The Power of Storytelling and Who Benefits?

Lived experience is increasingly becoming a buzzword and concept, but how is it being used? Has it just become a new and “improved way” of extracting someone’s lived experiences for the benefit of an organisation or is it being used to directly benefit that community and/or people with similar lived experiences? 

Of course this is not black-or-white, but the question of who benefits from the lived experience must be asked to consider the authenticity of the person or organisation requesting a person to relive their experience. Or worse, be “captured” live by a camera crew who have prioritised their own objectives over that of the potential impacts on the individual, family or communities. 

This is something I have seeked to address over the last seven years with my team at Our Race while also conducting a PhD project on racism and storytelling. Many questions arise when we look deeper into how we are using lived experiences to educate audiences, particularly when we question our role in the creation, distribution and ownership of that story. To address this question of whether we should be telling this story is one which is simple, yet complex: Who benefits from the story?

Underneath lies the key question of positionality and one which I continue to grapple with, while obviously for others it is ignored: Am I the right person to be telling this story?

Once we answer this question, we arrive at a point where we should be giving up some level of power, whether we have answered yes or no to this question.

If we answered “yes” and we are not from that community, then my first piece of advice would be to ask that question again and maybe get a second and third opinion from people from that community. If it is still yes, it means you have been entrusted with that story and with that comes a responsibility. A responsibility to ensure you always put the Story Holders at the centre, prioritising cultural and psychological safety, transparency and consent and ensuring the people with the lived experiences, or as we call them Story Holders, are treated as the experts and owners of their stories.

If we answered “no” that is a perfect opportunity to shift our role from the Story Teller to a Story Partner or Caretaker, therefore relinquishing power and adding value.

This all appears very simple and it can be if we are open to changing the status quo and flipping the power dynamics of storytelling. But this is not just about broad representation or a new Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, but shifting power by redefining who controls and owns the story.

As someone who had worked in government and left due to the lack of respect that was shown to people from refugee backgrounds sharing their stories, I thought that there would be more people frustrated with the current advocacy and education model of lived experience storytelling, but I was surprised this was not the case. Instead I was met with responses of denial and silence. Then on one occasion, someone I considered a friend, and a senior person at a large multinational advocacy organisation, hung the phone up on me and then did not respond to my follow up calls or messages. 

This radio silence left my team and I wondering why this was the case and it all became apparent when we had the opposite reaction from people who have had their stories extracted from news stories to research, advocacy promotion to conferences and events and of course in the new age of corporate lived experience storytelling. 

On innumerous occasions, particularly when running workshops and talks, Story Holders have come up to us to thank us for our work as they had lived/are living similar experiences. One of the responses which grabbed me most was from my now good friend and colleague, Dr Sara Cheikh-Husain 🍉 PhD , who said:

“I never saw myself as a Story Holder, but now I know I am.” 

She continued:

“This is why I am always photographed at events and/or asked to speak to my experiences of racism and Islamophobia, rather than be viewed as an expert on these topics even though I have completed a PhD on the topic.” 

White expertise and control continues to hold the key to which stories are shared and how, with most people we have encountered in leadership positions not having thought of asking these questions of power in storytelling. And then when we do ask these questions the majority want to avoid the question of who benefits, particularly when it means examining their policies and processes, including reviewing who controls and owns the story. 

With this lack of will, not capacity (this is the common response I hear for why an organisation does not want to review and update their storytelling practices and processes) from people who have traditionally held the power of telling and owning these stories it has led me to giving up on this work multiple times because it barely pays the bills. 

However on the other side, are the continually growing number of Story Holders and Story Partners who continue to support and advocate for this work. For me, this reaffirms why we need to continue to knock on doors harder and find other strategies so these same well-intentioned people can no longer avoid asking the questions: 

1. Who benefits from the story? 
2. Who gets to tell the story?

A new strategy presented itself almost 12 months ago, when I came upon a newly released documentary, Subject, which asks the same questions specific to documentaries.

Subject is a documentary about documentaries, looking at well-renowned documentary films and series from the perspectives of the “subjects” or as they prefer to call themselves participants. Just like our experience with the work we are doing, it is being met with two polar opposite views, while others sit safely on the fence so as not to question their own position as storytellers.  

The film provides a very compelling argument of why we need to talk about the power of storytelling, not to change hearts and minds, but to question power. At the same time, it challenges the language we are using, the most obvious one being “subject”, while also raising the concept of “conscious consumption”, something Margie Ratliff, producer and participant, discussed in multiple conversations in Australia.

After having the opportunity to preview this film, we decided that this could be the icebreaker needed to encourage and influence Story “Extractors” and “Interpreters” to implement ethical storytelling. And after footing the bill to share this film in several cities across Australia, we have broadened this conversation to explore the key themes of the documentary further. 

It has been interesting to watch this unfold from close quarters, travelling with Margie and getting to know her, hearing her speak on panels, in radio interviews and then to read how the film has been reviewed by others. It feels as if some people are listening but others are only listening to what they want to hear. 

As you could imagine we were conscious not to talk about The Staircase (the documentary crime series later turned into a drama series with Sophie Turner from The Game of Thrones, being paid to play Margie) and we advocated for this with media outlets.

Because why would we? 

Margie's experience was the impetus for why Camilla Hall and Margie started working on Subject. Yet for others, they wanted to continue to talk about The Staircase, with one journalist changing her mind about writing an article on Subject because “without writing about The Staircase there wouldn’t be a story.” 

Then there was another article, a review of sorts, the day before it premiered at the Sydney Film Festival. In this article the person was obviously not really paying attention to the language and main themes of the film as she continued to use the word “subject” when referring to participants, while avoiding the uncomfortable questions about power and race. 

This is by no means surprising, with the film yet to receive distribution rights in the US or France (The Staircase is directed by French director, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade and is celebrated as somewhat of a “masterpiece”), yet finding a home across streaming services across many other parts of the world. 

Yesterday, it was released on DocPlay and this means people across Australia have an opportunity to watch the film and take time to reflect on what it means to you. And although the email I received from DocPlay suggested watching Capturing the Friedmans, another documentary interrogated in Subject, please watch Subject first and listen to the words of Margie about “conscious consumption.” 

For me and the team at Our Race, we are so proud to have been able to tour this film. By combining the film with panel conversations (which have been filmed and will be shared) there is an opportunity for all of us to question our roles in storytelling whether we work with people’s stories and/or are listeners. 

The choice is easy for me, but the challenge is getting more people and organisations involved to genuinely centre lived experiences.

To watch the film, you can watch it on DocPlay. If you haven’t used DocPlay before you can sign up for a 14 day free trial here: https://www.docplay.com/plans

To watch the panel conversations with Margie Ratliff, Nathaniel Andrew , Diana Nguyen Nyugen, Uncle Shane Charles , Dr Sara Cheikh-Husain 🍉 PhD , Glenn Shea , Dung Tran , Edda Hamar 🌏 , Natalie Lingwoodock, Sara Saleh , Madeline Hayman-Reber , Jennifer Johannesen , Colin Kinchela and myself follow us to receive updates.

For those wanting to explore your storytelling practices and processes within your organisation get in touch with the team at Our Race and we will work with you where you are at. It just takes a commitment to improve.