A committed and passionate Yes voter asked, on social media: “What do NO voters fear? After some perturbation I decided to offer a response, others had already done so. To make sure my response wasn’t dilettante in nature, hasty or ill conceived, I decided to draft a post – then cut and paste to the social media platform.
By the time I had completed my response, it was too lengthy for the social media platform’s prerequisites and I couldn’t find the original post anyway. Am I a dilettante when it comes to social media – yes, but I am not when it comes to comprehending the human social condition and the complexities of social change. It is the latter that frames my response to the question, what, in relation to the forthcoming Australian referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, do some NO voters fear?
– They fear that a Yes result will mean the end of debate on the structural and systemic institutionalised racism that exists in every level of Australian society (https://louisebricknell.com.au/let-fish-swim-and-monkeys-climb-active-intelligence-ai-for-everyone/)
– They fear that a Yes result will be seen as a feel good win for change – when in fact nothing will change. Even worse, when questions are raised by First Nations people about the lack of change a Yes result has afforded them, some non indigenous Australians may suggest:
“ It’s not our fault nothing has changed significantly for First Nations people, because we voted Yes. If nothing has changed that’s the responsibility of First nations’ people – not non indigenous Australians.”
Social change is a complex beast, humans are woefully bad at it – locally and/or globally; just look at the catastrophe that is Climate Change, global warming, and you get an idea of how humans aren’t so different from bunnies in the headlights when it comes to change.
We know global warming is happening; we are aware of the horrendous consequences; we know how to mitigate some of these consequences – but we choose, like bunnies (personally, locally, globally) to freeze in front of the headlights, more terrified of the shadow of change than the real thing hurtling towards us.
The Voice referendum is a referendum that may, or may not, act as a harbinger for social change. This is the underbelly of the referendum. Are we ready for Social Change? Clearly we aren’t in relation to what needs to change to mitigate the impact of global warming (Garnaut 2019); nor are we ready in terms of the behemoth changes that technologies, AI, robotics, will bring to our lives (Walsh 2017).
A current example of the complexities involved in creating, learning, leading social change is offered by the recent findings in STEM education
The Morrison government wanted to create greater equality, including access, for females in STEM education and employment opportunities; it spent over AUS $100 million to achieve this. This was a YES vote for equality, fairness, access to opportunities in education, workplaces and professional STEM career salaries.
More females did enter tertiary STEM courses; a higher % of females entered with higher scores than their male counterparts; and graduated with higher degree classifications than their male counterparts (research cites their commitment and work ethic as contributing factors). The program was therefore a success? It supported and initiated change for a sector of the population marginalised and under represented in STEM education and STEM workforces? No, it didn’t.
What changed? Not much, the politically correct term is ‘leakage’. The increase in number of STEM educated, hard working and committed females didn’t correlate to more females in STEM careers. Why? Toxic work cultures; prejudices; cultural barriers, systemic and institutionalised sexism – resulted in these committed well educated and hard working females finding work in non STEM based areas. (https://acerforeducation.acer.com/education-trends/esports-in-education/encouraging-women-in-stem-through-esports/)
This example highlights the complexity of social change – we all play a part in it, most of us play our parts innocently. We mean well, as did the Morrison Government in relation to increasing opportunities for females in STEM careers and education, but meaning well doesn’t create social change because it doesn’t address its underbelly – systemic, institutionalised, commonsense prejudices that actively benefit some members of the community while systematically disadvantaging others.
Voting Yes doesn’t challenge the systemic and institutionalised racial prejudices that are embedded in social cultures, including Australian. In fact, it gives them a polite nod. Why? because the Voice doesn’t actually challenge them in any significant way. (https://louisebricknell.com.au/let-fish-swim-and-monkeys-climb-active-intelligence-ai-for-everyone/)
It’s like saying the housing crisis in Australia is appalling and no government, nor population, should have let it get to the state it currently is in, then arguing that negative gearing remains. Ask yourself:
“Would I vote Yes if it meant an end to negative gearing in Australia before Christmas 2023?”
Some people would vote Yes, others wouldn’t, because the result would directly impact upon their life styles and they would have to change in some way. That doesn’t make them a bad person, nor does it make them racist on a personal level; it does, however, mean they unwittingly prop up institutionalised systems of structural inequality – far removed from their daily lives – that offer no support or deference to particular members of a society.
Voting Yes (in the voice referendum) doesn’t significantly impact upon the invisible and structural inequalities benefitting non indigenous Australians, it may make some non indigenous Australians feel good. It certainly makes me feel better to think that I will vote Yes. It’s like fund raising for communities ravaged by climate change events, but not wanting to change our lifestyles in ways that can potentially reduce our contribution to global warming. The good will is great, but it’s not enough – we need to change our everyday on mass!
We need to understand the complexity, the difficulty, the fear involved in change – on a personal and political level. This kind of understanding leads to significant change. We need to connect the dots between our hearts and our head.
The debate between my heart (Yes) and head (No) continues – currently undecided. The only thing I am sure of is that the debate is complex and requires a hard look into the personal, as well as the political mirror, because to paraphrase British historian Eric Hobsbawm, it is important to understand how much of history is in us (https://louisebricknell.com.au/launch-rocket-land-repeat-thinking-beyond-reason-is-the-bottomline-for-developing-ai-for-good/). We might not like what we see in that mirror, but we need to know it’s there, because it will and does infiltrate our every decision with its invisible historical tentacles; and sometimes what seems the easiest of decisions is not the right one.
Garnaut, R (2019) Super Power: Australia’s Low Carbon Opportunity
Walsh, T (2017) It’s Alive: Artificial Intelligence from the Logic Piano to Killer Robots.