Being able to articulate or imagine what might be different if equity were a process from the outset was challenging.

This week's topic was tricky and working towards being able to articulate or imagine 'what might be different' if equity were a process from the outset, was not easy to do. As we often do, our conversation dipped in and out of providing the ideas for what needs to happen or how it needs to happen, in various contexts. 

There is nothing wrong with this. The observation is of a familiar pattern that is, coming up with solutions before deep diving into the contemplation parts for example; to imagine what would change, to consider whether there is enough in relationships to want to participate, or dealing with the feelings and thinking of people in the group so that there is unity and reconciliation between difference, even for brief moments. 

We started by reflecting back on Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a current example of what might have happened if the processes of negotiations were equitable, and conditions to the partnership maintained along the way. Conversations around The Uluru Statement from the Heart [The Voice] beg the same question as the treaty. What do the processes look like at the moment? Where is all the power sitting, how is the conflict being dealt with, or will the solution perpetuate the political imbalance which colonisers either deliberately or inadvertently allowed to occur? 

For the most part, we agreed that merely focusing on achieving equitable outcomes without addressing the underlying process may fall short in achieving true equity. Concerns about power imbalances arose again, emphasising the need to confront personal biases and traumas, recognising that genuine change begins from within. To do that, the group discussed various elements of leadership that could happen, for example, the notion of shared leadership versus individual empowerment or agency, and highlighting that everyone can be a leader in their own lives or respective contexts. Participants' feelings and experiences of equity or inequity were considered significant factors in determining equity as one of our group members mentioned, ‘we need an equitable process to get equitable outcomes. 

Collaboration and negotiation were highlighted as essential tools for achieving equity, even in the face of competing values. The conversation emphasised the necessity of bridging divides and overcoming polarisation, aiming for a more united world. This is easier said than done, and the group acknowledged historical and/or current trauma as hurt, anger, frustration, etc., which need to be considered in order to deal with conflict (in opposition) rather than sweep it under the carpet.

There was a conversation that encouraged reconnecting within one’s own community or neighbourhood and taking a shared responsibility for addressing issues within one's surroundings. At the same time, for example, when there are structural barriers or dominant power structures in the way, such as where Equity as a Process might not be occurring, we highlighted the need for leadership at all levels, described as needing to come from all directions and constantly checking in on the process and who has the power and facilitating where needed. 

Perhaps the next question to challenge ourselves is to think about what equitable processes we are using or have used, from each of our perspectives. We might then circle back to the same question again, ‘if equity were a process, how would this change the way we work?

What do you think team?  Is this the way to go for next cuppa?

Mauriora, 
The Walk Together Team