Equality & Diversity News No.2: February 2012

In this issue:

• Human Rights – what relevance for Equality & Diversity? A personal perspective 
• Hospital had human rights duty to protect voluntary patient from suicide, rules Supreme Court 
• Basic home care for elderly breaches human rights? 
• Court of Appeal: Hotel owners discriminated against Gay couple 
• Lawyer wins Gay discrimination claim against law firm 
• Appeal Court rules that disabled air travellers not protected from discrimination 
• Events and activities in March

Human Rights – what relevance for Equality & Diversity? A personal perspective

Human rights protections enshrined into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR - directly into UK legislation) is increasingly under attack by both the populist media and some politicians. If one believed such sources human rights are nothing more than:

• An attack on “British values and culture” by Europe (usually, mistakenly, seen as another intrusion by the European Union)
• A “criminal’s charter” – that protects “their” rights at the expense of “our” rights – and specifically the rights of victims
• Undermines democracy in the UK and supports “terrorists”
• Is another example of “red tape” and intrusion into our lives by “out of touch” judges and specifically out of touch European judges who don’t understand the “British people”.

It is possible to see in some of these views at least an undercurrent of anti-European sentiment and xenophobia, which in itself should be a cause for concern to those working around issues of equality and diversity. But putting aside this consideration for the moment, the inconvenient facts (for those who are hostile to human rights and the ECHR) are:

• the ECHR was drawn up well before the European Union even existed (it was written immediately after the second world war and drew on the experience of the holocaust)
• British lawyers were at the heart of this development from the start – and still are
• the current head of the European Court of Human Rights is a British judge - and all judges are elected to their position
• all UK based human rights cases are decided by the British courts by all-British judges. Only exceptional – and often the most controversial and difficult - cases go forward to a full hearing by the European Court and even there many cases uphold the UK court's decisions or reject cases before a full hearing.

There is also a deep (is it a deliberate?) misunderstanding of human rights principles at the heart of some of these debates. Human rights do not belong to “us” and not “them”, or “criminals” but not “victims”, but to all of us. That is the essence of a human right. They are rights that protect all of us (because we also share a common humanity) vis-à-vis the actions or lack of action, of government and States, rather than, the actions of individuals or non-state organisations. An example may illustrate this.

If an individual murders another person, this is clearly a breach of the victim’s “human right” to life (enshrined in Article 2 of the ECHR). But this is not a legal breach of the Human Rights Act per se or the ECHR unless the government or State (a) has acted in some way in failing to protect the individual who was killed when they could have acted to prevent it (this is why we have health and safety legislation for example. It is also why we have a law against murder), or (b) the State fails to properly investigate the crime and/or acts in such a way that the victim and/or their family fail to get justice. In this sense, victims only have human rights that are legally enforceable if government/States fail to protect them after they have already been murdered or fails to investigate and prosecute the alleged perpetrator.

On the flip side, the allege perpetrator of a murder has human rights only in the sense that the ECHR says that all human beings charged with a crime should be treated by the State as innocent until proven guilty, not be tortured or improperly treated during the investigation and they must have a fair trial. These rights are not rights that “belong” to alleged criminals, but are there to ensure that all of us are treated properly and fairly by the State when we are accused of something (such as murder or any other crimes).

OK, so what’s this got to do with Equality and Diversity you may be asking? Well, firstly, the ECHR ensures specific protection from discrimination (Article 14) – and this existed well before we had any home-grown legislation about this. In reality current UK legislation - such as the Equality Act 2010 – now gives much wider protection than the Human Rights Act or the ECHR for acts of discrimination as a breach of Article 14 can only be claimed where there has also been a breach of another Convention right.

Secondly, human rights principles can help us view equality and diversity issues differently – especially when there are so-called “equality conflicts” (often presented in simple terms such as “Gay rights” versus “rights of religious groups”). Such “conflicts”, when seen in a human rights context as well, can give fresh insights.

Article 17 of the ECHR states:

“Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

Putting this another way: no one, in the name of their “human rights”, can claim protection when advocating the removal of another person’s human right. Does this help when it comes to so-called “equality conflicts”? Do some religious people, in the name of their religious belief, have the right to deny others their rights because they are Gay? Or vice-versa: can some Gay people call for the removal of the rights of religious people to practice their religion because some religious people are homophobic? The answer taken by the UK court on these issues to date is “No, they cannot”. Human rights law protects both the rights of Gay people and religious people from generalised discrimination because they are gay or religious. It does not, however, support one group or the other in advocating the removal of the rights of the other. In short: human rights principles are a package – you cannot pick and choose which human rights are important simply on the basis of what is in it for me or my group!

Another aspect of the populist debate around human rights in the UK is that they tend to concentrate on the most controversial and difficult cases – where even liberal-minded people, like me, struggle. Take the recent case of Abu Qatada. A UK court ruled (in the light of an earlier ECHR ruling) that he would have to be released from detention in the UK as he could not be lawfully returned to Jordan to face charges because the evidence against him was obtained by torture and there were no charges that could be brought against him in the UK.

Abu Qatada is probably not a very pleasant person; it is likely that he may have in the past supported acts of terrorism. Such cases therefore test the very limits of our commitment to human rights principles. But, the rights that are being protected here are not rights for Abu Qatada alone, but rights that we all need: – we are innocent until proven guilty, no one should face a trial that involves evidence obtained by torture and, if there are no charges that can be legitimately brought, then no one should be imprisoned.

It must also be said that it is in such difficult and trying circumstances when we need to uphold human rights principles the most – precisely because it is difficult. It is precisely those people we, and Governments “don’t like”, or even detested, that are most at risk of human rights abuses – especially minorities of all kinds (not just alleged “terrorists”). If we believe in higher values of human rights, they are needed both in the good and the hard times – but especially in the hard!

Human rights laws and principles are like a social contract – we may not like all the terms, we may find them inconvenient, we (or governments) may find them stopping us doing what our prejudices would like us to do (or popular opinion calls for) – but they are an essential part of the glue that keeps our society, at least in some way, decent.

Governments in particular find human rights principles difficult – not least because it is the actions of government that are most likely to be scrutinised by the courts and the popular (or populist) will of the majority may not always be right. Aren’t such protections, though, worth defending? Protecting and enhancing the human rights of those in society who are the least powerful, sometimes the least cared for, the most vulnerable to abuse, “illegal immigrants”, asylum-seekers, Gypsies, or other people “we” don’t like very much, is at the heart of why we have human rights protection. It helps to keep in check our, and governments’, baser instincts to do harm to others. Those who want to ensure we have a society that is respectful and cohesive, need to understand and defend human rights principles and law even when it is difficult to do so.

For regular updates on human rights legal cases and current discussions and debates, see: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com

Hospital had human rights duty to protect voluntary patient from suicide, rules Supreme Court
A human rights case that has received less publicity than it should, which illustrates my article above, is the case of Rabone and another (Appellants) v Pennine Care NHS Trust (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 2. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a mental health hospital had an “operational” obligation under Article 2 (the right to life) to protect a voluntary patient from suicide. This is the first time the reach of the article 2 obligation to protect life has been expanded to a voluntary patient; that is, a patient who was not detained under the Mental Health Act.

The failure by the hospital to take reasonable precautions to protect the patient from themselves was deemed to have breached their “right to life”.

Basic home care for elderly breaches human rights?
The Home Care Review undertaken by the Equality & Human Rights Commission and published before Christmas claims that basic care for the elderly at home breaches their human rights. The review found that whilst many were satisfied and pleased with the care they received others complained of:

• Not being given enough support to eat and drink, with some staff arguing health and safety restrictions prevented them preparing hot meals
• Neglect because care workers stick rigidly to their tasks, such as a case when a woman was left stuck on the toilet because staff were too busy
• Financial abuse, including money being systematically stolen over a period of time
• Chronic disregard for privacy and dignity, such as leaving people unwashed and putting them to bed in the afternoon
• Patronising behaviour, with cases highlighted including staff talking on mobile phones while they tended to clients
• Physical abuse involving pushing and rough handling

The Commission said such problems could be said to be in breach of various parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it highlighted Article 8, which guarantees respect for dignity and personal autonomy, Article 3, which covers the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, and Article 2, governing the right to life. I would also suggest that Article 14 and the Equality Act 2010 may be also be relevant (protection from discrimination on grounds of age).

Court of Appeal: Hotel owners discriminated against Gay couple
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has successfully defended an appeal in the Court of Appeal against a ruling in the County Court which found that hotel owners had directly discriminated against a gay couple.

Mr and Mrs Bull appealed against the County Court’s decision that they were wrong to refuse Mr Preddy and Mr Hall a double room for the night in their hotel. The owners said that their hotel rule, based on their Christian faith, was that no unmarried couples could share a double room.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the County Court that the hotel’s rule directly discriminated against civil partners Mr Preddy and Mr Hall. The couple were treated differently because of their sexual orientation as it is not possible for a gay couple to marry.

In the appeal ruling the judges noted that both sides recognised the strongly held views of the other, and the Commission went to great lengths to reassure Mr and Mrs Bull that their beliefs were not under question.

The judges ruled that religious belief does not offer an exemption from laws that everyone running a business has to follow. Equality law already has exemptions for religious organisations, which the judges noted the hotel was not. The court dismissed the Bulls’ claim that their right to a private life would be compromised by allowing gay couples to sleep in a double room. The Bulls could manifest their beliefs in many ways outside of their business interests, including in their home which is separate from the hotel.

See also: http://tinyurl.com/6qpo6ra

Lawyer wins Gay discrimination Claim against law firm
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld that law firm Bivonas LLP discriminated against lawyer Mr Bennett on the basis of sexual orientation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission funded Mr Bennett’s defence against the law firm’s appeal.

The lawyer’s discrimination claim focused on a memo from one of the firm’s partners. It falsely implied that Mr Bennett only selected gay barristers and said he should be sacked. After lodging a grievance, Mr Bennett says the firm tried to intimidate him into withdrawing his claim.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed that the content of the memo was “a professional slur of the utmost gravity”. It also agreed that the conduct of his grievance was discriminatory.

The tribunal considered if a ‘reasonable’ worker would think the memo had put them at a disadvantage. It decided that other people would have been insulted if the memo had been about them.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no evidence that heterosexual men had been insulted in the same way as Mr Bennett. Nor could the law firm provide justification for treating Mr Bennett differently to other employees.

Appeal Court rules that disabled air travellers not protected from discrimination
On February 7th three Appeal Court judges ruled that international rules on air travel (the Montreal Convention) takes precedence over domestic and EU law on disability discrimination after travellers have boarded the plane. This follows two cases pursued by Christopher Stott and Tony Hook after complaining of "injury to feelings" as a result of a "failure to meet seating needs pursuant to promises made at the time of booking". Mr Stott sought damages from Thomas Cook Tour Operators and Mr Hook from British Airways. Both applicants were supported by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, who plan to appeal the ruling.

A web-site to support and advise disabled air travellers is extremely useful. See: http://www.flying-with-disability.org/

Events and Activities in March
March 8th is the United Nations (UN) International Women’s’ Day and there are a variety of activities and events around the UK. The theme for 2012 is “Connecting Girls, inspiring futures”. For further information see: http://www.internationalwomensday.cm/

March 21st is also the UN International day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. For a full list of UN days go to: http://tinyurl.com/785j8cy

Comments and Suggestions

If you have any suggestions or ideas for future newsletters please leave you comments.


**********

Equality & Diversity News: Issue No.1

In this issue:

• Stephen Lawrence: Justice at Last?
• Doctor wins £4.5m over discrimination and harassment
• First ever Government action plan to advance transgender equality
• Hate crime laws extended
• Can you pass the British Citizenship Test?
• Test your attitudes
• Actuate Training and development

Stephen Lawrence: Justice at Last?
The racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, the South London Black teenager in 1993, was probably the most significant catalyst for change in the UK on issues relating to equality and racial justice since the civil rights movement in the US in the late 1960s.

The fact that a racist murder had to occur for this sea-change to take place reflects, unfortunately, on how our society changes and responds to such challenges. Unfortunately I suspect that this will not be the only time such a murder will act as a spur for change.

At one level the recent conviction of two of the perpetrators of the crime may bring some comfort to the Lawrence family – who have waited for nearly 20 years for the criminal justice system to bring someone to account for their son’s murder. At another level, however, the focus on the two individuals convicted may imply that there is now some sort of “closure” on the affair and we can now all move on, safe in the knowledge that the zeitgeist of racism has be exorcised from our contemporary body politic. This would be a great mistake.

The death of Stephen Lawrence resulted in one of the most significant investigations ever held into racism in the UK, under the auspices of Sir William Macpherson. Its report took us in completely new directions and its ramifications are still with us. Whilst acknowledging that individual acts of racism and hate are important for us as a society to address, the report went on to say that “institutional racism” deserved even more attention and that a radical overhaul was needed to challenge racial inequality and injustice across all areas of society – particularly the institutions of local and central government. The definition of “institutional racism” was challenging and controversial, but it is worth reproducing it in full as there has been much false and misleading comment and vilification, particularly from some sections of the populist media.

Institutional Racism was defined in the Macpherson Report as:

"the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people"

This definition has subsequently informed our understanding of equality and diversity issues, and the legal framework underpinning it (the Equality Act 2010 - which we now operate under today) – not just in respect of “racism”, but also other forms of inequality or unfairness as well (e.g. around other protected characteristics).

Whilst we don’t hear so much about institutional racism (or the wider term “institutional discrimination”) today is probably due to the fact that it is more widely accepted and less contentious than it was twenty years ago. Nonetheless, it remains a vitally important tool in our understanding of how our society works to perpetuate and re-enforce inequality; how progress can be judged and, more importantly, a tool which can help us take action to address continuing prejudice and inequality.

Owen Jones, in a very thoughtful and challenging article in the Independent, (5-1-2012), looking at contemporary racism, said:

“But race and racism continue to loom large over British society. In the aftermath of the August riots I spoke to a number of young black men about their experiences with the police…many had endured being stopped and searched…Black people are 26 more time likely than whites to be stopped and searched…”

“… some forms of racism have actually become worse since the Stephen Lawrence was murdered. The Conservative Baroness Sayeeda Warsi was right to say that Islamaphobia now passes the “dinner table test”. A study at the end of 2007 revealed that 91 percent of articles about Muslims… were negative. For the British National Party – as is the case for the far right across Europe – Muslims are now the target of choice.”

“That’s why it’s so important that we heed Doreen Lawrence’s words. Racism and prejudice retain their ugly presence at every level of society. The fight against it has a long way to go.”

Whilst the Lawrence family may feel they have got some limited justice at last following the convictions of Dobson and Norris, the remaining legacy of Stephen Lawrence is whether or not we can rise to the challenge to eliminate the kind of inequalities, prejudices and hate that resulted in his murder in the first place. In this respect justice for Stephen and his family is still elusive – although some progress has undoubtedly been made.

Doctor wins £4.5m over discrimination and harassment
If a reminder were needed about the importance of employers taking harassment in the workplace seriously this case is it! Whilst the facts of the case are perhaps unusual – thus resulting in a record ever tribunal award for discrimination of over £4.5 million – there are clear warnings for all employers:

• If you don’t take harassment seriously it can cost you a great deal of money
• Individual employees who harass can also be individually liable to pay compensation
• The effects of harassment on the victim and their immediate family can be devastating
• The effects on workplace relationships, culture and working arrangements can be severely disrupted for long periods of time
• If you don’t nip harassment/workplace conflicts in the bud at an early stage it can escalate

A Leeds employment tribunal found that Dr Eva Michalak suffered race and sex discrimination at Pontefract General Infirmary. It said colleagues mounted a "concerted campaign" to bring her employment to an end while she was on maternity leave.” The trust and three senior staff members have been ordered to pay Dr Michalak £4,452,206.60 for the sex and race discrimination. The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has apologised to Dr Michalak.
See : http://tinyurl.com/br3nt92

In another case an NHS manager, Elliot Browne, has been awarded nearly £1 million pounds for racial harassment and unfair dismissal against Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust after working for the NHS for over 34 years. See: http://tinyurl.com/6uu4mmz

First ever Government action plan to advance transgender equality
In December Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Equalities, launched the first ever Government transgender action plan – Advancing transgender equality: a plan for action. It lays out “the vision and focus for the Government’s commitment to deliver equality for transgender people and includes firm actions across the breadth of social policy aimed at making a real difference to transgender people’s lives”.
The plan can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/85bt5ll

Hate crime laws extended
In December the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced that people who murder disabled or transgender people in hate crime attacks will face life sentences with a starting point of 30 years.

The Ministry of Justice plans to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that murders motivated by hatred or hostility towards disabled or transgender victims will have the same starting point as for murders aggravated by race, religion and sexual orientation. This will double the current starting point for disability and transgender hate crime murders.
See: http://tinyurl.com/857ng27

Can you pass the British Citizenship Test?
Why not see if you can pass a version of British Citizenship test? This test (albeit that the questions are changed periodically and there is a range of different questions that are chosen) is give to all applicants for British Citizenship. It’s not as easy as you might suspect.

Have a free go at: http://tinyurl.com/6unfvp2

Test your attitudes
It is well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', and it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology. This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.

Although the tests are largely produced for an American audience, they may give you some insight into your own subconscious attitudes – a key component of individual prejudice and stereotyping. Why not have a go and be prepared to be surprised! Don’t take it too seriously – but you may find it insightful to one degree or another.
Go to: http://tinyurl.com/27hjj4

Events and Activities in January and February
At the end of January and into February there are a variety of commemorative events and actives for Holocaust Memorial Day (which is on January 27th). For further information see: http://hmd.org.uk/

The month of February is designated as Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans History Month. For further information visit: http://lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/

Actuate Learning
If you are looking for skilled professionals to deliver equality and diversity training you might wish to consider contacting Actuate Learning and Developmnet based in Northampton/UK. For information on their services visit: http://www.actuatelearning.com

******

New Chief for Wellingborough Council... broken Herts in Herts?

According to the Borough Council of Wellingborough's newsletter the Link (January 2012 edition), our new Chief Executive, John Campbell, will save thousands of pounds avoiding a long journey each day from Northampton to his previous place of employment at North Hertfordshire District Council. Sounds like good news for him and the environment, although we understand he took a pay cut to be Wellingborough's new Chief. I hope its worth it for him. But may be not such good news for Wellingborough?

According to Private Eye, there may be another explanation for his move to Wellingborough. In their January edition (issue1305) PE reports as follows under the byline "Broken Herts":

"So farewell then John Campbell, chief exec of North Hertfordshire district council, who is off to run the smaller Wellingborough borough council in Northamptonshire.
Campbell has perhaps wisely decided to leave the sinking ship that is North Herts' £50m redevelopment plan to wreck Hitchin's historic town centre (Eyes assim). Rather than explain the details of the council's much-criticised secret "sweetheart" deal with developers Simons of Lincoln, he is taking a pay cut to move. His deputy Norma Atley has been left to try to explain to the district auditor exactly why the council is giving large chunks of Hitchin away to the developer for free."

Cllr. Bell, the Leader of Wellingborough Council, says in the same edition of the Link "...John is joining a council that must still make significant budget savings over the next few years. It's not going to be easy, but we've every confidence we have the right man for a very demanding task." No comment!


*************

Diane Abbott sage; Part 2

One of the best blog-comment on the Abbott saga I've read...http://bit.ly/xAeNb3

Was Diane Abbott right? Is Racism a White Conspiracy?

Yesterday Diane Abbott MP made an allegedly "racist" and "controversial" statement (via Twitter) that "White people love playing divide and rule". She went on to explain that Twitter is not really a good medium to convey complex messages and, in any event, the statement was "taken out of context" as she was referring to "19th century European colonialism". Despite her protestations she was forced to make an apology. But was she right to do so? Or was she making a legitimate (albeit poorly worded) observation on the way that racism operates in our society and that White people (or at least a White-dominated system) conspires to perpetuate its privilege, vis Black people, through such devices as "divide and rule"? When looked at in this way she may have made a very pertinent point, and the reaction to it touched on not just a sensitive sore nerve, but a significant factor in racism's continuing domination over the lives of Black people.


The idea that White people, or a white system of domination, may actually amount to some form of conspiracy may be difficult for many of us to get our heads around -  unless we ditch popular notions of "conspiracy" (people in smoked filled rooms plotting away?) and look at the word conspiracy in a much more sophisticated and historical way.


In his book "Racism and Education. Coincidence or Conspiracy", Prof. David Gillborn (2008) looks at some legal definitions of conspiracy which I have certainly found helpful and illuminating:

"(A) conspiracy has to be viewed as a whole, the component parts - which may be unobjectionable by themselves or taken individually - are not to be weeded out and enquired into separately"  

"(N)o formal agreement is required, it may be express or implied, and it is not even necessary to prove the terms of any particular agreement or plan. Conspiracy may be demonstrated by concert of action between participants all working together for a common purpose"  

(Quoted from Joshua and Jordon (2003) "Combinations, concerted practices and cartel: adopting the concept of conspiracy in European Community competition law", Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 24: 647-81))

In the context of a conspiracy to protect and enhance the interests of Whiteness, Gillborn argues that White people will inevitable participate in such a conspiracy - whether they want to or not, whether they are aware of it or not - and all White people will directly benefit from it.


Gillborn also suggest that Black people almost instinctively realise there is such a conspiracy against them as they see and feel the daily consequences of it (just one example is the continuing disproportionate use of stop and search powers by the police against Black people). Diane Abbott was probably expressing this understanding that most Black people have about the way "Whiteness" has and does conspires against them, whereas David Miliband, who remonstrated against her, probably does not have much of a clue about the daily realities and weight of racism).


Gillborn does not stop here, however, as he goes on to elaborate the type of conspiracy that white privilege and supremacy represents: a Hub-and-Spoke conspiracy: this is one in which "many parties (the spokes) conspire with one person (the hub), but not with other defendants... individual people and different agencies (like education, the economy, media) are all spokes connected through the central hub of Whiteness ... a de facto conspiracy - by their shared "common sense" assumptions and actions that characterise them and support their cultural and economic dominance".


For a White person, like me, it is difficult to fully understand how such a conspiracy operates on a daily basis. I'm on the inside, cocooned by my Whiteness - unless I really take the time and effort to step outside and examine what is happening and get involved in challenging it. 

"That's part of the strength of institutional racism... no single person or agency can be held up as wholly responsible, but to some extent the power and force of the edifice relies on them all; from Whitehall and Parliament all the way down to the newest first year teacher. I am not saying they have equal weight but they are all important; they are all spokes." (Gillborn, 2008)

In the week when two of the perpetrators of the murder of Stephen Lawrence were brought to some kind of justice, it is necessary to reflect on the lessons that we started to learn from this tragedy. In his report (following the investigation into the death and the failures of the police), Sir William Macpherson used the term "institutional racism" to describe our society's failure to tackle the systematic nature of racism and inequality. Although this term appears to have gone out of fashion of late it is still highly relevant in describing the racism and White conspiracy that continues to perpetuate racial inequality and injustice. Indeed, isn't this an example of how Whiteness has re-asserted its dominance to deny further progress in tackling racism, after an initial start a decade ago in response to the report? How quickly we seem to have forgotten the lessons and returned to "business as usual". How quickly the conspiracy reasserted itself.


I am pretty certain that this is what Diane Abbott was broadly referring to in her Tweet. She was right to do so!


**********

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SANTA or EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT FATHER CHRISTMAS BUT WERE TOO AFRAID TO ASK

A Guest post by Dr. John Kremer, Queens University, Belfast

While psychologists continue to jostle with each other in their eagerness to catch a ride on the latest passing band wagon, it may come as something of a surprise to learn that one character with considerable potential in the gravy train stakes still remains a mystery - Father Christmas. We are urged and cajoled to wrestle with applied problems and socially relevant issues ad nauseam yet Santa Claus continues on his jolly way without so much as a cost-benefit analysis. The major impact he has on the lives of many is without dispute - including small children, parents, toy manufacturers, advertising executives, bank managers and Santa not-so-lookalikes tucked away in dark corners of department stores - characters who have struck terror into the hearts of more toddlers  than the original has had glasses of Emva Cream.  Why are we so reluctant to pull back the cape in the best tradition of psychological enquiry? Could it be that the Ghosts of Christmasses Past still haunt the corridors of psychology departments, leaving us happily bewitched, bewildered but not really bothered about delving into the wide eyed amazement of our childhood. Whatever is the case we are left with the massive popularity of the story of Father Christmas, and the perplexing question as to why we should encourage those in our care to believe, often despite our own whispered misgivings. 

The roots of the story do not seem to offer much help here. The character of St Nicholas was apparently based on two people, the Bishops of Sion and Myra, who lived in the 4th century A.D., one of whom reputedly paid a ransom of three bags of gold to save a kidnapped girl (and in the process unwittingly invented the pawnbrokers sign).  A more fruitful line of enquiry begins with the version of Father Christmas or Sante Klass made popular among Dutch settlers in the United States during the early nineteenth century. The story in its blandest terms is of a mysterious figure who arrives at a particular time of year bearing gifts for those who believe. To receive this largesse requires nothing more than faith, although to be honest it is considered helpful to negotiate a realistic expectation through a third party.  To the likes of Levi-Strauss or Roland Barthes surely this tale would have borne all the hallmarks of a classic modern myth, and by scraping away the surface structure, the universal logic will be revealed - perhaps concerning the fundamental nature of giving and receiving, or the structure of social relationships in general. 

More of this later. In the meanwhile it may be interesting to speculate as to how the heavyweights from psychology's history may have discussed the phenomenon of Father Christmas. To Freud, "a large part of the mythological view of the world is nothing but psychology projected into the external world." The symbolism inherent in the tale of a red and white figure squeezing down a chimney flue before jubilantly emptying a sack speaks for itself, to psychoanalysts and non-believers alike. Moving rapidly on from Freud and his stocking hang-ups we next encounter the neo-Freudian, Carl Jung. To Jung, an archetype nestling in our collective unconscious would seem to describe Father Christmas very well, that of the Wise Old Man. Although not discussed in detail by Jung, this archetype could be described as the masculine counterpoint to the Earth Mother - the all seeing, all knowledgeable, helpful guru. There remains a paradox as regards Father Christmas's colour scheme however, for many Jungians, including Maud Bodkin, would see the colour red as having "a soul of terror that has come to it through the history of the race". At least that may help explain red-nosed Rudolph's unhappy peer relations.

Turning our attention from Father Christmas himself to characteristics of his young devotees, behaviorists of all persuasions would find little difficulty in explaining why children continue to believe given the very tangible rewards which are assumed to hinge on that behaviour. In contrast Erving Goffman may argue that the children are consciously and deliberately acting out a role in a well rehearsed drama, for their own benefit as well as that of their adult audience. Jean Piaget, and perhaps George Herbert Mead, may have had rather more to say about why those of particular ages seem to be more ardent and unchallenging in their belief. An egocentric outlook on life must surely help children come to terms with the logistics of distributing parcels over the entire globe in under six hours, not excepting those whose parents work for the Post Office. A further contribution could be added from outside the discipline by Karl Marx, who perhaps would have argued that the religious concepts of heaven and hell and eternity are rather too abstract and distant for small children to appreciate. Instead a more palatable opiate to begin the religious training and addiction of the tiny masses could be based on immediate reward for belief in the form of presents.

Finally there is the analysis which has its grounding in social exchange theory. George Homans proposed that all social relationships are based on the balancing of rewards and costs.  At Christmas this process of exchange is starkly revealed in all its glory. Present must be carefully matched in value by present, card must be reciprocated with card. Those who break these conventions risk becoming at best embarrassed, at worst the butt of family jokes for years to come. Young children find themselves in this intricate web of exchange without the necessary social skills, nor indeed the resources, to become active participators. For older children, thank-you letters provide some recompense for distant (sic) relatives but for the illiterate under fives even this option is ruled out. This effectively leaves two alternatives. Either small children can be told that they cannot take part and therefore will not receive presents, or they can be involved as keen observers, learning the ropes without being acknowledged as fully fledged members of the system. They receive presents but as they have nothing to give in return, the individual they receive from has to be far removed from the normal exchange process.

This is where Father Christmas makes his appearance, all the way from the North Pole. He bears gifts but expects nothing in return from the child. (As fully paid up subscribers to the exchange system, parents do not escape quite so easily - they are expected to reciprocate the kindness with a token mince pie and glass of sherry.) So, when the red cloak is pulled aside what is revealed is a bearded philanthrope playing out a crucial role within the minefield of social exchange we call Christmas.

In the future perhaps more psychologists can come forward to help to advance our understanding and interpretation of Father Christmas, but let's face it, if you believe even half of these interpretations then presumably you would believe anything, including flying reindeer. At the end of the day I am left wondering if this isn't one stone that is better left unturned. Or as the blues singer Memphis Slim so deftly put it, "After all is said and done,  Only fools have fun.”  

Adult male bib for BNP members