Centralized perspective is the understanding that a set of cultural standards is ultimate or supreme. It is the understanding that all must adhere to a system without the effort to recognize already present systems, regardless of the diversity in human experience. This perspective is one of the most problematic issues in equity. What we call centralized perspective and what our systems, processes and policies are largely based on, is largely the concept of the one ultimate way of being for structuring society. Centralized perspective judges the value, or validity of all others based on this one cultural set of impositions.
In the context of anti-oppression, anti-racism, and inequity in general, centralized perspective not only dismisses other systems, it also strongly imposes its own, often violently. It normalizes the false notion that one can know the experience of another, leading to having judgment of the value of a person, community or system with no collaborative foundation. The most dangerous aspect of centralized perspective is that it normalizes oppressive behaviors. It continues to cause harm by omitting the reality that one cannot hold the infinite diversity of how different people, cultures and ecosystems operate. Centralized perspective creates notions of righteousness, false notions of power and perpetuates the deeply problematic concept of gauging of value.
Somewhere in our current systemic trajectory, the teachings of dialogue with fundamental respect to others ' experience and existence being equal to our own, and the intent of building collaborative solutions has been obfuscated. The contrary is more common, where value perspectives become based on hierarchies of limited, non-collaborative systems of knowledge to decide the needs of others. Although education or specializations are of the utmost importance in better understanding parameters of health, science, environment and social responsibility, what is lacking is the already well established diversity of ways of knowing in science, environmental management and social systems. However, continuous collaboration, engagement and dialogue with diverse populations or individuals will both mitigate perpetuated harm, such as inaccessibility, and interrupt the loss of the wealth of information held in those spaces. Decentralizing perspectives is really about following already-present realities of diverse knowledge, shedding the perspective of all knowing for all, and deconstructing the concepts of acquired value.
Cultures/individuals have the right to their structures and worldview, but not to impose them, and certainly not to oppress others in the process. Current dominant operating frameworks are not all necessarily negative, they are just not the ONLY ones.
Examples of harms caused by a centralized perspective:
Assembly of First Nations | Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery | January 2018
How is it possible that any Pope, King or Queen, or explorers from Europe could “discover” lands in the New World, if Indigenous Peoples were already occupying such lands, according to our own laws and legal orders? ...This was invalidly based on the presumed racial superiority of European Christian peoples and was used to dehumanize, exploit and subjugate Indigenous Peoples and dispossess us of our most basic rights…Such ideology lead to practices that continue through modern-day laws and policies.
Where do you see a centralized perspective in policy, processes etc. And how can those processes and policies shift into collaborative and relational decision making models? Please refer to leadership tools.
‘According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a system is defined as a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, n.d.). Systems thinking is, literally, a system of thinking about systems.’
- A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach
A systems lens in the context of equity, as defined by Terra Ethics, means looking at issues from a perspective that deconstructs our current systems and how they have come to be as they are. It is the closest to objectivity we can get. The reality of addressing equity is that it is inflammatory, causes stress, vulnerability, anger, and violence. We have come to realize that this is due to an understanding that racism is a personal or individual issue rather than based on centuries of conditioning, and the building of structures based on problematic conceptual frameworks. Looking at inequity from a systems lens is looking at the historical perspectives that built the systems we are operating from and normalizing how to address them. In our understanding, systems are benign, and only as just or fair as the perspectives of those who operate them. In this framework the blame should fall on perspective and behavior rather than individuals if we are to focus on shifting oppressive systems. A systems lens allows us to understand that there is conditioning that value is based on power and positionality. This is a perspective that continues to perpetuate inequity, self doubt and conflict. Exploring inequitable processes that have emerged from these perspectives through systems thinking helps to keep the focus on shifting practices, and implementing new processes as a shared normalized goal.
When the focus is on systems that perpetuate issues of access, racism, and inequitable structures, we are able to take the individuals out of the equation, and focus on perspectives, which makes the task of shifting processes and policy more attainable.
Knowledge on systems of oppression is fundamental. As we continue to attempt to redress historical inequities through adjustments of laws, charters, and so on, the work of better understanding the experience of inequity is.
We have found that the reason behind the importance of a systems lens is to avoid the escalation of triggers, like the Amygdala Hijack. These are inevitable of course, but understanding the history, operational perspective and deep neurological pathways that make us feel like we need to defend, flee, fight, or fawn, is key. The normalization of mistakes or erroneous perspectives as gauges of our value continues to create conflict as we well know, and unfortunately, it becomes about defending our perspective rather than exploring why it is there in the first place. The shared goal of equitable systems could focus on how to build new pathways, incrementally and with support systems built into the process. Systems thinking supports the elucidation of inequitable processes, and along with fundamentals of value, positionality, support systems, decentralizing perspective, and many others which are constantly being created, we are able to build the needed tools to get closer to equitable processes and learn how to deeply embed them into our structures and engagements.
Relational engagement is the genuine drive to build relationships based on an equal value perspective. It is about shedding the perspective that people in certain positions deserve more or less of our engagement. In situations where we are attempting to shift systems and structures to be accessible and equitable, genuine dialogue is imperative. Validation of experience is important to humans in general and collectively building new perspectives that encompass diverse thought and structural processes requires genuine interaction. The reason we mention relational engagement here, is because culturally, we have been caught up in influencing and end product perspectives. We seldom truly engage with others in a manner that has no attachment to outcome. Respecting others' boundaries of engagement is important here, since no one is required to engage if they can not, or choose not to--yet that does not mean that equity work stops. There are many ways to tackle equity depending on our positionality and resources.
Fundamentally speaking, equity work is about bringing deeper understanding that relates us all to each other. The lack of dialogue, in truly wanting to know where each is coming from for the shared goal of general wellness for all, robs from us clarity on the issues at hand. To strive for clarity should in fact be the driver of movements, and this requires dialogue among diverse perspectives.
Division drives harmful behavior, which is at the heart of the issues humanity is constantly trying to address from such diverse points of reference. Understanding that we are all part of a much greater ecosystem than our human systems, and considering the reality of our equal value as beings, supports shifting perspectives from division to relatability, with both people and ecosystems.
This is a growing, evolving, and community-created resource. Please share any additional resources, personal experiences using this tool, or ways this page could be improved!