exposed genuine and daily-experienced concerns about infrastructure, the pace of change and perceived inequality of opportunity. Those living in economically depressed cities have been left behind, particularly the white working classes, and they need help transitioning from an industrialized manufacturing economy to an economy based more on the brain than on brawn.
There have been several decades of job losses and successive governments have ignored the problems. There is only so much any government can do about dying industries but net annual migration quadrupled between 1997-2010 and since then there has been the crash of 2008, and austerity, all of which have put pressure on jobs and the quality of life.
We don’t really want to say that “the masses have let us down yet again”, do we? While the middle classes and professionals have benefited from global economic prosperity and have the choices that both education and money can buy, we are not necessarily the ones stuck in living daily with the problems of economically struggling or transformed areas. If we believe that remaining in the EU is ultimately most beneficial for all of us, including those feeling alienated, then we needed to make it much clearer how staying in could indeed be to their personal advantage. Quoting Mark Carney or the IMF wasn’t going to do it.
Apparently the older generation should feel ashamed that 57% of them voted to Leave but can we not argue that the young should also, in that case, feel ashamed of themselves for not turning up to vote – and in fact 27% of 18-24 year olds and 38% of 25-34 year olds voted to Leave too. The young don’t know about a “Britain as it used to be” so they must have their own ideas of the issues. See http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ The picture is inevitably complex and I believe we need to try to focus on common areas rather than divisions as we go forward.
Perhaps it is because I have been trained as a mediator, but I feel uncomfortable with the way the Remainers refer to Leave voters as racist, xenophobic or little Englanders. We need to be careful when we label others and I personally feel that anyone who took the trouble to vote requires some respect. In fact only 33% of Leave voters actually cited immigration control as their reason for voting for Brexit. It is illogical to bracket 17.4 million people together. I certainly met Remainers who were also worried at how our creaking infrastructure would cope with immigration continuing at its current rate. It is a rational concern when housing, education, health and transport are all under pressure in a slowing economy. The fact that Brexit never was the answer is, in many ways now beside the point. If these worries are not discussed in a transparent and grown-up way they could continue to cause unrest.
In my experience of talking to those who voted Leave, it was for a far more complex set of reasons. People talked of deep concerns about a dysfunctional EU Commission, the lack of willingness for the EU to flex and reform, the imbalance of economic strength that exists within the 28 EU countries, the over-generous social provisions within those countries, youth unemployment, the Euro bail-outs, the rise of the Far Right in France, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Germany (which has existed for many years before any UK Referendum came on the scene), Juncker’s federalist plans for “more Europe”, a history of dubious regimes and unrest, the recognition that many other countries are also disgruntled with the EU Commission and that the whole endeavour may anyway break up, and also an interest in a global trading alliances beyond the EU. These are legitimate considerations, even if we don’t agree with them.
A Swedish colleague of mine remarked that “ I think UK’s withdrawal was almost necessary, to enable the EU to wake up. I am a European ever since I turned 15 but too many fingers got into the pie”. This morning there is a hint that Juncker may be pressurised to resign and perhaps there will eventually be change and reform in Brussels. But tragically that’s too late for the UK.
Ultimately, though, we may disagree with one another regarding these perspectives, the vote and its outcome – and families and friends have been divided as a result of these discussions – and yet surely we can respect people who think differently to us? Each person is voting from a combination of facts, experience, values and gut instincts. Can any one of us on either side honestly say with 100% certainty that, whatever the short-term upheaval, ours is the best solution for our country in the long-term? Discussing facts and perspectives in an open debate is one thing but we don’t have to copy the disgraceful name-calling that the campaign leaders threw at one another. Insults and judgements don’t help us see a way forward.
What we do have to do is pick up the pieces of what is currently a mess and travel optimistically. We need to do better than Peter Hennessy’s description of ‘muddling through’ even if that is how it seems today! But Hennessy also points out that we are a mature constitution with deep wells of civility. There are racists in every country and it is important to educate people to see beyond the divisions. As a Lithuanian friend of mine commented: “Regarding the attacks on Polish people it just shows you how uneducated these people are but I don’t care what they say because to me they don’t represent England. England to me is a wealthy, educated and tolerant country and hopefully will always be.”
We need to go forward as united as possible. A positive factor of the Referendum was that it went beyond party politics. People in the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative parties spoke and voted together. This signifies that there are potentially shared values and interests in common that can be built on.
There’s plenty to be gloomy about but if we get stuck in the negative loop of doom and hopelessness, which the media so enjoys, then the uncertainty will continue for longer and the financial markets, trade and relationships with the world will deteriorate further. We shall shoot ourselves in the foot. We need to pick ourselves up, shake ourselves down and decide that whatever the outcome of the next few weeks we can make it work for us individually, for our families, for the country, for Europe and the world. That will require each of us to talk to our European friends and neighbours, build our global relationships and alliances and do whatever action it takes to protect the reputation of the UK, for all our sakes.