An Open Letter to Securitas

Dear Cohort Members, here is an excerpt of the e-mail I had sent to the Chronicle Herald and Metro News with respect to my experience at work today. I thought it would be nice to share this with the group especially where it seems to intercept with the discourse within our recently concluded GSLL 6206.

 

According to its corporate website, “Securitas’ three fundamental values are: Integrity, Vigilance and Helpfulness”. However, I am inclined to disagree with this assertion based on my resent unpleasant experience with this organization

As a result of this distasteful incident, I have therefore decided to present this open letter with the hope that, perhaps, someone on the upper echelon of this organization would read this, and be able to bring some redress to the issues and concerns raised in this communiqué.

I recently contacted Securitas, Dartmouth Office, on behalf of a pregnant client of mine who was let go in January of this year. As an Employment Specialist, part of my duties in addition to assisting client to navigate a career path, is to advocate for them when deemed necessary; hence my reason for contacting Securitas to inquire why my client has not been issued a Record of Employment four months after ceasing to be an employee of the company, and after repeated attempts by her to get this required documentation for EI maternity purposes.

During my first attempt, the initial story was that my client had failed to return her uniform as required after termination. However, after I reiterated that the said uniform had already been returned, it  was checked and confirmed that the uniform has indeed been returned (by the way the uniform in question was returned way back in February).  At this junction, the story changed to the fact that the delay has been due to some changes in staffing but I was promised that the ROE will be ready by Monday (and that she will personally take care of it).

Monday came, and gone. It is now Wednesday, my client is due in July and as of April 18^th, she does not know if she has enough hours to qualify for EI Maternity. I decided to call Securitas again, and this time had the privilege of speaking with the Branch Manager. After explaining to him that my client has made several attempts to get her ROE, he was very dismissive and stated that apparently my client hasn’t made enough attempt, otherwise, he would have know about it as he’s the one responsible for issuing the ROE (which tells me that my previous call did not amount to anything). Incredibly, just like the last time, the branch manager was quick to tell me that the ROE has been delayed because my client is yet to return her uniform! Of course at this time, I quickly realized some disorganization within this organization. In similar fashion to my previous call, I reaffirmed that this uniform was returned as required. He put me on hold, came back and informed me that two of his office staff did confirm that the uniform has been returned but no one kept him in the loop. He then proceeded to inform me that I should tell my client that the ROE would be ready for pick up 9 am the following day.

I thanked him for his assistance, and then proceeded to ask if it was alright to make a comment before getting off the phone, to which he said yes. I expressed my disappointment at the way my client has been treated, and how it literally took my intervention for her to get the ROE. At this point, he became quite belligerent, and reminded me that my client should have been the one contacting them and not a “third party”. He also asked me if I worked for the Labour Board, and reminded me that if my client has an issue with them, she should have approached them directly or contact the labour board rather than having me as the middle person, and he further went on to state that he is not interested in listening to any “crap” from me whether I’m an employment specialist or whoever I am. He was also kind enough to remind me that “in this country” that’s how it’s done!

I was astounded that someone occupying such a key position within a large organization will lose his professionalism while on the phone with another professional. It was also quite disappointing that the phrase “in this country” was uttered by this Branch Manager. I can only conclude that he probably assumed having an accent meant I did not know how things are done “in this country” (even after over a decade of declaring my allegiance to Canada)

While the event has been an unsettling one for me, it has nonetheless strengthened my resolve that I will never stop advocating for those whose voice are often left unheard especially by discourteous organization such as Securitas. It has also reminded me that there is still work to be done in the area cultural sensitivity by employers around the country.

As I reflect upon my day, I am left to wonder if this Branch Manager would have greased my ear with the statement “in this country” if I had been a member of the dominant culture and if my accent has been, for lack of a better term, Canadianized.

Thank you for taking the time to read.

Redeeming Bracher’s identity: an infusion of Critical Race Theory

One of the recommendations made at the conclusion of our last class is the possibility of injecting Critical Race Theory (CRT) into the premise of Bracher’s identity formation.  Rashid (2011) defines Critical Race Theory as an endeavor to expose the “endemic nature of racism”, within the context of social milieu, and castigate its far reaching effect to impede “life chances” of people of African descent and others who do not identify with whiteness (p. 589).

            CRT, with its background in legal discourse, has incessantly delved into exploring how whiteness is an advantage while “Otherness” (Rollock, 2010, p. 65), becomes marginalized. The scope of CRT is also imprinted on education where it brings to the forefront systemic and often institutionalized ideals that promote Whiteness, and repress those who are deemed as not belonging. CRT is also employed to answer critics who see policies, such as Affirmative Action, as some form of reverse discrimination. These critics argue along a “colour blind policy” which they believe will see everyone treated equally and fairly without regards to race. On this premise, CRT posits that such notions fail to consider how history has helped to create White privilege within the society. Additionally drawing on the works of Dixson and Rouseau (2005), Rashid (2011) asserts that CRT provides an avenue for giving a voice back to the voiceless “students and educators” of African descent who are continuously silenced by the endemic, institutionalized and sanctioned racism within the realm of education (Rashid, 2011, p. 589). Rashid (2011) concludes that Critical Race Theory:

Compels us to understand the nature of racism and White supremacy in modern society, and to struggle in dynamic ways against its distorting effects on the humanity and life chances of communities of color. Though these sites of struggle are myriad, clearly educational institutions play a critical role in confronting the institutional reproduction of racial subordination. This acknowledgment emphasizes the emancipatory role of teachers, parents, community stakeholders, students, and educational scholars in challenging the dominant discourse by working in concert to create emancipatory spaces (p. 600)

It can be argued therefore, that in the context of our discourse on Bracher, Critical Race Theory thus becomes a useful tool for Black scholars to evaluate Bracher’s assertions, and reconcile his theory with our identity as people of African descent. One of the problems encountered in understanding Bracher’s psychoanalytic view on identity is manifested very early in his book. In explaining the nature of identity, Bracher is quick to dissociate his analysis of identity from what can be typically seen in other fields of endeavours where identity is often defined looking at factors such as “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, nationality” (Bracher, 2006, p. 6). While Bracher’s explanation of his hypothesize qualities of identity are relevant, the very nature of their generalization and professed universality presents a problem to those whose identity – within this universal, psychoanalytical discourse – have been denied of these well articulated qualities.

Drawing on the works of Wynter (1995) and Ladson-Billings and Donnors (1998), Rollock (2012) explains that racialized people are confined to the “edge of society from which their identities and experiences are constructed” (Rollock, 2012, p. 66). While it is true that Bracher succinctly explains how the crave for recognition is a major requirement of identity, and further buttress his claim using the words of Todorov that:

The need to be acknowledged is not just one human motivation among others; it is the truth behind all other needs. Even wealth and material possessions are not an end in themselves but a way for us to be assured of the recognition of others. The absence of recognition is, correspondingly, “the worst evil that could befall us” (Bracher, 2006, p. 8).

However, in trying to situate the above statement within the notion that racialized people occupy the “edge of society”, one cannot but wonder why Bracher did not explore the causative factors of recognition denial that most, within this “edge of society” experience, and which according to Bracher, is the worst of all evil. Perhaps, if his theory of identity has been approached from a different perspective, the problem of race and its implication on identity could have been very obvious. As eloquently noted in many of our blogs, one of the problems encountered with Bracher’s exposition on identity formation is his reductionist approach. A closer look at Bracher’s identity elements – affects, images and words – and the consequent introduction of “identity-bearing master signifiers”, to some degree reveal an allusion to race (p. 17). Bracher explains that an individual’s identity is grounded in the “integrity and status of such master signifiers and our assurance that we actually embody these signifiers” (p. 17).  He further reiterates that if the master signifiers are relegated or made irrelevant, and our connection to the signifier is threatened, there is the potential for us to want to reinforce our identity and fight back (p. 17). Analysing the preceding, it is apparent how Bracher has used the generalization of identity and a reductionist approach to explain factors such as race under the guise of master signifiers.

            Going back to Rollock (2012), some Black scholars have viewed identity formation on the margin as a vantage point where an individual can fight back, and can also “create a counter hegemonic discourse” (cited in hooks, 1990, p. 149). Rollock’s concern is that, while this concept is plausible and even commendable, it however depends on the context:

the field in which racialized others are operating, the tools or resources at their disposal, the support mechanisms available to them and the relative power of other actors present within the social space or field fundamentally impacts and brings into awkward tension the extent to which occupying a site in the margins becomes advantageous (Rollock, 2012, p. 66)

The notion of identity formation on the “margin of the society” providing an avenue to fight back, parallels Bracher’s assertion of fighting back when identity signifiers are threatened. The one noticeable difference is that Rollock is able to employ CRT to highlight the “pervasiveness of the racial power dynamics at play” (p. 67) when an individual’s identity is under attack; and provide appropriate response for fighting back. Bracher on the other hand, while acknowledging the need to fight back, leaves his audience – particularly those from within the marginalized group – out in the cold on how to appropriately respond when their identity is undermined.

References

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation.

Psychoanalysis, Education, and Social Transformation, New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan

Rashid, K. (2011). ‘To break asunder along the lesions of race’. The Critical Race

Theory of W.E.B. Du Bois. Race Ethnicity and Education 14(5), 585-602.

Rollock, N. (2012). The invisibility of race: intersectional reflections on the liminal

space of alterity. Race Ethnicity and Education 15(1), 65-84.