Combatting deficit thinking doesn’t have to mean ignoring issues and avoiding systemic shifts.
In our politics and policy development, where is the idea that we should only be talking about good things happening coming from? Are people over simplifying strength-based approach? Which end up ignoring social issues that are the products of colonialism and structural racism? This then getting in the way of making structural changes that are much needed to shift power and deal with our issues on our terms?
We now recognize that deficit base thinking or view that we have inherent deficiencies is a problem. How some organizations have approached this is shifting the conversation to coming from strength base, but the problem is that this is still ignoring or overlooking structural issues. Are these ideas getting conflated or confused?
We live with structural barriers and social inequality that inhibit us protecting our culture and language, and generally representing ourselves on our terms to deal with legacy of colonialism that create poverty, addictions, self -harm, violence, poor educational attainment, and so on. The idea we should not think ‘badly’ about Inuit to avoid deficit thinking then gets interpreted as we should not talk about social issues.
Do we then assume we have to think that everything is fine and ignore all the issues that exist? It seems colonialism or structural racism and deficit thinking are two interconnected concepts that can perpetuate and maybe even exacerbate each other by forcing us to ignore them.
So let’s try to unpack this…
First, what is deficit thinking? Deficit thinking is a mindset that attributes the struggles or shortcomings of individuals or groups to inherent deficiencies or inadequacies within themselves, rather than considering external structural or systemic factors. An example is people saying ‘Inuit are lazy and don’t want to work’ hence the high rate of Inuit unemployment, rather than seeing the system has barriers for Inuit to enter and stay in employment.
Deficit thinking then blames the individual or group for their circumstances, focuses on their shortcomings whether it is their skills, capabilities, knowledge, language or culture. Deficit thinking downplays or ignores systemic barriers, inequalities, the impact of historical and ongoing racism and discrimination because is about fixing people rather than oppressive systems.
So let’s talk about these systemic barriers…
Colonialism is built on structural racism. Structural racism, also known as systemic racism, refers to the ways in which racial discrimination and inequality are built into and perpetuated by the social, economic, and political structures of western institutions, policies, and practices. Examples of structural racism include unequal access to quality education and healthcare, and discriminatory hiring practices, as said previously, and wage disparities.
A perfect example of unequal access to quality education is how the territorial government continues to fail at delivering Inuktut medium of education, assuming our language will take away from a superior colonial language. We then look at it from a deficit lens of our shortcomings as Inuit of having an inferior language, rather than looking at it as a systemic barrier to delivering Inuktut medium of education.
Structural racism also ignores the harm of atrocities, acculturation, and linguicide of colonialism, the trauma, emotional and psychological damage that we live within our families and communities.
Deficit thinking can reinforce social inequality by blaming marginalized groups for their circumstances. It distracts from addressing systemic issues and hinders efforts to address inequality and promote social justice. In order to combat deficit thinking and address social inequality we have to recognize and challenge assumptions, acknowledge systemic and structural barriers.
Even though a strength-based approach is on the right path to challenging deficit thinking, it is still not going far enough in challenging systems that perpetuate disempowerment. We tend to oversimplify issues to very binary way of thinking of good and bad. Deficit thinking bad, strength based good. When it is a bigger structural issue and nuanced maybe. How do we distinguish deficit thinking and structural issues? One, is the focus, is the focus on structural issue or individual or group deficiencies. Two, is causality, recognizing it is structural racism acknowledges external factors, whereas deficit thinking attributes problems to internal shortcomings. Third, is how the solution is oriented, addressing structural racism requires policy changes and systemic reforms, whereas deficit thinking often leads to individual-level interventions.
Not coming from deficit thinking should not lead to ignoring issues and power dynamics. Even though, acknowledging these mean more work and ignoring them means not having to acknowledge the disempowerment and the amount of work we need to do. We cannot continue to ignore the denial, deflection and distraction from the truth of structural racism therefore accountability to it.