LA N D ACK N OWL ED G EM EN T The City of Toronto acknowledges that we are on the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and MĂŠtis peoples. The City also acknowledges that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 signed with the Mississaugas of the Credit, and the Williams Treaties signed with multiple Mississaugas and Chippewa bands. The City of Toronto has been acknowledging the traditional territory since March 2014. Due to conversations with Indigenous leaders, including the Aboriginal Advisory Committee as part of the 2018 Toronto for All Campaign, the language the City of Toronto uses has evolved.
VERSTEHEN: COMMUNITAS ISSUE NO.1
A MESSAG E F ROM OU R C O -D I R E C TO R S LEFT TO RIGHT
Alan Richardson Sandra Crockard
We have been working in schools, communities, and organizations across Canada since 1984.We have created very many programs, workshops, and various writings. After thirty six years we are very enthusiastic about starting to publish both those previous works that are still relevant to our audiences in education and the community, as well as current work with the TDSB, our partner organization, and Trinity’s Leadership Lab.
TA B LE O F C O NT ENTS
Land Acknowledgement Message from Our Co-Directors
5 7 9 10 11 12 13
A World within A Mind GILLIAN XU
Big Apple | Newtown | Triangle SOFTPASTRYBUN
Community RAVEENAA
Flourish RAVEENA
Community Kindness MOHIT SHARMA
South SOFTPASTRYBUN
WestDale’s Resident Piggy’s Flow of Money WESTDALE BLOOMS
15 16 17 23 25 29 31 32
Structure of The Mind GWENEVERYN
The World GWENEVERYN
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA): Was Implementation the Concession? AATEKA RAJAB
To Be Of Service MATT DE MELO
The Deep-Rooted “Idea” in the Policy Making Process AATEKA RAJAB
Discordance of The Soul JIEYEA KIM
Fenway SOFTPASTRYBUN
Peer Leader Letters ALAN RICHARDSON
Our Contributors Remarks
A WORLD within
A MIND L
eaves gently fall
Tickling my cheeks, Grazing my hands, Embracing my bare feet. Each reflects the internal –the veins– As a glimpse of Humanity. Each reflects the external –the branches– As a glimpse of Nature.
Waters stretch in every visible direction, So much so that I cannot see Where they end and where my thoughts begin. Behind me rests A single, ancient Tree Which feels warm beneath my damp palms. It has the pulse, After us, after all.
5
GILLIAN XU
Tired butterflies float through my fingertips. Upon touching the water, They disappear. Always out of my reach, Their wings have already Lost their colour. Wings, or leaves? Lines of difference Dissolve into engraved patterns upon Clasped hands. I feel my Heart move, Slowly‌
Suddenly, I realize that I am partially submerged. Did I sink Or Did I rise? One step at a time, Toward the blinding light that Crowds the edge of the azure expanse. My breath quickens Until I release the air, Together.
6
CIRCLE
Circle is a series of digital photographs attempting to delve into the idea of what true images mean in urban photography when the encounter with the place is anything but authentic.
TRIANGLE
BIG APPLE
How do we look at images of urban areas? What must an image include/exclude to constitute as urban? What does it mean for “real/normal� urban identities to exist only when humans are absent? To what extent can an image of an urban space be produced that is impossible to produce? what is technology trying to tell us when we are not connected to the network?
7
SOFTPASTRYBUN
CIRCLE NEWTOWN
These photographs are the eyes of 35mm film camera. The dematerialization of the space, now transformed into light and pixels, is displayed onto matter made by humans, for humans, as shelter from the outside world. The projection acts as a modern version of the optical phenomenon, alluding to effects of power and surveillance. Oscillating between seeing as knowing and knowing as seeing, though visuality alone can not be said as truth.
8
flou rish RAVEENA
9
flourish Without care, a rose will slowly die. The same goes for a community. If you do what you can to help your community, no matter how small it may be, your community could bloom beautifully.
community 10
community kindness MOHIT SHARMA
Community, what does working towards the greater good of it entail exactly? This is something that can facet many different answers for many different people, and answers will vary among the populous. I personally find that as an actor in the community stage the best we can do is to be kind. Sure this feels and comes off as stereotypical of an answer, and a lot of things will have been said before, but kindness just feels like the missing piece that can work to fix many issues we face. A lot of figures whether they be historic or in media have touted the same message so what I am saying is probably not new, but nonetheless it feels like a bell worth ringing every once in a while. We get lost in the idea that we need to do something of great impact, something worthy of leaving a monument in our honour, but being kind or showing goodness has a sort of ripple effect. But it’s also understandable why this concept feels on a decline more now than ever before. This material culture world that we have created or allowed to be created around us has shelled us in some ways. But one does not need to shatter it all, a revolution as some tote in order to be kind, but use the environment around them to be kind and better for their community. One of the best examples of something like this, and what I will use to end off on, was a piece written by Fred Rogers about the impact of Television, and utilizing it to spread a message of kindness. Mr. Rogers utilized his show to amazing proportions to assure the message of kindness was being spread to the younger audiences, and he worked on that goal amazingly well. I will end with a quote from that piece of his, and it’s words that I implore all to work on and towards,
11
PHOTO BY SOFTPASTRYBUN
“
But how do we make goodness attractive? By doing whatever we can to bring courage to those whose lives move near our own—by treating our neighbor at least as well as we treat ourselves and allowing that to inform everything we produce - MR. ROGERS
”
Rogers, Fred (2003) “How Do We Make Goodness Attractive?,” Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 55 : Iss. 3 , Article 23. 12
Illustrate how the flow of money within a community ought to be so that the local businesses and the average person flourishes.
13
WestDale’s Resident Piggy’s Flow of Money TRINITY THEATRE’S WEST END TEAM REXDALE AND WESTON
A piggy bank and money are two things which are often noted at the top of the list of things that one instantly thinks of when considering the idea of civics and business. In working towards a community project, it was quickly evident that many communities are experiencing a financial insecurity as a result of both systemic deficiencies and a flawed flow of money. The idea behind this art piece is to highlight the flow of money; specifically outlining how this flow of money ought to be for the betterment of the resources and groups noted in the piggy bank. The hand, coin and piggy bank each has words based on what they were intended to symbolize. The words and groups noted in the hand are those who ought to or are able to provide funds and resources to those groups noted in the coin. The coin is meant to be dropped into the piggy bank, which symbolizes those groups to whom more resources and funding needs to be allocated. Finally, the piggy bank symbolizes the groups
14
What is your community? Is it people you know? Or those you’ve never met?
STRUCTURE OF THE MIND 15
Perhaps your mind is the only community you will ever meet...
GWENEVERYN
THE WORLD 16
O A Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA): Was Implementation the Concession? AATEKA RAJAB
The Accessibility for Ontarians with a Disability Act (AODA) is ground-breaking legislation for all communities that value every person having access to an equitable standard of living for everyday life. In 2017, one in five Canadians over 15 years has had one or more disabilities and the prevalence ofdisabilities are increasing with age (Statistics Canada, 2017). Disability is an all-encompassing definition of visible and non-visible disabilities including: physical, vision impairment or blindness, auditory impairments or deafness, intellectual, development or learning disabilities and mental health disabilities (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, AODA, 2005). Although the legislation was slow moving, accessibility as a social movement was a way forward for disability communities to gain an accessible standard of living. This paper will address the history of AODA and the changes or lack thereof after public consultations, and will analyze the diverse interests, actors, institutions, and processes that impede on the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (2005) in Ontario, Canada. The author will then present a case study on transportation system in Toronto – the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) – and highlight the current issues within the transportation standards to emphasize the pushback this social movement has received and the immense barriers to implement AODA for an equitable, accessible Ontario.
History
The American’s with Disability Act (ADA) was a piece of legislation that pushed Canada towards a conversation about human rights and equality prompting disability advocates to make accessibility legislation a reality in Ontario. In 1994, NDP MPP Gary Malkowski introduced a private members bill for the Ontario Disabilities Act (ODA). According to North (1990) public policy must begin with the individual (p. 5). Malkowski, was the first deaf MPP in Ontario, was a key actor who brought accessibility legislation to the forefront. There was interest in the bill amongst the disability community, but incredible frustration occurred at the public hearings for the proposed bill. As a result, 20 members who attended the public hearing at Queens Spark to spontaneously create the Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act Committee (Ontarians with Disabilities Act ODA Committee, 2004), reflecting the true beginnings of a social movement.
17
A O “
The Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act Committee was a voluntary coalition to re-frame the conversation about accessibility rather than about disability.
”
The Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act Committee was a voluntary coalition to re-frame the conversation about accessibility rather than about disability. According to Lakoff (2010), political ideologies are characterized by systems of frames and ideological language will activate ideological systems, making synapses stronger as they are activated more (p.72). The coalition’s intent to redirect the conversation was an attempt to capitalize on these systems of neural connections. The coalition attempted to take advantage of policy windows with each new election, to bring accessibility on to the agenda and they were relatively successful with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) (2001). The bill only applied to public sectors. There were proposed amendments to make barrier removal and barrier prevention mandatory, to extend the bill to the private sector, require accessibility standards, and provide effective enforcement (Ontarians with Disabilities Act ODA Committee, 2004), all of which were defeated in the House of Commons under Conservative leadership and not included in ODA. According to Hupe & Hill (2016), an attempt to implement one policy always brings new problems on the agenda, collapsing the implementation and agenda setting “steps” (p. 106). This occurred with the dissatisfaction of ODA and the dissent from the social movement for not addressing crucial amendments to move the bill forward. With the upcoming election, accessibility remained on the political agenda, was tabled in 2004 but was introduced as the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. As promised by Liberal Opposition Leader Dalton McGuinty, the AODA was going to extend to the private sector, remove barriers and prevention of creating new barriers mandatory, create accessibility standards, and provide effective enforcement (Ontarians with Disabilities Act ODA Committee, 2004). The Ontarians with Disabilities Act ODA Committee was willing to invest their time, capital, energy and resources voluntarily in order to create this policy window with the upcoming election and bring accessibility back to the political agenda.
Modifications to AODA Post-Public Consultations Although there was concern about the reception of industries to becoming AODA compliant, the 2005 tabled AODA was unique, in that it included industries that affected people’s everyday lives. The public consultations were used as a tool to address the 18
D A multilevel policy making decisions that occur when implementing such widespread legislation. Such systems often produce soft policies that include recommendation rather than collectively binding decisions (Torenvlied & Akkerman, 2004, p. 32). Many disability rights advocates were concerned about the soft policy mechanisms for enforcement and standards development to be included in regulations rather than the legislation (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Hansard Debates & Progress, 2005, p. 474). This concern became a reality considering one of the few enforcement mechanisms of administrative fines were included in the regulations.
“
Although Canadians believe that participants deserve the same opportunities as other citizens, many are uncomfortable with integrating people with disabilities in the workplace or classroom because they felt it would negatively affect their own rights in these organizations.
�
Similarly, attitudinal barriers were one of the most cited concerns within the consultations, mentioned over 30 times amongst different speakers (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Hansard Debates & Progress, 2005, p. 469-810). Reactive devaluation, the tendency of able-bodied individuals to dismiss the persuasiveness of disabled populations, has been pervasive in Ontario, even after ODA (2001) was enacted (Kahan & Braman, 2006, p. 166). Although Canadians believe that participants deserve the same opportunities as other citizens, many are uncomfortable with integrating people with disabilities in the workplace or classroom because they felt it would negatively affect their own rights in these organizations (Prince, 2012, p. 7-9). This is why many advocates in the public consultations suggested reframing as a debiasing technique, such as educational and marketing campaigns, similar to the capacity tools suggested by Schneider & Ingram (1990, p. 517). Although, these techniques would have been cost effective the government of the day did not roll out any such campaign in a timely manner, depicting the lack of priority that the disabled population and the AODA legislation has on the policy agenda. Private corporations were a new addition to accessibility legislation consultations in Ontario, and industry representatives had many suggestions to better address their concerns. Some of which included creating exceptions and including inducements for industry organizations to become AODA compliant. The mechanism suggested for the public interest was to allow the Minister to enter into an agreement with a person or organization that is a leader in accessibility in order to reduce or change their scheduled reporting requirements.
19
DA The idea was to reduce the administrative burden on persons or organizations that were meeting or going beyond the accessibility standards (although they had not been determined at this time). This is consistent with Schneider & Ingram (1990), who suggest that inducements offer positive reinforcements by encouraging participation in policypreferred actions. Those who are offered incentives, will likely choose the higher-valued alternatives (Schneider & Ingram, 1990, p. 515). In this case, governments would be rewarding leaders in accessibility who are already meeting standards so positive reinforcement would not necessarily be required. Additionally, the change made to the tabled AODA legislation was to provide inducements for those who are meeting one or more standard (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2005). In other words, in 2025 when all of the standards are required to be met, exceptions such as this inducement can be given to people or organizations that are only meeting one standard. That is far from AODA’s original purpose to reduce barriers for those with disabilities and provide an equitable standard of living.
Barriers to Implementation
The failure to adequately address concerns brought forward in the public consultations for AODA further highlights the current implementation barriers. The first barrier to the implementation of accessibility legislation is the lack of government support for the bill. Individuals are more likely to support policy goals or action if they are promoted by the government and considered high priority issues, consistent with their own values and associated with positive symbols and heuristics (Schneider & Ingram, 1990, p. 520). The government has not made all public services accessible which illustrates the lack of support for the bill, although it was passed unanimously in the Legislature in 2005 (Lepofsky, 2014). Considering the poor example the government has set with regards to taking action within public service accessibility, according to Schneider & Ingram, other people and organizations are less likely to view accessibility positively and work toward creating an accessible environment for those who are disabled.
Interestingly, the legislation has no mechanism to implement standards, to support organizations, or to enforce standards through sanctions. According to Hupe & Hill (2016), this could be a result of the sheer neglect to specify desired actions or to include features aimed at facilitating this implementation process (p. 113). It appears that the concession made in the policy process for AODA (2005) was less in the policy formulation of the legislation, but rather the implementation process. Legislators did not consider the importance of including mechanisms of implementation, although many advocates suggested including them during public consultations in 2005 (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Hansard Debates & Progress). The needs for these mechanisms are further emphasized by Moran’s second legislative review for AODA (2005). According to Moran (2014), there was confusion amongst private and public sectors in implementing AODA
20
O A standards because the standards were unclear and not specific about what was required, so organizations were uncertain of how to comply (p. 28). This poses a clear implementation barrier. It may require another legislative iteration to at least modify the regulations or it may be an opportunity for stronger government action to promote the standards through marketing and training for these sectors. Although it has been known that organizations have been unclear of how to proceed with the standards, little has been done by the government to address these concerns.
“
It is apparent that the government has chosen not to prohibit inaccessibility or discourage the creating new barriers through enforcing these sanctions by using their legitimate authority.
”
This may also be a reason why the sanctions apparent in the regulations attached to support AODA implementation have not been enforced. These sanctions are monetary administrative penalties that can fine corporations up to $100,000 per day and unincorporated organizations a maximum of $50,000 per day (Share, 2011). In 2017, only three compliance sanctions required a payment of an administrative fee of which there was a $2000 maximum (Government of Ontario, 2018). Few sanctions may seem positive, but these sanctions are administered to organizations through self-reporting compliance reports. In 2017, 24,000 reports were submitted, less than 50% of the organizations require to submit accessibility compliance reports (Government of Ontario, 2018), of which it is quite difficult to determine who is actually compliant with the accessibility standards considering the five question self-report required (Appendix A). It is apparent that the government has chosen not to prohibit inaccessibility or discourage the creating new barriers through enforcing these sanctions by using their legitimate authority (Schneider & Ingram, 1990, p. 514). This enforcement mechanism is a legitimate authority tool that can be used to ensure accessibility for all to have access, but the lack of implementation is a clear indication of where political priorities lie.
Public Transportation Pushback
The attitudinal barrier for accessibility implementation becomes apparent through the actions of the TTC, Toronto’s local public transportation system. David Lepovksy lodged a human rights complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario from 2001 – 2007 because the TTC did not want to announce stops on any of the vehicles (AODA Alliance, 2007).
21
A O The TTC spent about half a million dollars to oppose him. This was after AODA has already received royal assent and should have begun implementation through government action. This case emphasized the needs for Ontario to have strong, effective accessibility standards to avoid individuals being forced to advocate for themselves using person resources when there is already legislation in place.
Lepovsky’s complaint raised the issue of the salience of accessibility in Ontario once again and highlighted the need for clearer standards and better enforcement. “The relative salience of issues determines the potential for change,” (Soroka, 2007, p. 187). The TTC was found to be in violation of the human rights of blind and visually impaired passengers by not having bus and street cars drivers announce all of the stops on the route and was ordered to have all drivers do so within a 30-day period (AODA Alliance, 2007). According to Moran (2014), the AODA transportation standards included vague provisions which permits transportation providers to provide a package of services to people with disabilities, which could include conventional services (p. 28). Some stakeholders believe the obscure service provision was developed with the intent to allow transit operators to operate as they wish, rather than creating standards with the purpose of equitable access (Moran, 2014, p. 28). Another issue with the standard is leaving accessible transportation implementation up to the cities within Ontario, rather than regulating when and how it should be done. According to Lepovsky (2014), this means that every city must reinvent the wheel, requiring lobbying to be done in every city which defeats the purpose of the AODA (2005).
Conclusions
AODA has had a slow long-winded history for its inception. The social movement has persisted and is continually advocating for better implementation mechanisms within all the standards which were created to improve the everyday lives of all Ontarians. It is evident that many barriers to implementation remain, such as attitudinal barriers, obscure language within the regulation standards, and failure to act on enforcement mechanisms that have already been developed. It is apparent that there are key actors within this social movement for accessibility, such as the 20 individuals who began the Ontarians with Disabilities Act ODA Committee, and David Lepofsky, who won a complaint against Toronto’s local public transit system for violating the rights of visually impaired passengers, who are unwilling to let AODA’s implementation failure remain. It is apparent, that there is a clear implementation failure in many regards with AODA and it is to be seen whether implementation is taken more seriously as years progress. Although it is likely that little progress has been made considering the lack of government action, one can look forward to 2019 when David Onley has completed the third review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act to determine Ontario’s real progress with implementation.
22
“
Despite the positive inspiration I felt from the submission topic cue, I felt a need to explore some underlying cynicism that I felt in the back of my mind as I mulled over my initial concepts and ideas. I modeled my submission around some famous propaganda posters, complete with a poster within the piece itself. The result was a cathartic exploration of my conflicted feelings around developing a service mindset.
MATT DE MELO
23
�
“
The Deep-Rooted “Idea” in the Policy Making Process AATEKA RAJAB
25
The most rudimentary aspect of the policymaking process is an idea. Ideas have the power to mould how people interpret the world. An idea is a belief, symbol, value and means by which people consciously or unconsciously interpret the world and their place in it. These ideas can form interconnections, create constraints, or bind opinions about multiple issues into coherent bundles of political viewpoints. Although institutions and actors play a role in the policy making process, it is an idea’s fundamental ability to create institutions and influence an actor’s frame in the policy decision making process. Personal politics and ideologies are systemic products of ideas that define how one orients themselves in the world in other words, personal politics and ideologies are informed by ideas. This paper argues that ideas are the crux of an actor’s policy decisions, the development of institutions, and the rise of dominant groups which shape policy decisions, illuminating how prevailing ideas drive the policy making process and can give way to new ideas. Ideas govern the interpersonal interactions of actors in policy making. Kahan & Braman explicitly state that individuals either accept or reject empirical claims about the consequences of controversial policies based on their vision of a good society because culture is prior to facts in the cognitive sense (150). Policy making by nature is about contending values and regardless of the empirical evidence, policy-making individuals rely on their cultural cognitions of how the world is and should be to make these decisions.
“
Although scientists and politicians can claim that rationality is the basis of all policy making decisions, symbols and ambiguity can change the way people interpret their interests which defeats the logic of rational choice
”
Although scientists and politicians can claim that rationality is the basis of all policy making decisions, symbols and ambiguity can change the way people interpret their interests which defeats the logic of rational choice (Stone, 238). Stone’s statement reflects the managerial fallacy that policy making has an ideological and political nature. It highlights the reality of policy making as a process that is not based on facts and empirical data but, is based on the ideas that an actor may have of the policy at hand.
26
“
This is further emphasized by Smith & Larimer who note the “…perception in the social and political world is reality; no independent, universal world separate from our own social and mental constructions exist” (12). The only frames we can see the world through is our own. These are based on our environmental, social, and personal experiences that create schemas that define how we perceive the world. Empirical information is selectively attended to based on its alignment with an actor’s particular worldviews (Kahan & Braman, 157). In the policy making process, personal frames, based on existing mental constructions, are the “methods” through which an actor can understand issues and arguments. Thus, asserting the primary role that ideas have in driving the policy making process. Institutions are a set of rules that govern behaviour that are created and modified by ideas. According to Lakoff, frames can be made into institutions, industries, and cultural practices and once they are made, it is a slow process for them to disappear (77). These cognitive and normative framing mechanisms also serve to structure politics (Knill & Tosun, 387; Stone, 242). Ideas and their associated political ideologies shape how people organize. This ideological framing links political leaders with their followers to bridge the gap between people and power (Canovan, 29-30). In policy making, this translates to schematically associating those with similar cultural partisan foundations as reliable sources of information (Kahan & Braman, 165). In Canada, partisan ideology plays a significant role in the stance that an electorate may take, illustrating the notion that we agree with those who hold the similar cultural cognitions regardless of the available empirical evidence. The types of policy made as a result of communal ideas in the institutionalized form of party discipline, exemplifies how ideologies are the primary driver in public policy. Additionally, elitist groups are able to shape policy because the polis accept systems of domination through inner justifications, which legitimizes the power of these dominant groups (Weber, 1918, 2). The cultural construction of conforming and the view of “eternal yesterday” results in the mass domination through traditions, leaders, and legality (bureaucracy) (Weber, 1918, 2). According to Lakoff’s concept of framing, the idea of the “master” and the governed have become a part of institutions and cultural practices, such that they are rarely questioned and therefore legitimized to become Truth. This is exemplified by the Canadian executive. The ideas of an executive shape policy more than a bureaucratic expert, depicting the rule of the ideas of the elite in policy development.
27
“
The political ‘master’ always finds himself, vis-à-vis the trained official, in the position of a dilettante facing the expert. This holds whether the ‘master’, whom the bureaucracy serves is the people equipped with weapons of legislative referendum, and the right to remove officials…, WEBER 1978, 991
”
Politics and policy making has become a reflection of the interests of the dominant social class, allowing elitist domination (Gilens & Page, 576; Marx & Engels, 15). The initial influence on any policy can significantly shift the conversation, and elites not only have an impact upon policy, they also have a hand in shaping the policy agenda (Gilens & Page, 576; Knill & Tosun, 277). Ambiguous framing and inner justifications have institutionalized the polis into legitimizing the power of dominating elitist actors, strengthening their effect on policy making. Ideas, actors, and institutions are intertwined in all aspects of the policy making process. However, it is prevailing ideas that ultimately shape perspectives, institutions, and systems. Ideas may differ between actors, within institutions, with time and world events, but they do bind and constrain people in society. This paper argued that ideas play a primary role in all aspects of the policy making process through fundamental mechanisms such as framing, cognitive dissonance, and habitual conforming. It is these deep-rooted ideas that have created and have continued to foster institutions and systems of domination and that continue to be the driving force that shape and determine policies.
28
29
JIEYEA KIM
Being a member of the community means to be connected, both to those that are a part of the community as well as to yourself and your own meaning of community. One can connect through ideas or
DISCORDANCE OF THE SOUL
actions of bettering the community in any way possible for oneself. An architect might decide to create a new park, for example, and can join hands with other architects, gardeners, property owners, etc. who can share their own knowledge and concepts for said park. Smaller actions such as keeping the town or city healthy, such as cleaning littered garbage or recycling, are also just as appreciated as the small actions gradually build up through routine actions. Any and every one is capable of being of service to the community.
30
PHOTO BY SOFTPASTRYBUN
Peer Leader Letters ALAN RICHARDSON
What could we learn from being Peer Leaders in a school environment that could apply to supporting the wellbeing of our families, friends, and neighbours during this Pandemic? Likely the best place to start answering this question is to look at what we do as Peer Leaders, both in our school communities, and in our neighbourhoods. In schools (as you all know), we mentor peers younger than us at the beginning of their high school years. We do this through facilitating workshops with them on areas of personal development important to any person’s social/emotional growth. The mentoring is done through sharing our learnings from the different exercises in each workshop. This sharing is a more equitable way to nurture each person’s thinking and personal growth because it avoids the feeling so often associated with ‘top down’ mentoring, namely that we’re working from deficits in our own or other’s characters. We take this Peer Leadership approach to mentoring through facilitation knowing that everyone is different in so many ways. Some of us are more vulnerable, more hurting, more gifted, more capable of learning, or more mature in group settings at this time in their lives. The differences ultimately don’t matter because these areas of social/emotional development are common to us all. And when a person needs to grow in a certain area of their life, they will. And our workshops have introduced them to some of the key dynamics in each of these areas.
For a Peer Leader wherever a person is in maturity terms is not a primary concern. The point is to empower everyone to move from a position of relative weakness in a particular area of their life to relative strength. Because then they are likely to have the inner assurance to recognize the validity of another person’s self-same struggles in personal growth, and be able then to productively participate in community. Thus, what is implicit in being a Peer Leader is that we help people help themselves, which is often made somewhat less challenging if they feel supported to do so. What is also inferred in this Peer Leadership approach is that considering the other person’s innate worth and their growth is as important as the products of your work together. This simple statement is actually very important for creating the kinds of fair and inclusive communities we want in a diverse world. We live now in a multicultural world where people’s diversity extends to their attitudes and beliefs, their perspectives and maturity levels, as well as their ways of defining a successful life. But we still live in societies where patriarchy remains a defining force, societies where we believe there is one preferable definition of success, with systems that favour people and ethnicities that agree to these preferences. Nowhere does this show itself more clearly than the fact that we consider the outcomes of our work, both as individuals and in groups, as more important than each participating individual’s social/emotional growth. 33
This idea - usually expressed as sacrificing for the common good - is so prevalent as to be unquestioned. Ultimately, the result is that ideas and material things are often considered more important than individual human lives, especially if those lives appear as deviant or otherwise problematic. Experiencing the reality of a pandemic contradicts this. Each of us is ultimately vulnerable. Each of us, despite status, accomplishment, or age, is processing the effects of the pandemic in both unique but also in common ways. The pandemic is actually demanding of us that we pay attention to the welfare of other people as well as our own wellbeing. We are also being asked to pay attention to the various degrees of vulnerability we share with the members of our community whose health is already compromised. This we have actually experienced in the classroom as we deliver our workshops, albeit in a less threatening and serious way. Some of the participants are connecting with us, you might say, while others have no intention to participate- all indicative of differing degrees of social/emotional maturity. Therefore, those of us that have the health, strength, maturity and opportunities to volunteer to help in our communities, especially as regards those more vulnerable to the virus, are already trained as it were. We know what it is like to address the needs of our shared humanity, while meeting the challenges of our differences, towards making a fairer, more inclusive world.
“
Ultimately, the result is that ideas and material things are often considered more important than individual human lives, especially if those lives appear as deviant or otherwise problematic.
�
u o Y k han
OUR CONTRIBUTORS T ALAN RICHARDSON Trinity Theatre founder and co-director. Former theatre professor from York University.
AATEKA RAJAB I am a Master’s of Public Policy Student at the University of Toronto and these pieces are academic that are conceptually related to Trinity’s work and have an equity component.
GILLIAN XU Gillian is currently majoring in English Literature Honours and minoring in Psychology at McGill University. Aside from her honours project, which concerns the artist as embodiment of environment in British and American Romanticism, she spends her time absorbing the details of nature and recreating them in poetry, prose, sketches, and paintings.
GWENEVERYN Former Art Student, now pursuing a career in Information Security.
JIEYEA KIM Former art student interested in the intersection between multi-media and entertainment art and psychology.
MATT DE MELO Finance graduate, digital artist, marketing professional, research hobbyist, general meme brain.
WESTDALE BLOOMS Trinity Theatre’s West End teams - Rexdale and Weston - coming together to illustrate how the flow of money within a community ought to be so that the local businesses and the average person flourishes.
MOHIT SHARMA I am a project manager with Trinity Theatre. I help in the lead and development of youth led projects, and I enjoy being a peer mentor to the youth I work with. I studied at Ryerson University with a Major in Politics and Governance and a Minor in History, but my passion was more to my Minor. I hope to get the next generation of kids interested enough in politics to assure the systems in places see actual and better change.
RAVEENAA After years of drawing, I have improved my art in many ways. I started off with pencil and slowly progressed to adding colour pencils into my pieces. I mainly do realistic pieces but love to experiment. I usually draw different actors, actresses, characters, etc. At the moment, I am currently testing out digital drawing and trying to improve my art in this area.
SOFTPASTRYBUN A recent graduate of McGill with a bachelor of economics and coursework in humanities, Lily exists as an impressionable medium for all things creative, aiming to sit at the intersection of visual arts and aesthetics. She has previous work experience in the social media industry, with clients ranging from up and coming local restaurants to fluffy cats. In her downtime, Lily likes to dabble pigmented water on paper, an interest that came to fruition in the spring of 2019 as an independent gallery show. Lily is currently pursuing opportunities and inspirations at RISD to help her share her perspective to the broader world before spiralling into a series of increasingly exasperated tweets.
F I NAL REM ARKS
Thank you to everyone who contributed to:
VERSTEHEN The thematic choice of COMMUNITAS emerged from the notions of the social flesh and embodied citizenry. These are concepts that are deeply ingrained within the values of Trinity Theatre. It is of great joy and pleasure to have worked on this publication and finally see it come to life. I am looking forward to the next series of works to be added to Trinity Theatre’s library of treasures.
ROE LLE S A NTA MARIA
