“The Power Flower,” “Powerline” and “Step Forward, Step Back”

History: The “Power Flower” was invented by Enid Lee (1985) and further developed by members of the Doris Marshall Institute in Toronto (Arnold et al. 1991:87). I learned the Powerline from Eileen Paul of Resourcewomen. “Step Forward, Step Back” exists in many forms and places. The version I use comes from the website “Organizing for Power, Organizing for Change.” [organizingforpower.org/anti-oppression-resources-exercises]. 

Use: These exercises are useful in the Naming  and Reflection components of the popular education process, and work as an introduction to oppression, privilege and intersectionality with both willing and unwilling participants.

Description: The Power Flower is a handout, illustrated below.  Each participant receives a copy. In the centre of the flower, various forms of oppression, such as sex, race, ethnicity, and age, are listed. The inner petals are blank. Participants fill in their own social identity in relation to each form of oppression listed in the centre—are they male or female; white or racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+ or straight; have they suffered from ethnic oppression. In the original exercise, the outer petals are also blank; working together, participants fill in the group they think are dominant in our society in regard to each oppression. If the time for the exercise is short or if you suspect the group will spend all their time arguing about which group is dominant and miss the point of the exercise, the outer petals can be filled in before the flower is photocopied for the participants. 

After the inner and outer petals are filled in, it is helpful to have participants colour in the sections where their inner and outer petals match with one translucent marker or highlighter, the pairs where they do not match with another. This makes the participants’ experiences of oppression and privilege in different parts of their identities stand out vividly. 

The Power Flower

Powerline is an alternative to the “Power Flower.”  Participants are asked to imagine a line drawn down the middle of the floor. One side has power and privilege, the other side is oppressed. As different forms of oppression are called out, people go to one side of the line or the other. For example, when the issue is sex, men go to the privileged side of the line, women to the oppressed side. When we are considering ethnicity, those who have experienced oppression by another ethnic group go to one side, and those who have experienced being in a dominant ethnic group go to the other. There are sometimes people in the middle who have experienced both or neither side of a given form of oppression. 

In “Step Forward, Step Back,” participants begin on the same line drawn across the room. They step forward or back in response to a series of questions. For example, step forward if your family owned their own home, or step back if your family taught you that police are something to be feared. 

The “Power Flower” works best when group members are intellectually oriented and all have literacy skills. The “Power Line”  and “Step Forward, Step Back” are more active, bring laughter and energy into the workshop and avoid the question of who in the group cannot read and write the dominant language. The “Power Flower” provides more room for learning about which groups are dominant in our society; the “Power Line” gives less room for this discussion and is useful when you think a group is likely to spend all of its time debating who is dominant, diverting attention from the primary lesson of the exercise: that is, that we all have experience on both sides of the line. As mentioned above, the discussion of which group is dominant can also be avoided with the “Power Flower” if the inside spaces are already filled out before the flower is copied for the participants. “Step Forward, Step Back” can provide the surprise necessary to begin engaging hostile participants. 

All three exercises give a good starting point from which participants can reflect on their experiences on both sides of the line and the lessons learned on each side that can be useful when one is on the other side. The group can focus their discussion around the questions: “What did you learn from filling out the “Power Flower”/participating in the “Power Line/Step Forward, Step Back?” “What are your experiences in the areas where you are a member of the oppressed group?” “What are your experiences when you are a member of the dominant group?” “When you are on the oppression side, what does it look like; that is, what do people say and do?” “When you are on the dominant side of the line, how do you know when you are receiving privilege from it?” and “What have you learned from your experiences of oppression that could be useful to you when you are the oppressor trying to become an ally?” 

In my experience, these exercises quickly bring out participants’ readiness to learn to be allies. People who are already allies will have no problem with the premise of the exercise, moving quickly into reflection. People with a liberal worldview will argue with the exercise’s structure-based ordering into oppressed and dominant groups. People who are guilty will use the information that surfaces in the exercise to be hard on themselves. Deniers will become angry about sorting themselves into oppressor and oppressed. People in the “bigotry” category will resist the process altogether. Regardless of the response, the exercise serves to introduce the basic concept of structural dominance and oppression and can stimulate a discussion of our different group histories and identities.

A note of caution applies to all three of these exercises. People often have to, or prefer to, keep their identities in some of these categories hidden. Don’t ask participants to step forward or back, or to one side of the line, on issues such as sexual orientation, substance misuse, physical or psychiatric diagnosis or childhood abuse. It works to mention the category as one that has an impact on people’s experience of oppression or dominance and explain why you are not asking people to move in response to the question. I have had people upset because this approach denied them the opportunity to “come out,” but most are grateful and the point is made regardless.

Differences

History: Differences was created by the brilliant Tiagi (Sivasailam Thiagarajan) and is included in Tiagi’s 100 Favourite Games (2006)

Uses: Differences works in the Naming component of a popular education session, and with willing or unwilling participants in any kind of teaching.

Description: In the Differences exercise, participants answer the question “I am a(n)…” ten times, listing their responses on a piece of paper. These are placed on a central table, written side down. Each person picks up someone else’s list and, using a handout of categories such as “age,” activity level,” “gender,” “language,” “profession” and “marital status,” places each response in a category. Together the group gathers information on what category was most common for a first response, what categories were most common overall, which identities are associated with dominant or oppressor groups, were dominant or oppressor identities more common on people’s lists, etc. The exercise provides information for naming the makeup and attitudes of the group and can lead to reflection on membership in oppressed or dominant groups. 

Barnga

History: Barnga is another simulation game developed by Tiagi (25th Anniversary Edition, 2006).

Uses: This is one of my favourite exercises for the Reflection component of a workshop. It is fun and produces an amazing number of insights in just forty-five to ninety minutes. It works with a range of approaches from cross-cultural communication to anti-oppression. Above all, it provides the kind of laughter and surprise that can turn a hostile group of participants around and get them started on the right foot early in a session. 

Description: Barnga, named after a West African town where Tiagi learned a powerful lesson in cross-cultural collaboration, is based on a card tournament. Because the impact of the exercise depends entirely on surprise, if I give it away, your experience will be spoiled should you have the opportunity to take part. I hope you do have this opportunity, but even if you do not and need a dependable exercise for all groups, especially hostile ones, order the game manual. I can only find it on Amazon at the moment. Find it here.  

Oppression/Privilege Reflection

History: This exercise has emerged from various facilitation teams I have been part of.

Use: This form of Oppression/Privilege Reflection, as its name would suggest, is useful in the Reflection component of a session. It can follow The Flower of Power, Powerline or Step Forward, Step Back and works only with willing participants.

Description:. At the beginning of the exercise, people are asked to form small groups of two to six members who experience the same form of oppression. This can be done in an open “marketplace” style, where one person might call out “Who would like to work with me on language oppression?” and another person, or several others join her/him. When the groups are formed, each gathers around a sheet of flipchart paper to answer the question: “I know I am in the presence of _______ (the form of oppression chosen) when …” For example, “I know I am in the presence of body image oppression when someone makes a nasty comment about my dress size.” The group should label their page with a heading at the top and fill in as many indicators of that form of oppression as they can fit on the page. 

When the groups have filled their pages, put them up on the wall with enough room between them to fit in another set of flipchart sheets. Ask each group to share what they have written. If there is time, allow them to expand upon their points and answer clarifying questions from the rest of the group. 

After all the groups have spoken, ask the participants to form new groups, also with two to six people in them, based on shared membership in a dominant group. Again the “marketplace” method can be used. This time, ask the groups to complete the sentence: “What privileges do we get from being ___________?” For example, “What privileges do we get from being white?” 

When they have filled their pages, have them put them on the wall between the pages that are already there. If there is a pair, put them together; for example, if you have a page for oppression based on disability and one for the privileges of being able-bodied, put them side-by-side. Again, ask each group to present their page, expanding and answering clarifying questions if there is time. 

When all the pages have been presented, put up three flipchart pages labelled “Oppression” “Privilege” and “Both.” Ask the group to identify patterns that they see in the sheets on the wall. For example, a pattern under the heading “Oppression” might be “Stigmatization, assumed to be bad and inferior.” A pattern under the heading “Both” might be “Rigid boundaries, no shades of grey.” Under the heading “Privilege,” the participants in a 1996 workshop saw one pattern as: “See yourself more (in the media, etc.) but recognize yourself less!” Take time to discuss them. When there are as many patterns identified as you have time for, ask the question: “What can we learn from our experiences of oppression that helps us become allies when we are in the dominant group?” 

Simulated Reversals 

History: “Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes” was developed for a grade-three class by Iowa teacher Jane Elliot in response to Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968. It has been used by her and many others in different settings all over the world ever since. “Imaginary Journey” comes from Cooper Thompson’s A Guide to Leading Introductory Workshops on Homophobia (1990) One of my favourite simulated reversal exercises is “The Poverty Game” (Monkman et al. 1983). It was developed by a group of low income single mothers in Dawson Creek, B.C. and based on the game Monopoly. Unfortunately, it is not currently available. Until, hopefully, someone decides to re-publish it, there are other poverty simulation exercises on the Internet. I will not link them here because I have not used them, but take a look.

Use: Simulated reversals are exercises that put the participants from a dominant group briefly and partially into the shoes of those who suffer that form of oppression. They belong in the Reflecting on Experience component of the workshop and work equally well with willing and unwilling participants. Unwilling participants will react with anger. Help them see that the injustice they have briefly tasted is the full-time experience of the oppressed group.

Description: Sometimes just listening to members of the oppressed group tell stories about their experience can be a reversal in itself, since it is unusual for members of the oppressor group to listen to the stories of the oppressed. Participants sometimes react with anger and a feeling of being “silenced,” “made powerless” and “forced to listen.” These responses provide an excellent opportunity to help participants understand that these experiences and feelings are common for members of the oppressed group. Listening to stories can also bring out feelings of guilt. It is important to reflect on this response, making clear the distinction between feeling guilty (bad, wrong–a liberal response) and taking responsibility for changing a structural inequality that is not your fault but gives you unfair privileges. 

Other reversals take place in structured simulation exercises. An excellent example is the “Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes” simulation for understanding racism. The Association of Black Social Workers of Nova Scotia has used this exercise effectively in their racism workshops. When participants arrive, they are divided according to eye colour. Brown-eyed people are taken into the meeting room and given a briefing on the next exercise, a quiz on Black history in Nova Scotia. People with lighter eye colours stay in the hallway. They are told to line up against the walls, standing, and refrain from talking to each other. Conversation draws an immediate rebuke from the supervisor of the hallway. 

When the blue-eyed people are allowed into the meeting room, they sit around the edges of the room, behind the brown-eyed people. The Black history quiz begins. The brown-eyed people, already briefed, have the answers and are praised for giving them. A blue-eyed student is occasionally recognized. If the answer is correct, she or he is told: “That’s pretty good for someone with blue eyes.” If the answer is not correct, the hapless person is belittled and told: “What can you expect from blue-eyes?” The effect is very rapid. When I went through the exercise it took me about ten minutes to completely lose my self-confidence and begin making wrong answers even when I knew the correct ones. 

When the issue is poverty, an excellent reversal simulation is the board game and workshop “The Poverty Game” (Monkman et al. 1983). A group of low income single mothers in Dawson Creek, BC developed the game, from their own experience. A group of Halifax Nova Scotia low income single mothers used it as the basis of a one-day poverty workshop they presented to church groups, social services staff and the boards of public housing communities. They played the role of social workers, challenging participants on some bit of money they may have been given or won, insisting they pay it back, pulling them out of the game to inspect their homes for signs of a live-in boyfriend and making them miss turns while waiting to see their worker. Participants were furious. Many insisted, “You’re making this up,” and were shocked when the leadership team told them the stories from their own lives on which they had based their actions. One wealthy man, sitting on a public housing board as his contribution to charity, became so frustrated with his situation in the game that he spent the debriefing session repeating: “There was no way out. I couldn’t find a way out.”

Another way to bring about a reversal is through a well done guided fantasy. An example is “Imaginary Journey.”  Participants are instructed to shut their eyes and are led though a short series of relaxation exercises followed by an imaginary journey through a typical workday in a world where same-sex relationships are the norm. Heterosexuals must hide and lie to preserve their jobs, apartments, loved ones and personal safety. Fantasies can put people deeply into an imaginary experience. They should be led only by a facilitator experienced with the method. 

Any kind of reversal simulation requires plenty of time for reflection afterwards. Debriefing follows the spiral—a mini-spiral within the larger spiral of the overall design. Participants are guided through reflection (What happened? How did you feel about it? etc.), analysis (Why did it happen this way? Who benefitted? Who had power? Who had to live with the results?) and strategy (What can we do about it? Who would be our allies? etc.) 

 Wealth in Canada

Identifying Ideologies

History: This is an exercise created for the Henson College Certificate in Community Development by Jeanne Fay and myself. It can be found, including the materials we used in the files, in Anne Bishop with Jeanne Fay, Grassroots Leaders Building Skills: A Course in Community Leadership (Halifax: Fernwood, 2004).

Uses: This makes an excellent introduction to any session discussing the major ideologies in Canada.

Description:  Tell the class that they are going to prepare presentations for an imaginary government committee studying the causes of and solutions to poverty. Divide them into three groups and give each a folder of research material. One file contains material from a right-wing viewpoint, blaming poverty on the moral degeneration of the poor and advocating a tough, punishment-based approach. The second file represents a liberal point of view, looking at poverty as disadvantage and proposing ways to improve the life of the poor. The third file contains articles about Canada’s wealthiest citizens and corporations, the proportion of the country’s wealth they control, their power and the fact that they pay minimal taxes. Have the three groups make their presentations and then discuss the different points of view they represented.

Analysis Questions

History: One of the basic tools of popular education all over the world.

Uses: In the Analysis component of a workshop, participants are asked to do the hard work of figuring out who benefits, who pays the price, who has power, where are they vulnerable and all the other questions that will round out their understanding of the experience they are reflecting upon. 

Description: Analysis questions are usually worked out in advance by the facilitator or facilitation team and presented on a flipchart or handout. Participants can develop their own questions or add to those already provided by the leaders. Usually the participants are divided into small groups to discuss the questions, reporting back verbally if the reports will not be long. Few exercises can put a group to sleep more quickly than long report-backs. Alternative methods of reporting can involve posting flipchart sheets on the wall or publishing a photocopied “newsletter” while the group is on break or at lunch.

Here is a general set of analysis questions on the power dynamics of oppression and privilege:

What do people in a dominant group gain from oppression? (or white people from racism, men from sexism, straight people from heterosexism, depending on the topic of the workshop) 

What do people in a dominant group lose from oppression? 

What responsibility do people in a dominant group have to end the oppression? What power do people in the dominant group have to end the oppression? 

What do those who suffer from a particular form of oppression need from members of the dominant group?

What do people in the dominant group need from those who suffer from the oppression in order to help end it? 

The Iceberg

History: I developed this particular version of The Iceberg to teach the concept of structural oppression. I have seen others use various forms of it to demonstrate unconscious biases, individual personality and group culture, and other concepts where the larger part of the dynamic is difficult to see.

Use: The purpose of this version of the Iceberg is to communicate the structural nature of oppression.

Description: The Iceberg includes a handout (find it here) but I don’t always use it, or sometimes give it out after the talk or during the next break. This leaves me free to build the talk around the language and illustrations that have emerged during the group’s discussion up to that point.

The Iceberg is a talk, but it must build on questions and discussion designed to bring out participants’ understanding of oppression and privilege. I find it helpful to divide the class into sub groups to discuss questions chosen to solicit a different response from someone  with a liberal worldview than they will from someone with a structural worldview. If the session has a focus on one form of oppression, for example, racism, the questions, of course, will relate to that form of oppression. If the workshop or course is more general in its approach to anti-oppression, I find it more effective to have each sub-group discuss a different form of oppression. One table might discuss ablesim while another discusses heterosexism, for example. Here are my favourite questions:

• What kind of things would make you think “That person’s racist (sexist/heterosexist/etc.)?
• Are you racist (sexist/heterosexist/etc)?
• What is “reverse discrimination”?
• Can racialized people be racist towards white people(women be sexist towards men/etc)?

In response to the first question, participants with a liberal worldview will list aspects of attitude and personal treatment. They will be reluctant to call themselves racist, sexist or any other form of dominant-group discrimination, except perhaps admitting to unintentional offense. They will believe that “reverse discrimination” exists and that the oppressed group can be racist, sexist, etc. toward members of the dominant group. Participants with a structural world view are more likely to name the impact of policy, tradition, language, history, wealth and power in response to the first question, will understand that, as a member of a dominant group, they participate in the oppression whether they intend to or not and will grasp that an historical/structural relationship of dominance can’t be reversed in any timeframe short of many decades or centuries. In my experience, the discussion groups report back almost universally from a liberal point of view.

This discussion, then, provides the basis for drawing the iceberg shape and waterline on a flipchart. I label the section above the water as the “Personal Level,” defined by how people treat one another, and the section below the waterline as the “Structural Level,” defined by wealth, power and status. Then I begin filling in other details as opposites: 

• the personal level is easier to see, the structural level harder; 
• the personal level is accessible to personal experience, the structural level must be figured out through analysis; 
• the personal level assumes that “majority rules”; on the structural level, more often “minority rules,” because a minority hold the institutional wealth, power and status;
• the personal level is individual, the structural level is collective; 
• the personal level takes place in the present, but history made the structural level. Even when the individuals who took the actions and made the decisions that shaped it are long gone, the patterns of wealth, power and status they created continue to impact people’s lives, taking from some and giving to others. I sometimes use the image of a perpetual motion machine. The maker dies, but the mechanism continues operating, doing whatever it was designed to do, with no one’s hand on the controls; 
• intention can play a role at the individual level, it is irrelevant at the structural level;
• the individual level is easier to change than the structural level, because many will change their attitudes, but few will willingly give up wealth, power and status;
• the personal level is reversible, because anyone can treat anyone else badly, no matter who or what they are; the structural level does not reverse except over centuries because, like the perpetual motion machine, it was created to benefit one group at the expense of another and continues operating, even after its original makers pass on;

To illustrate this last point, I often talk about my experience working with Canadian volunteers returning from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The white volunteers would claim that they had experienced racism, because they now knew what it felt like to be the only white person on the bus, or have everyone notice them and remember their mistakes. However, during the two years they were overseas, the eighty percent of the world’s resources consumed by the Northern countries did not suddenly flow back to the South, and if there had been a catastrophe, like an earthquake, the Canadian government would have used its resources, far greater than the resources of the host country, to find them first and get them to safety, or if there was a political disruption that threatened the lives of local people, the Canadian government would get them out as soon as possible. Certain privileges travel with North Americans and Europeans, no matter where we go, because we have citizenship in countries that have inherited the “white” side of colonialism.

Other examples come from the discussion that has already taken place in the workshop. For example, one group, answering the question about reverse discrimination, gave an example of a straight couple insulted in a gay bar. That is bad treatment and would be hurtful to anyone; however, there are probably a hundred other bars they can go to in the city. If the same thing happened to a gay couple, they might not have other options for an evening out. Also, the straight couple would not immediately think of the long history of others like themselves beaten to death for what they are and feel frightened, as any gay or lesbian couple would. 

Another example is a brilliant, concise illustration of the difference between individual and structural equality I have borrowed from Robert Upshaw of the Black Educators Association of Nova Scotia [www.theblackeducators.ca]. He compares Black people achieving legal equality with gaining the right to join a Monopoly Game. When his people arrived on the board, every property was already bought up, with houses and hotels built on them.

When discussing the question “Are you racist/sexist/ etc? ” my favourite illustration uses the fact that I am a white settler and a descendent of people who owned enslaved people. At the personal level, I try my best to be respectful to and supportive of Black and Indigenous people, although there is another factor, which I illustrate just at the waterline of the iceberg, and that is my unconscious and ignorant responses.

At the structural level, however, I have received benefits all my life, not only from the assumptions people automatically make about me because of my white skin, but because of the access to resources, income, education and opportunities that my ancestors received from the citizenship and land they were granted when they came to Canada. I have inherited all those advantages and continue to benefit from them, but whose land was it? What recompense has ever been made for the impoverishment of Indigenous people when that land was taken from them by genocide and given to us? Some of my advantages come also from the unpaid labour of enslaved African people on my ancestors’ farms. Owners of enslaved people were paid reparations when slavery was abolished, but not the enslaved people themselves. At this point I talk about how the phrase “I am racist” may not be totally accurate to describe this permanent, irreversible structural advantage I have, and introduce the phrase “white privilege.”

Returning at some point to the waterline, I talk about how being constantly surrounded by messages about white superiority reinforces my unconscious biases, messages I don’t even notice because they are invisibly encoded into the English language, our legal system, images in the media, the biases in the schooling I received and simply because privilege is invisible. I encourage people to visit the Project Implicit website at Harvard University [implicit.harvard.edu] where they can take tests designed to make their unconscious biases visible. I confess what a humbling experience it was, and continues to be, for me to check my unconscious attitudes out from time to time by taking these tests.

By this point in the talk, most people have grasped the concept of structural oppression and privilege and are depressed. It is time to talk about change. I draw a child’s sun in the upper corner, make a joke about the fact that I am not praising global warming, and begin to talk about “melting the iceberg.” The sun has access to the part of the iceberg that is above the water. Attitudes, stereotypes, language and biases are much easier to change than wealth, power and status. However, as the top layers melt away, the iceberg rises. Elements of the structural inequity that were hidden because they were so “normal” become more visible. For example, when an educational institution adopts an affirmative action admission policy to encourage groups that have not traditionally been able to enter their courses of study, at first the newer groups are simply happy to be there. It is later, when some of the immediate, personal barriers have been overcome, that deeper questions emerge, such as: “Why are we not reflected in the curriculum?”  Why are we assigned stereotyped projects? or “Why, when we have any trouble at the school is it assumed we are poor students until proven otherwise?” At this point, the institution/iceberg must make a decision. Will it continue to change, reaching ever deeper to transform its structures of wealth (resource us), power (governance) and status, or will it halt, choosing not to progress beyond token change, or even reverse direction, choosing a scapegoat to blame and expel, claiming to be changed while protecting the oppression/privilege relations at the structural heart of the organization? I have written about this process in more detail in Becoming an Ally Fourth Edition (2025) and my earlier book, Beyond Token Change (2005).

I sometimes draw a little stick person standing on top of the iceberg and talk about the discouragement I sometimes see among people who have been leading institutional change for many years. “Why are we not making any progress?” they often ask. “When we started out, I thought we’d be finished in ten years, but it just gets harder.” When I hear questions like these, I ask what the battles were when they started out and what they are now. Usually, the early battles were at the personal level, over respectful treatment and sometimes involving open protest when groups not traditionally included in the organization first arrived. Current battles tend to be more structural, over governance, use of resources, changes in policy or deeply entrenched privilege within the organization. Using the iceberg metaphor, it is easy to see that the little person on top cannot see the organization’s progress, because as they work at melting the top layers, the iceberg is rising, bringing ever deeper structural levels to light. They perceive no change, because the distance from their perch to the waterline remains the same.

Discussion about personal and structural change is also an appropriate time to talk about the difference between guilt and responsibility. Guilt is shame over some action that was a choice, something intentional or in our control. Responsibility refers to holding ourselves accountable for a wrong that we inherited from the generations who went before us. A common and relevant quote comes from Jewish scholar Hillel: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?” 

Another point to be made is the difference between liberal and structural notions of accountability for change. If one takes a liberal approach, to do nothing means no responsibility for harm. It is like floating on an air mattress in the middle of a lake. If you don’t paddle, you stand still. You are neutral, not involved. According to a structural approach, the harm is happening regardless, moving forward as a result of historical injustice. It is more like riding an air mattress down a flowing river. If you are not paddling against the current, you are going with it. There is no standing still. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.

The river image is also useful for explaining why there is often conflict between those who take a liberal approach to change and those who take a structural approach. A liberal approach tries to relieve individuals’ suffering. A structural approach looks for root causes. An old story tells of two people walking along a river when they see a young child trying to swim against the current, but being carried relentlessly downstream. They immediately wade in and save the child. Then they spot another child and save him, then another, and another, and another. Finally, one of the people says to the other: “I have to go upstream and see where these children are coming from.”

The other objects: “But if you leave, I won’t be able to save all the children.”

Despite feeling badly about walking away as her friend flounders in and out of the water trying desperately to save every child, the first person leaves and walks upstream. There she finds a wharf reaching out into the current and an adult throwing children into the water. She runs back to convince her friend that they must work together to stop the person on the wharf.

When my task was to teach employees about employment equity policy, I found I could use the Iceberg to help people understand that employment equity, a form of affirmative action, is not “reverse discrimination.” I would explain that other laws and policies such as human rights legislation and anti-harassment policies are about individual’s treatment of one another. They address the part of the iceberg above the waterline and apply to everyone. The purpose of employment equity and affirmative action, on the other hand, is to overcome historical discrimination and achieve structural change in institutions and their distribution of wealth, power and status. When women, racialized people, people with disabilities and other oppressed groups have the same access to wealth, power, status, employment, resources, choices and benefits as members of the historically dominant group, the policy becomes obsolete. 

An example is the “Pandora case,” which came before a Nova Scotia Human Rights Tribunal in 1992. Pandora was a publication by, for and about women. In 1990, the volunteer collective responsible for the magazine refused to publish a letter by a male author. He took the case to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, where it was accepted as a case of discrimination. Pandora based its case on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom’s provision that allows a disadvantaged group to band together to “remedy or alleviate their disadvantage,” a classic definition of affirmative action. A series of expert witnesses testified to women’s lack of access to the media, publishing industry and the field of journalism relative to men. The Tribunal ruled that Pandora’s policy of publishing only the work of women was permissible. By definition, if and when the same kind of challenge might be brought in a time and place where this basic inequity did not exist, the ruling would go the other way. The point of affirmative action, as well as its specific expression in employment equity policies, is not to advantage women over men, but to correct women’s structural disadvantage until a “level playing field” is achieved.

After using it for many years, I know this Iceberg talk is effective. Many participants in workshops and courses, even those who already knew the language of structural oppression, speak during the closing reflection about what a revelation the Iceberg was to them and what a difference it will make in their understanding of equity. 

Dominant Group Lenses Exercise

History: In Becoming an Ally Fourth Edition, I told the story of the development of the Dominant Group Lenses chart and used it to frame the discussion about moving adult education participants from the other lenses to “Understanding the Structural Nature of Oppression,” the lens required to become an ally. I use the chart itself in this exercise. If the session is about anti-oppression work or allies generally, I use the anti-oppression version of the chart. If the discussion is about a specific form of structural oppression, I have specific charts; for example, “White Lenses on Racism.”

Use: In anti-oppression sessions, this exercise is a good one to follow “The Flower of Power.” Once people have identified the forms of oppression where they are members of the dominant group and have had a chance to reflect on that, this one helps them to go a step further and see the lens they use to understand oppression. It is followed by The Iceberg presentation. If the workshop is specific to racism, sexism, this exercise is a safe, anonymous way for participants to reflect on the concepts they use as white people understanding racism, men understanding sexism or straight people understanding heterosexism. Again, it leads into The Iceberg exercise which, in turn, provides a basis for introducing the principles of becoming an ally or discussing their existing work as allies.

Description: Before the group arrives, I tape sheets of paper to a large wall and double them up (if there are several) or turn them to face the wall (if there is just one) so that they can be unveiled as the exercise goes along. I am going to use the anti-racism version as the example. The first section of the wall has a single sheet facing the wall, with the chart heading “Bigotry.” If you feel “bigotry” is too harsh, it can be “Prejudice.” Under that is a series of sheets taped together and folded double and taped up so that it can be revealed during the exercise. The top one says: “NO because they … something about the racialized group.” The following ones each contain a sample statement: “… they should know their place,” “… if they’re not ready to adapt to our ways, they should just go home,” “… some cultures don’t value education and jobs the way we do.”

In the next section of wall, there is another single sheet at the top, turned to face the wall, and another taped-together series of sheets folded up and taped to hide the contents. The top sheet is labelled: “Denial.” The sheets below say: “NO because … something about racism.” “… that was a long time ago,” “ … it’s all a matter of personal perspective,” “… my Black friend says he doesn’t experience it.”

On the next section of wall, the top sheet says: “Individual/personal lens,” followed by: “NO because … a personal characteristic,” “… I was raised to see everyone as equal,” “… I don’t see race,” “… I’ve never hurt anyone because of what they are,” “… I have New Canadian family/friends.”

The next section is “Tolerance.” The sheets below say: “YES/NO because … personal dislike or discomfort but belief in equity,” “… I find them loud and pushy but they have the same right to our services as anyone else,” “… Canada is based on British traditions but if we don’t diversify, we’ll stagnate,” “… I miss Christmas celebrations but everyone deserves to have their festivals recognized.”

Next comes “Guilt,” followed by: “YES because … I feel badly,” “… white people have done some bad things to others and I want to make it right,” “ … I feel badly about being white.”

Next is “Humility,” followed by: “YES because … I have unconscious attitudes,” “I know I have a lot of unconscious attitudes learned over my lifetime.”

And finally, “Structural Lens,” followed by “YES because … it’s a much larger system,” “… we all play a part in the social/political/economic structures designed for exploitation and based partly on race,” “ … I have white privilege.”

The group are given pens or pencils and a pad of sticky notes and asked to answer the question: “Are you racist?/sexist?/heterosexist?” Their answers take the form: “Yes because …” or “No because …” They are assured that no one will know what they write on the notes unless they choose to share it in discussion later. If they have more than one answer, they can use more than one sticky note.

When people have finished writing, I draw their attention to sheets I have taped to the wall. I go along it, pausing at each section to drop down the taped together sheets and read what is on them. The group is then instructed to place their sticky notes on the wall around whatever sheet seems to be the closest to what they put on the sticky note. A pattern appears quickly on the wall, giving an idea not only of the lens the individuals in the room are using to understand racism but, if they are all part of one organization, the collective culture as well.

I then go along the wall again, unveiling the labels at the top. When I reach the final one, I use the Iceberg presentation, described above, to help them understand how the structural lens works. After that, there is time for reflection. How do each of the lenses show up in behaviour and action? Why does ally solidarity require the final two lenses, “humility” and the “structural lens? What is the culture of the organization?

This exercise is obviously aimed at people who are members of a dominant group. If there are just one or two members of the equivalent oppressed group present, they usually join in only when it is time for reflection. I have done the exercise with groups that are completely or almost completely made up of members of the oppressed group, in the case of this example, racialized people. The question for the sticky notes changes to “What kinds of statements do you hear from white people?” After they are placed on the wall and the names of the categories unveiled, the reflection is based on questions like: “How do you respond to each category of statements?” And “What do people who look at racism through each lens need in order to grasp how to be supportive to anti-racism struggles?”

Skills 

Another important aspect of educating allies is building participants’ skills for identifying and responding to oppression. Possible activities include examining our everyday language, identifying the keys to recognizing oppression, developing role-plays of typical situations in different settings, and working with clippings or photographs to develop awareness of oppression. These exercises can be used in the Reflection, Analysis or Stategy parts of the workshop, and only with willing participants. 

In the racism workshop I developed with Valerie Carvery (see the story in Becoming an Ally, Fourth Edition) we used an exercise from Judith Katz, White Awareness to reflect on racism in language. Small groups list all the words or phrases they can think of with “light,” “fair,” or “white” in them; then all they can think of with “dark” or “black” in them. Next they mark which of these have a negative and which a positive connotation. They share their lists and reflect on them. This exercise invariably makes people take a new look at language they have always taken for granted. It can also lead to a discussion of liberal/individual discrimination versus structural oppression. Participants with a liberal worldview will focus on the intent of those using words with an oppressive history, their innocence because they were not aware of the buried meaning. In a structural worldview, the development of language and its subsequent impact on those who use it is structural and unconscious. It is another “perpetual motion machine,” not dependant on any individual’s intension for its effect.

For identifying oppression at work in various settings, we include an exercise from the Doris Marshall Institute’s book, Educating for a Change The exercise is called “When I see, hear, feel.”. In small groups, participants complete the sentences: “When I see … when I hear … when I feel … I know that racism is at work.” 

Working with photographs and clippings can be fun and revealing. It is depressingly easy to collect a portfolio of examples of any form of oppression. You can then make several copies for participants to analyze in small groups and report back. The challenge is to see how many examples they can find in the documents they have been given. 

Strategy and Action

This is my favourite handout for working with a group to develop a strategy for action. It outlines a detailed and time consuming process. If there is less time, the Spiral handout also works well. 

Building a Social Change Strategy 

Closing

Closing exercises need to be short, fun and summarize the experience in some way. For example, ask people to sum up their feelings about the workshop in one sentence or even one word, and then have each say their sentence or word in rap-rhythm, to the accompaniment of everyone clapping their hands and snapping their fingers. 

Another method uses a ball of yarn. One person sums up her or his feelings about the workshop and throws the ball to someone else, holding on to the yarn. The next person says how they feel and throws the ball, again hanging on to the yarn. At the end you have a web of yarn woven back and forth, connecting everyone in the group. Comment on the connections among you, and lay the web carefully on the floor.

Other Sources

There are many, many learning exercises appropriate for use in ally education.  I have contributed exercises to the following collections: 

CUSO Education Department, Basics and Tools: A Collection of Popular Education Resources and Activities (Ottawa: CUSO, 1985/88).

Bishop, Anne, and Valery Carvery, Unlearning Racism: A Workshop Guide to Unlearning Racism (Halifax, NS: OXFAM/Deveric, 1994). 

Bishop, Anne, with Jeanne Fay, Grassroots Leaders Building Skills: A Course in Community Leadership (Halifax NS: Fernwood, 2004).

A few more of my favourite sources are:

Rick Arnold, Bev Burke, Carl James, D’Arcy Martin, and Barb Thomas, Educating for a Change (Toronto: The Doris Marshall Institute for Education and Action and Between the Lines Press, 1991). 

Central Vancouver Multicultural Society Diversity Team.  Diversity Resources.

Ann Curry-Stevens, An Educator’s Guide for Changing the World: Methods, Models and Materials for Anti-oppression and Social Justice Worskhops. (Toronto: Centre for Social Justice, 2003).

Tina Lopes and Barb Thomas, Dancing on Live Embers: Challenging Racism in Organizations (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2006). 

National Campus and Community Radio Association, 2013, Anti-oppression Toolkit: Workshop and Exercise Outlines for Anti-oppression Training at Community Radio Stations.

Organizing for Power, Organizing for Change. Anti-oppression Resources and Exercises .

Sivasailam Thiagarajan, Design Your Own Games and Activities (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2003).

Sivasailam Thiagarajan, Tiagi’s 100 Favourite Games (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2006).

I encourage you to check out other resources in book form and on the Internet, participate yourself in ally education and learn from experienced practitioners what works for them.