Author: Peter Cantelon, Executive Director
I love the phrase “nothing about us, without us.” As a concept it expresses a simple, elegant idea of involvement – no one gets to have a conversation about us, without us. No one gets to advocate for us, no one gets to propose solutions or develop policies on our behalf, no one gets to work for us – without us.
At its core the principal drives allyship and seeks to avoid patronizing efforts, however well-meaning, by those people and organizations in positions of power who would like to implement initiatives to help or impact those with less power.
Part of the brilliance of this movement is the simplicity of its intent and philosophy. It says to us for example – no amount of empathy or compassion will help you understand poverty if you have never been impoverished; no amount of empathy or compassion with help you understand Indigenous issues if you are not Indigenous; no amount of compassion or understanding will help you understand the struggle of women or members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community if you are not a part of those communities. You get the idea.
If you really want to understand and design initiatives that help people in poverty then you must involve people who are or have been in poverty.
This is a critical idea to understand in all sectors but most essentially in the non-profit, and social purpose sectors. This is because these sectors tend to focus on under-served demographics and at-risk and/or persecuted peoples.
Admittedly it is difficult sometimes to augment an organization with the people and processes required to ensure that you are involving those you seek to assist in developing solutions. But the hard work needs to be done. Placing value/weight on relevant lived experience when seeking volunteers, hiring staff or filling vacant board positions can help make this a reality.
Developing a policy or policies to reinforce this can ensure such initiatives continue past leadership turnover as well.
The phrase, nothing about us without us, is increasingly heard amongst people of colour, women, Indigenous peoples and the 2SLGBTQ+ communities. In North America the phrase came into prominent use in the 1990s around advocacy for the disabled.
While the concept is being employed more and more often these days its history as an idea is ancient. The phrase Nihil novi nisi commune consensus for instance is the Latin title for a Polish constitutional act from 1505 which means “nothing new without the common consent.”
In this sense the proposal boils down to – “do not create laws and legislation that affect us without involving us” and shows us that foundationally, the idea is one that is rooted in democracy or democratic ideals.
It is possible to trace this thread back even to the Magna Carta (Great Charter) of 1215 England which limited the ability of British monarchs to abuse their authority. Frankly, as long as there have been people with differing levels of power this idea has existed.
I think the ideal is embedded in us. Even as children we would have moments where we would feel outraged that limits or ideas were imposed on us without our involvement – like when my mum bought me a powder blue, polyester suit for school picture day. Had I been involved in that decision which so intimately impacted me I might have chosen something different.
Honestly any parent who has attempted to purchase their children clothing after they have reached a certain age is painfully aware of this concept (as are the kids).
Ultimately the concept is about recognizing the dignity inherent in all people. We do not (should not) get to make decisions about or discuss issues about others without their involvement and consent.
It’s a good rule to try and live by because it requires us to be humble; it requires us to be interactive and relational. Ultimately these are fantastic building blocks for healthy communities.