Tag: society

Categories
Arts

Reimagining identity through participatory storytelling

Photo by Mackenzie Lad.

Birds Crossing Borders creates a collective memory

Home and identity are important themes concerning one’s individuality. So how do people displaced by conflict deal with the deep-rooted trauma that arises from events such as war? How do victims reclaim their identity and find a safe space?

Khadija Baker’s Birds Crossing Borders, a multimedia installation that includes sound, video and a performance involving falling water, aims to develop consciousness and remembrance through storytelling, with the ultimate intention of creating a collective memory.

Photo by Mackenzie Lad

A multi-disciplinary artist of Kurdish-Syrian descent, Baker’s cultural identity is present in her works. She shares the stories of refugees who have been displaced by the current conflicts in Syria. Her performative, video and sculptural installations explore socio-political themes, specifically in relation to identity, displacement and traumatic events such as war. Recurring themes in her works delve into unsettling feelings associated with the idea of home and aim to promote an understanding of cultural complexities.

Consisting of multiple screens highlighting the collective stories of refugees, Birds Crossing Borders reflects on the shared memories of home, particularly in relation to the identity shared by Syrian refugees.

“We are used to estrangement in many places. Even in my own country, I felt the estrangement,” shared one of the men featured in Baker’s compilation of recordings.

Addressing these sentiments of estrangement from one’s native land or hometown allows the viewer to further recognize the importance of home and the significant impact displacement has on those affected by war.

The exhibition creates a space of understanding and empathy by leaving room for discussion. The sharing of these collective stories serves as the representation of refugees and victims of war.

While the stories in the exhibit describe various individual struggles, Baker’s performance highlighted a unifying theme present among their experiences, by shedding light on the struggles of integrating into a new community.

Her performance focused on the identities of newly arrived refugees. With no distinct description, its primary purpose was left to the audience’s interpretation. Moreover, the nature of the piece demonstrated the prejudice associated with immigrants and refugees.

The centrepiece of the performance itself consisted of 14 transparent boxes. Each box contained varying amounts of water. A balloon filled with black water hung above the first box as a symbol of the common judgement of refugees as “contaminated.”

Photo by Mackenzie Lad

Barker began by squeezing the black water from the balloon into the first box. The water began to travel through a tube that connected each box to one another, and the remaining 13 boxes slowly began to fill with the black liquid. This illustrated what could be perceived as “contamination.” By the end of the performance, each box contained the same amount of water. The black liquid mixing with the water in the boxes is meant to demonstrate the integration of refugees, Baker explained. Although at first, they can be seen as “disrupting” the flow of society, in the end all will balance out. Society will equalize over time, Baker said; refugees want to contribute to society, and they do.

“Each human has to be an effective person. If we all long for and become attached to our identity in its limited meaning, we won’t reach any place,” said one of the refugees highlighted in Baker’s videos. “You chose a place to live in, and you have to be loyal and integrated and positive and interact within [it].”

Birds Crossing Borders is on display at Montréal Arts Interculturels (MAI) until Oct. 13. The gallery is open Tuesday to Saturday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Categories
Opinions

If you can’t see me, I can’t see you

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Some personal thoughts on human decency, opportunity and being present

Coming up on my third year in university, everything is an opportunity. When I see a familiar face in my classes, I like to reach out. If we’ve had several classes together, at this point I assume we’re interested in the same things. So naturally, let’s talk about that.

I see university as a starting point. A place where you set the foundation for the rest of your life. So many opportunities come our way here, and there are so many ways to be involved and do something.

That being said, I’ve found myself struggling with opportunity recently. I’m constantly looking for more, even though I am incredibly busy. I like to be busy. There is so much I want to do, and I feel like the time is now. In essence, the time is always “now.” I just need to feel present in my current projects and pursue those to the best of my ability instead of fantasizing about studying in New Zealand or Eastern Europe, volunteering up North or in the Caribbean, taking art classes in Italy. To combat this, I find myself trying to make connections with people that, frankly, might not amount to anything in the long run.

I suppose I can’t assume people have the same outlook as I do. While I’m in university, I’m also trying to make lasting friendships or simple connections with my peers, or at least practice common human decency. Nod or smile, grab opportunities when they come my way. In university, everyone’s caught up in their own opportunities, their own “now.” I try my best to be mindful about this. I know I am probably not alone in my escapist fantasies, and the solution to this is not forcing friendships.

But maybe you’re studying something that you aren’t really set on pursuing, maybe you really just want to do your work and get your degree so you can move on. Maybe you aren’t concerned with being a decent person and acknowledging familiar faces. Or, maybe you just don’t feel like talking. At this point, I don’t feel like talking either. But I do. I talk a lot.

At this point, we’re all in the same boat, right? Why not stand together? Solidarity in decency. But I’ve realized it’s harder to be decent than I thought. It’s easier to stay comfortable and not take those steps that could very well change your life, even if it is in the smallest way possible, like smiling at a stranger.

Last week, while walking up Guy St. from the TD Bank on Ste-Catherine St., I saw something I never expected to see in my life. Out of respect for the person, I won’t describe what it was I saw, but I’ll just say this person obviously needed help. I did notice, but because I was walking quickly, it only really hit me when I was in the metro. I didn’t put it together sooner. But what could I have done?

I could have smiled and asked this person if they needed assistance, if I could get something for them at the store that would help, call someone for them. All I can do now is hope that someone else did what I failed to do.

I was rushed, concerned with getting home to the comfort of my own bed. I, like those I have criticised, couldn’t bother to reach out; I couldn’t be bothered to even nod or smile. My point is, it’s hard to be decent and I need to stop putting pressure on myself and judging people for not aligning with my reality. After all, we’re all just doing our best.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

 

Categories
Opinions

A stepping stone to systemic change

Graphic by Ana Bilokin.

Examining how boycotting companies can affect our society

In a consumer culture, branding is invaluable. On many occasions, activists and general consumers have attempted to use this fact to influence the actions of companies both small and large. Though most of the time the strategy of boycotting is ineffective—maybe because not enough people get on board, or they lose interest too quickly––sometimes these forms of protest have a real economic and social impact. But is it one that lasts? Is it one that can inflict real social and cultural change?

To begin to answer that question, I’ll look at what happens when boycotts occur at a local level. In a community, there is a close connection between individual members, such as business owners and their customers, and reputation means everything. An example of this in Montreal is the case of TRH bar (Trash Bar).

Earlier this year, a fundraising party was held for a former bouncer who was convicted on three counts of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months in prison. People were outraged by this; the bar lost a lot of its customer base and received over 1000 one-star ratings, according to Eater Montreal. All of this resulted in the bar issuing an apology, doubling the fundraising money, and donating it all to an organization that helps victims of sexual assault, rather than giving it to Steve Bouchard, the perpetrator of the assault.

An example of a boycott on a corporate level is Nestle. For years, people have been trying to bring this company down for reasons ranging from child labour and depriving communities of drinking water (which is conveniently bottled and sold back to them), to copious environmental pollution, price fixing, mislabeling, and much more (a comprehensive list can be found at zmescience.com). There have been countless documentaries and boycotting campaigns against Nestle, but the company has survived all of it without facing significant consequences. But the problem here is more about the workings of capitalism than Nestle. After all, Nestle may stand out as a bad company, but they are by no means an anomaly. I believe this is a problem that needs to be solved by a systemic change that takes power away from major corporations.

On the other hand, even if boycotting campaigns against Nestle aren’t effective in bringing the company down, they can still alert people to the way our society operates, and perhaps lead them to question their moral values and become politically active. In other words, even if Nestle doesn’t fall or change their behaviour because of individual boycotting strategies, those strategies may nonetheless influence more people and more powerful players to take up the cause.

What that may look like is exemplified in the global boycott of South Africa, during the apartheid regime. Many countries and corporations refused to do business with South Africa until they ended their system of radical racial segregation in 1994. While many experts have pointed out that this success of a large-scale boycott was an exception, not the rule, it is still an example of what a boycott looks like when powerful players take part.

Boycotters often have specific, singular goals. Sometimes they achieve those goals, and sometimes they don’t—which is usually dependent on the size of their target and the level of power held by the groups that take part in the campaign.

Something that is present in every boycott case is a questioning of moral values—people deciding where they stand on particular issues, what they will and won’t put up with—which contributes to changing cultural values as a whole. I believe the immediate demands of boycotts are not an end in themselves, but rather a stepping stone to a systemic shift toward a society made up of participants who act morally because they want to, not to maintain profits.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

 

Categories
Opinions

OPINION: The scary use of the “R” word

Photo by Katelyn Thomas.

Today, we can’t be just not racist––we must be anti-racist

If you feel like you have to explain why something isn’t racist, a) it probably is and b) you’re on the wrong side of history. At an event organized by the Federal Liberal Association in St. Jean on Aug. 16, a woman interrupted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s speech by incessantly yelling his name until he had no choice but to acknowledge her.

“I want to know when you will give us back the $146 million that we paid for your illegal immigrants.” Those are the words that Diane Blain shouted at the top of her lungs (and into my ear) in a corn field off Highway 133 in Sabrevois, Que. Surrounded by flabbergasted Liberals who were just there to have a good time, Blain threatened to throw a punch at any person who asked her to calm down.

In the midst of the madness, Trudeau attempted to appease the woman by outlining a few ways the government is giving back to Quebecers. Once Trudeau felt he had given her an appropriate amount of attention, he resumed the speech he had come to give. But she wasn’t satisfied. “You didn’t answer my question,” Blain said. As she repeated it, a man found his way to her side to chime in with, “We are not on Mohawk territory.” (We were, in fact, on Mohawk territory).

So, Trudeau put aside diplomacy and called it like he saw it. “This intolerance regarding immigrants does not have a place in Canada,” he said. “Canada was built by waves of immigration that were welcomed by First Nations, who showed us how to build a strong society, and the people who come here, generation after generation, to build stronger communities, this is what makes us stronger as a country. Madam, your intolerance does not have a place here.”

The crowd erupted in cheers, and Trudeau exited stage left. But later, the internet exploded. I was shocked to find that even some Liberals felt Trudeau’s reaction was a little uncalled for. I later realized this reaction was largely due to the footage that circulated online shortly after the event. The video conveniently begins later than the kerfuffle did, meaning you don’t hear Trudeau’s initial level-headed response.

Some say Blain’s question was valid and that Trudeau called her racist to avoid having to answer it. I call bullshit. Trudeau called her racist because he, like any compassionate person, doesn’t believe the borders of our country are where we should draw the line between which humans we care about and which ones we don’t. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to asylum, reads: “If you are persecuted at home, you have the right to seek protection in another country.” It saddens me that this concept continues to be questioned today.

Racism isn’t always blatant; it manifests itself in many different forms. Trudeau recognizing and denouncing an instance of subtle discrimination means he has an awareness that we should expect from all our leaders as well as ourselves. Being non-racist simply isn’t enough. We have to be anti-racist. We have to actively denounce everyday racism in our thoughts, speech and behaviour. The first step in doing so is calling it by its name.

Racism has always been racism. People aren’t taking things more personally than before. We’re just reaching a point in time where people feel empowered to demand better. And they should.

If there’s one thing I was left with after the bizarre evening I spent in a corn field, it was immense faith in the leader of our country and a sense of hope that change is on the horizon.

Photo by Katelyn Thomas

Categories
Opinions

Sorry Jordan Peterson, the future is non-binary

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

The professor’s conceptions of gender highlight a refusal to acknowledge modernity

It’s an exciting time, folks. Progressive culture is alive and well, and it’s propelling us toward a more realistic and less discriminatory definition of gender every day. This definition is one that recognizes the ways Western society enforces arbitrary gender stereotypes through socialization. It also recognizes and seeks to end the unjust limitation of individual opportunity on the basis of gender identity. This is currently the dominant way gender is taught in post-secondary institutions in relevant fields. But there is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto who has taken to publicly lamenting the declining popularity of the traditional understanding of gender—and his name is Jordan Peterson.

His online lecture videos are often geared directly toward young men—a demographic that represents over 90 per cent of his following, according to Peterson himself. The reason for this is likely the content of his claims like: “Feminism that says Western culture is an evil and corrupt patriarchy [is to blame for] alienating young men.” Peterson’s videos operate on the logic that progressive conceptions of gender are wrongfully oppressing men. He fights to preserve the gender ideals that one might find in a TV commercial from 1950s America.

Peterson’s understanding of the world is so rooted in a binary understanding of gender that it makes sense he would be reluctant to question it. Almost every one of his videos are laced with big, generalizing claims about the inherent personality differences between men and women, and he states in a lecture that he has been studying the topic for over 25 years. If Peterson acknowledges the large role socialization plays in gender identity, as well as the legitimacy of non-binary genders, he risks invalidating 25 years of his own research.

He argues society doesn’t value traditional masculinity as much as it did in the past (and he’s right). He may also be right in proposing that this shift has caused his young male supporters’ troubles. But he is wrong in suggesting that progressive attitudes towards gender—rather than toxic men—need to change.

Peterson refuses to recognize the existence of rape culture or the whole idea of toxic masculinity as a culture-wide problem. He said in a recent video: “You don’t want to confuse the actions of some of the men with all of the men” in response to the #MeToo movement. However, what Peterson doesn’t realize is that this is the exact type of logic that enforces the very alienation of young men he is concerned about. If they dig their heels in and refuse to adjust to society’s changing values, then they’re bound only for ostracization.

Some of the traits that we associate with “traditional” masculinity are courage, independence, assertiveness and leadership (I put traditional in quotations, because as sociologist Raewyn Connell points out, definitions of masculinity have varied dramatically in various cultures throughout the course of history). The thing is, there are a ton of women in my life who have all of these traits, and as progressive culture encourages a more fluid definition of gender, that number will only increase. Don’t get me wrong, there is a long way to go, but people are finding it increasingly easy to act according to their feelings rather than in accordance with societal constraints.

“Traditional” men are finding that their place in society is diminishing, and they are faced with the option of either confronting the toxic behaviour they’ve been instilled with since the beginning stages of their socialization, or becoming bitter about it. There is comfort in Peterson’s lectures for those who become bitter, as he reassures them that society is at fault for progressing away from traditional masculinity.

It’s hard work to acknowledge privilege and confront toxic masculine values, but the social move that questions those things is not going anywhere. You get to decide if you want to be part of the positive change or cling on to archaic understandings of gender. The future is non-binary.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

 

Categories
Opinions

Feminism is not one-size-fits-all

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

For more than a century, International Women’s Day has celebrated the achievements of women and supported women’s movements around the world. According to the United Nations, March 8 is a day to recognize the achievements of women “without regard to divisions, whether national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic or political.”

Yet too often, too many women are left behind by feminism; the focus is on achieving equality between men and women, without much consideration for the diversity of female experiences. As a movement fighting for equality, it is vital that feminism give a voice to all women, and tackle all women’s issues. Only by recognizing and valuing the unique experiences of women of colour, disabled women, trans women, LGBTQ+ women—and any other woman who doesn’t fit the standard “white” identity—will feminism have a hope of achieving true equality.

First coined in 1989 by American scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectional feminism highlights the multi-facetted identities of women and the importance of considering these identities when striving for equality. All women face inequality amongst their male peers, but it’s important to recognize that women of varying social identities are at even more of a disadvantage compared to both white men and white women. Those with less power face more abuse, and women of differing social identities are more vulnerable than white women.

Yet, when we hear about unequal pay, sexual violence and abuse of power, it is typically through the voices of white women. Take the #MeToo movement, for example. Although it was popularized when actress Alyssa Milano used it as a hashtag, the phrase was first used by Tarana Burke, a black woman, more than a decade earlier.

Closer to home, we can see instances in our own history when women of colour have been held a few steps behind white women. In 1940, women in Quebec were given the right to vote—white women that is. Chinese and Indo-Canadians only got the vote in 1947, Japanese-Canadians could only vote in 1948, and First Nations people were only allowed to vote in federal elections as of 1960. In all of these cases, the right to vote was withheld from both women and men in these groups. So while being a woman comes with its challenges, there are a lot of obstacles that comes from holding a particular ethnic identity as well.

This same trend can be seen in the fight for equal pay. A Statistics Canada report showed that Canadian women earn 73.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. While these figures are horrific and unfair, we need to remember that women from minorities make even less than that, according to The Globe and Mail. The earnings of all working women is about 31 per cent less than the combined earnings of all working men; but for women of colour, that gap is 37.5 per cent, and for Indigenous women it’s 54 per cent, according to Maclean’s. Trans women also face terrible pay equity, with male-to-female transgender workers seeing their earnings drop by nearly a third, according to Maclean’s.

Violence against certain groups of women is also amplified depending on their identities. Indigenous women, trans women and black women face dangerous and violent situations that are unimagined by white and privileged women.

There is not enough space on this page to list all the ways that women of different identities face obstacles and problems not experienced by white, able-bodied, cisgender women. But we at The Concordian believe even these few examples demonstrate the importance and necessity of including all women’s struggles in the fight for equality. We live in a diverse world and that shouldn’t be ignored. By understanding how different women live, we can do more to support everyone in this age-old movement for equality.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

We race for success, but what’s at the finish line?

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

University culture encourages competition and stress among students in their 20s

​Trying to be successful in a short amount of time definitely comes with a lot of stress. As university students, many of us feel the need to accomplish as much as we can as fast as we can. The pressure we put on ourselves to succeed creates a stressful environment for us to live in, knowing very well there are more important things to worry about.

I don’t believe there’s an approaching deadline for success, seeing as so many well-known people became successful later in life. However, it is easy to feel overwhelmed and pressured to accomplish “success” in school when you hear your classmates talk about their achievements.

We often hear stories of young adults who have already accomplished so much. For example, Chloe Kim is a 17-year-old American who won gold at the 2018 Winter Olympics for the women’s snowboard halfpipe. It can be tough to watch a bunch of fit 20-somethings achieve the highest level in their field. It reminds us of how unaccomplished we are in our own lives. Although there is no time limit for success, especially not in yours 20s, it can certainly feel that way sometimes.
​University culture plays a big part in the pressure to amount to something. We should be focused on our schoolwork and nothing more, but many of us can’t help but feel the need to get a headstart on our careers. Whether that means starting a blog or getting an internship, any step we can take to get closer to “success,” we take it.

The majority of university students I talk to usually say they’re stressed almost all the time during the school year. Although some stress is normal, our overthinking about success causes a large amount of unnecessary stress. Our 20s is when we start to figure out what we really want from a career and build our way up from there. We can’t expect to accomplish all our goals in such a short amount of time.

​In 2013, a study conducted by the American Psychological Association found that almost 50 per cent of students listed anxiety as the main reason for seeking help from a school counsellor. Even though there can be many reasons for having anxiety, I believe a major factor is school-related stress. In the same year, another study revealed that 55 per cent of Canadian post-secondary students feel stressed because of health, relationships and academics, according to The Globe and Mail.

Countless articles discuss the pressure students face to feel accomplished; it affects our health and self-esteem, and it sabotages our academic experience. However, I believe very few of these articles discuss why we feel this pressure in the first place. Maybe we don’t quite know all the reasons behind it. What I believe is that putting students in such competitive environments creates a pressure to be better.

The other students in your program are generally striving for the same career as you and can, therefore, be seen as competitors. This level of competitiveness is too often seen as positive because educational systems have emphasized that competitiveness is one of the ways someone can be successful. But there is no race to success. We have our whole lives to be able to accomplish everything we want to, so we shouldn’t rush through our younger years, always feeling stressed out.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Focusing on the problems in front of us

We’ve all heard the comments about Canada being a safe haven for Americans. We’ve seen Americans flee their country after electing President Donald Trump to avoid the heated political climate or deportation. Given our close proximity, comparisons are continuously made between the United States and Canada in terms of our politics, economy, healthcare, news industry and even entertainment. In most cases these days, Canada seems to come out on top.

Statistically speaking, Canada seems better than the United States on many fronts. According to Maclean’s, Canadians live 2.5 years longer than Americans; we’re also six times less likely to be incarcerated. In the United States, 46 per cent of the population obtains a college degree, whereas 59 per cent of Canadians have one.
The World Economic Forum ranks Canadians as the sixth happiest people in the world, whereas Americans rank 13th. The Cato Institute’s Human Freedom Index claims Canadians to be the sixth freest people in the world, and Americans are 23rd—even though they boast being the “land of the free.”

When considering these factors, it’s hard not to argue that Canadians are living a better life than their southern neighbours. Yet this mentality can often result in Canada’s problems—of which there are many—being taken less seriously or even ignored.

Take Indigenous issues for example. Canadians and Americans alike closely followed coverage of the Standing Rock protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened Indigenous land and water supplies. Yet when was the last time we checked up on the progress of Canada’s national public inquiry into the murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls? How often do we read news stories about the numerous Indigenous communities in Canada living without access to clean drinking water, adequate healthcare or accessible education?

Similarly, from the Ferguson riots in 2014 to the recent comments made by President Donald Trump about “shithole” countries, news stories about racism seem to pour out of the United States, diluting any incidents happening here in Canada. This does not mean the treatment of marginalized groups in our country is any better.

As journalist Desmond Cole once said, “People in Canada generally will do anything to avoid talking about race.” But we need to talk about the fact that, between 2005 and 2015, the number of black inmates in Canadian prisons jumped by 69 per cent, according to The Guardian. In Toronto, 41 per cent of youth in the child welfare services are black, despite representing only eight per cent of the city’s youth population. In 2015, Canadian police recorded 159 hate crimes against Muslims, according to Global News. This was up from 45 in 2012—a 253 per cent increase.

So while Canada may seem better than the United States by comparison, that in no way absolves us of our many shortcomings as a progressive society. We must peel our eyes away from the car crash on the other side of the border, and focus on the road in front of us. We are so caught up in what’s happening on the other side of the highway that we’re creating traffic in our own lane.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Categories
Opinions

Why it’s time to ditch your ‘dead-trend’ job

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Certain ‘jobs’ should be left behind in order to pursue more meaningful work

From off-the-cuff table talk to buttoned-down meet and greets, employees of all collars usually ask: Where do you work? Rarely, if ever, do you hear: What’s your job? The answer is simple—nobody dares to leave a bad impression.
We perceive this risk because ‘job’ doesn’t have the most exemplary connotation in our vernacular. In my opinion, a job is something we must endure for 40-plus hours a week to earn some pay. Gradually, this became the norm, and an onslaught of punch-in-punch-out jobs erupted—although that may not be the case today.

This issue is all but simple. There are dead-end jobs, and there are “dead-trend jobs.” The latter, I believe, are lifeless from the start. Dead-end jobs are jeopardized by disruptive innovation, whereas dead-trend jobs temporarily pop in and out of the market.

At least with dead-end jobs, purpose is a matter of perspective. Take the story of the three labourers found smashing boulders with iron hammers. When asked what they were doing, the first one replied, “Breaking big rocks into smaller rocks.” The second said, “Feeding my family.” The last one said, “Building a cathedral,” which was in reference to the Cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris, the capstone of which was laid in 1345—182 years after the initial work began.

This means the first generation of labourers may have spent every waking moment breaking rocks and, in turn, their backs. For posterity’s sake, the third labourer left no stone unturned. He was driven by the day his grandchildren would revel in the artistry of the cathedral, which would stand tall and proud for decades to come.

In my view, the same cannot be said of dead-trend jobs. With dead-trend jobs such as “chief visionary officer,” “influencer” and “brand warrior,” employees in our post-industrial economy are swinging their iron hammers into thin air.

Globally, a growing number of workers believe their jobs are pointless. In a 2013 survey of 12,000 professionals by the Harvard Business Review, nearly a half claimed their job had no “meaningful significance.” In fact, the same number of workers admitted they could not relate to the company’s mission.

Another poll, conducted by Gallup, the Washington, D.C. based polling organization, showed that of 230,000 employees across 142 nations, only 13 per cent of workers actually liked their job. A 2015 poll conducted by the market research company YouGov showed that 37 per cent of British respondents thought their jobs were invariably futile.

I believe this futility emerged out of a systematic failure of how jobs have been conceived. It’s little wonder that “job” was originally ascribed to demeaning wage work during the industrialization of 18th century England. Driven from their traditional work on the land and in crafts, these labourers were reduced to cogs in a lean, mean, profit-maximizing machine.

For a century, these cogs were kept churning by economist Adam Smith’s tenet that people were naturally lazy and worked only for pay, according to The Atlantic. Smith’s “division of labour” concept meant that workers would perform repetitive tasks while being responsible for a small contribution of the product. Unlike craftsman of the past, several labourers working this systemized line increased efficiency, as described in the International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors.

As such, I believe manufacturing systems became less reliant on meticulous skill and attention—competencies that otherwise wage-hungry labourers lacked altogether. Ever since then, work has been cast down as a mere money-making, GDP-generating, chore-like exertion.

The remnants of this history continues to shape our working lives. Take, for example, the teacher who aspires to educate young students, but realizes that only scores on standardized tests matter. Take the financial advisor who seeks to counsel sensible advice, yet recommends riskier investments to meet commission quotas. You won’t find any shortage of these examples in our labour force.

Nevertheless, there’s good reason to be optimistic. Researchers and managers of international corporations have shifted their focus to meaningful work. Recently, Globoforce and IBM released their most recent report based on a global survey of 22,000 workers. Findings showed that out of the six human workplace practices examined, meaningful work topped the list. Meaningful work contributed the most to employees’ positive workplace experiences.

We shouldn’t try to continue “dead-trend” jobs. There’s no possibility of advancement from these jobs, nor can any level of technology save them. Let’s bury the dead for good.

All views are my own and not that of my employer.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Categories
Opinions

Objecting to objective reporting

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

When people think of journalism, they might think of gathering information and disseminating objective, balanced news stories to the public. Or, at least, that’s what they used to think. It’s unrealistic to assume that something as fast-paced as the journalism industry would never experience change. History shows that it has—and that it will. We at The Concordian think it is time to embrace a new change: the fact that objectivity in journalism does not exist. It has never existed.

To be objective means to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering and representing facts. To do so is not humanly possible. We are all shaped and influenced by our identity—our culture, our community, our lived experiences. These things inevitably affect how we see the world.

What has long been referred to as objectivity in journalism is simply the perception of the world through the eyes of the people who dominated newsrooms: straight, cisgender, white men. Objective reporting did not mean feelings or opinions did not influence the way stories were analyzed and told. It simply meant that stories were solely analyzed and told using a historically dominant lens. This is not acceptable.

It is time for journalists to acknowledge the factors that influence their storytelling. And to realize that these influences are not necessarily bad things. Allowing writers from various marginalized communities—be they women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQ+ community—to draw on their knowledge and experiences opens up inclusive dialogues and brings different perspectives to the table. It would allow journalists to tell stories everyone can relate to—not just some people.

Of course, that isn’t to say that facts and truth don’t exist. Journalism—or at least good journalism—should always be truthful and accurate. However, we must realize that even good journalism will never be completely objective. The way we place our quotes in a story, the people we interview, the headlines we choose and the way we edit all come from a subjective place in ourselves. Our thoughts affect the way we choose to tell a story, regardless of our efforts to remain objective. The truth is, no story is objective—and neither are we.

We at The Concordian think it’s time to approach journalism and research in a different way. It is time that we call out the injustices in the media industry and outline the ways we can begin to improve. Journalism schools around the world should begin to implement courses that discard the notion of objectivity as a defining element of journalism. The current standards of “equitable” reporting that we are being taught in school are not sufficient. Completely excluding our subjective experiences is not only wrong, it is impossible.

Research and reporting are human activities, therefore, they are messy and complicated. Most of the time, you cannot generalize research. The world is not an exact science. While there is truth and fact, there is no such thing as objectivity or neutrality in the way we see the world. To be better journalists and better people, we must take individual experiences into account. We must look to marginalized communities. We should seek to challenge the power structures in our societies rather than support them. We must use our research and reporting as a medium for social change, rather than social control.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Categories
Opinions

The pot-ential of legalization in Canada

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

Industry regulations, police resources among factors to consider before July 2018 legislation

The legalization of marijuana in Canada is a major step in the country’s history. This is an issue that impacts society on a fundamental level. In my opinion, how each province handles and adapts to the changes resulting from this legislation will be an important part of the transition.

In July 2018, the Quebec government will officially recognize Bill 172. This bill introduces the legalization of marijuana, along with several key points. Firstly, the legal age to purchase and consume marijuana will be 18 in Quebec, according to CBC News. Secondly, the bill prohibits the growing of marijuana for personal use or growing it for commercial use if it is conducted outside the laws established by the provincial government.

Additionally, under the bill, marijuana can be smoked in areas permitting tobacco smoking, but it will be strictly forbidden to smoke on the property of an educational institution, according to the same source. And, of course, driving under the influence will still be against the law. Anyone caught driving while under the influence, or suspected of being under the influence, could have their license suspended for 90 days or even face jail time, according to CBC News.

Concerned citizens and several Quebec officials are still hesitant about the idea of legalizing marijuana. Some believe that by legalizing it, younger citizens could be influenced to pick up the habit, according to the Montreal Gazette. I believe these concerns are justified.

Even though marijuana will be legalized, the long-time criminal element associated with it remains, and law enforcement officials are striving to postpone its legalization date. They are insistent that the bill must allow for stricter regulations when it comes to managing this new industry. This includes making sure companies and the health ministry have stricter security clearances for employees to avoid introducing organized crime into the legalized marijuana industry, according to the National Post. Many law enforcement officials also believe police require additional training and resources—besides the saliva test, which has yet to be federally regulated—in order to identify and handle impaired drivers, according to CBC News.

While valid points, I believe it’s also important to see the good that this legalization can bring. One major example is that, according to a study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, medical marijuana could help combat the opioid crisis. Since 2015, the opioid crisis has become a dangerous problem for Canadians. In 2016, there were over 2,800 reported fatalities in connection to opioid overdoses in Canada, according to The Globe and Mail.

Portugal is one example of successful marijuana legalization. Since 2001, the country has legalized all drugs up to a certain amount, including marijuana, and each legal limit varies per drug. According to Sensi Seeds, a cannabis seed marketing company, carrying up to 2.5 grams of marijuana is legal in Portugal. However, trafficking and cultivating marijuana is still illegal and could result in jail time, according to the same source. Portugal has seen several advantages, including a decline in drug overdoses. Within the European Union, Portugal has the second lowest rate of fatal overdoses, according to the Washington Post.

Make no mistake—I am not saying we should be legalizing all drugs. I am saying that legalizing marijuana may have the potential to do some good within certain communities. By following and adapting our policies to the examples set by the legislations in other countries, Quebec can create policies that provide strict safety and security regulations for marijuana. There is also a potential benefit to people’s health, especially when considering the opioid crisis.

However, such a sensitive issue requires patience. While I wouldn’t say no to the idea, I am saying that we need more time to finalize all the details and appeal to all the groups involved. In my opinion, if we rush this process, the consequences could result in severe social backlash.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Engaging with the world’s problems today

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

Active listening, sharing experiences can go a long way in the face of systemic issues

In my opinion, 2017 was a very terrible year. We were inundated with awful news on a daily basis. My reactions perpetually got more apathetic and became more withdrawn because of these stories. The sheer amount of bad events that happened during 2017 makes it impossible to list a few, because I believe all of them are equally important and deserve to be read into individually. However, I learned something very important throughout last year: listening and being supportive of people, no matter how small these actions may seem, are important in making the world a better place.

There were many issues I wasn’t well informed on, such as President Donald Trump banning transgender people from enlisting in the American military. So, I read as much as I could to become better informed and understand people’s experiences—especially pieces written by trans people. I opened my heart and became more empathetic about issues towards people with different lives than mine, because I think solidarity is important during difficult times. I became an active listener, willing to listen to anyone who wanted to open up about their life and hardships.

I never had the opportunity to vote when I was growing up in Saudi Arabia, and was quite surprised to learn that many Canadians are apathetic about using their right to vote. I understand that many political candidates are not ideal, however, I believe indifference contributes negatively to many people’s lives, especially marginalized people. Supporting and encouraging more people of colour, women and members of the LGBTQ+ community to run for political office would also help us take steps in the right direction. In my opinion, the more diverse our politicians become, the better and more accommodating policies will be.

In addition to participating in the democratic process, other actions we can all take include talking and writing about our own experiences, and listening to other people’s stories. We need more diverse voices in every level of society. We need to fill the large gap of knowledge that has been suppressed for many years. It takes a lot of courage to write and talk about experiences that may be traumatic, sad, insulting or demeaning—and I respect anybody who doesn’t want to do that, since it isn’t their obligation to speak out. But doing so does help other people understand experiences they will never live through.

Also, I think it’s important to talk about positive experiences. Young people are always looking to relate to people who look like them or who have a similar background. By sharing positive stories and experiences, people can relate to each other in meaningful ways. They can see a perspective they don’t see often—a positive one.

The more visible representation we have, the more diverse the stories become. I’ve tried to do this in some of my writing as I’ve enjoyed interjecting personal anecdotes into my works, and it may give people an insight into a life different from their own.

In my opinion, we are facing huge problems as we enter 2018. Old systemic issues that have plagued us for many years, such as racism, misogyny, war, homophobia, famine and violence, continue to exist. Yet, we are also facing new emerging problems that are unprecedented, for instance our increasingly wild weather patterns due to climate change, and the threats on Twitter of nuclear war by the United States and North Korea. Nonetheless, there is no reason to remain apathetic—I believe indifference is a privilege only certain segments of the population can have.

I’ll personally continue trying to listen, grow and become a more empathetic person. I’m not egotistical enough to think I’m going to solve the world’s problems, but if I make my community a little bit better, I’ll be happy. Small acts of positivity and collective action have great potential to at least make the lives of those around you better, and hopefully have a positive impact on a larger scale.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

 

Exit mobile version