hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________to develop these understandings. This means that unfamiliar and uncomfortable reactionsare more often seen as personal antagonism or racism. The retaliatory antagonism ofIndigenous people may then provoke personal antagonism by police – the culturally based‘misperceptions’ acting to create an interpersonal reality. Alternatively, those accused ofracism may then be offended themselves, knowing they were ‘just doing their job’, notunderstanding that, despite their intent they nevertheless had given offence. This processof mutual, unclarified misunderstanding can then generate real ongoing and embeddedantagonism. Thus, what began as culturally based misunderstanding ends in entrenchedmutual antagonism that seems, to all parties, like racism.VERBAL COMMUNICATION STYLESThere are also important cultural differences in styles of verbal communication. Twoexamples of this are the use of ‘spotlighting’ and ‘broadcasting’.Western cultures favour an individual verbal communication strategy called ‘spotlighting’.‘Spotlighting’ happens when someone asks a specific person, or a series of people, aquestion in front of others. The technique is commonly used in Western education systemsas well as by police. It can be used to foster competition or to exert social control bythreatening to expose individuals to public shame.Spotlighting as a communication strategy, is aligned with a social style based on individualresponsibility and achievement, and competitive relationships. However, in collectivecultures exposing people to public shame in this way can be intimidating, and causeresentment. When confronted by spotlighting, Indigenous people often choose silence oravoidance. Spotlighting is evident in the communication of teachers, police and within thecriminal justice system. Indigenous people often respond to spotlighting with confused orangry silence, or resentment and retaliation. These responses are confusing in the eyes ofthose doing the spotlighting since they, in their minds, are only exercising appropriatespeaking rights for their official role.Indigenous cultures, with their greater focus on collective rather than individualresponsibility, tend to favour communication that promotes shared discussion and creatingconsensus. These styles shun putting individuals in situations where they could be shamed.‘Broadcasting’ (Walsh, 1997) is one of these strategies.Broadcasting involves commenting on a subject in a public way, and other people canchoose to respond or remain silent. Broadcasting can be used to raise concerns about anissue in a gathering where collective discussion and decision‐making can take place.Someone else may broadcast similar concerns, or amplify what has already been said.Broadcasting can be used to apply social pressure, by bringing the acts of individuals to theattention of others, although these individuals are often not mentioned by name.Broadcasting by calling out loudly in a public space is commonly misunderstood as verbalaggression by non‐Indigenous people who are unaware of its cultural legitimacy in the eyesof Indigenous people. To Western people it can feel intrusive, frightening and threatening._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________24 Phoenix Consulting
Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It is seen as out of social control verbal behaviour that signifies imminent out of socialcontrol physical responses. When Indigenous people use broadcasting in a space shared bynon‐Indigenous people, what can often result is that the police are called to manage this outof control behaviour. When the police arrive and step in to exert physical control or verballyadmonish the Indigenous person who is broadcasting, the actions of the police may be seenby the speaker as an unwarranted imposition on their legitimate speaking rights. This mayresult in retaliatory escalation and overt conflict.OUTCOMES OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION EXPERIENCESImportant and different outcomes result from the different communication styles describedabove. What is experienced as a barrage of negative or critical comment from non‐Indigenous people, especially those with hearing loss, can undermine the confidence ofIndigenous people, or give unintended offence and sometimes precipitate conflict.Interviews with Indigenous workers indicate that an essential cross‐cultural competency forthem is to find ways ofa. avoiding the demoralising effect of regular negative feedback and negativeattitudes on the part of non‐Indigenous people andb. managing the anger they may feel as a consequence of how they are treatedby non‐Indigenous people with whom they come into contact.Negative attitudes are communicated in a multitude of individual incremental interactionsthat:a. slowly erode the confidence of Indigenous people, to a point where they maybecome demoralised, disempowered and disengaged orb. result in upset, angry resentful and sometimes retaliatory reactions;such ‘retaliation’ appears as inexplicable and undeserved from the perspective of non‐Indigenous people.For non-Indigenous people, oneelement of cross-cultural competency isbeing aware that there may be no, orlittle, direct verbal feedback of the typeto which they are accustomed.Becoming cross-culturally competentinvolves learning to look for non-verbaland indirect cues, and to seek outIndigenous opinions on their actions.In contrast, with minimal exposure to negativeIndigenous feedback, many non‐Indigenouspeople remain unaware of the things thatIndigenous people do not like about what they doand the way they behave. This can easily lead toover confidence, even arrogance. If they areworking in an Indigenous community they maynot know of the dissatisfaction with theirbehaviour until a crisis point is reached and theyare asked to leave. Because they have notreceived any forewarning, the dissatisfaction withtheir behaviour may seem sudden and recent, yetthe concerns had, invariably, built up slowly, overtime. For non‐Indigenous people, one element of cross‐cultural competency is being awarethat there may be no, or little, direct verbal feedback of the type to which they areaccustomed. Becoming cross‐culturally competent involves learning to look for non‐verbaland indirect cues, and to seek out Indigenous opinions on their actions._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________25 Phoenix Consulting
Page 6 and 7: Senate Inquiry March 2010__________
Page 52 and 53: Harrison, B. T., Partington, G., Go
Page 54 and 55: Miller, P. M., & Ingham, J. G. (197
Page 56 and 57: North Australian Aboriginal Justice
Page 58 and 59: elationships with teachers 6 . A 20
Page 60 and 61: 2. Prejudices within the Justice Sy
Page 62 and 63: And finally, the location and circu
Page 64 and 65: interpreter was driving N home, wit

hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?