The Problem with Lived Experience

[Kamaji]

The Problem with Lived Experience

Some lived experiences are selected and elevated over others.

Sarah A. Font / Naomi Schaefer Riley
17 Jul 2023

“The shift among nonprofits and funders towards valuing lived experience has been a journey,” Anna Verghese, executive director of the Audacious Group, told the Chronicle of Philanthropy earlier this spring. Verghese, whose group includes the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, MacKenzie Scott, and the Skoll Foundation, says this shift has been “the result of generations of change makers calling on philanthropy and nonprofits to do better and, more recently, the frank conversations we’re all having.” And they’re putting their money where their mouth is: Audacious announced a $47.5 million grant to a six-year-old nonprofit called “Think of Us,” whose goal is to “break the cycle of incremental and ineffective reform in child welfare, by surfacing the perspectives of those impacted by it—the voice missing from previous designs and reform movements.”

It is obviously a good thing to include people impacted, either positively or negatively, by systems and policies in the policymaking and evaluation process. This approach is increasingly applied in a variety of contexts, and has become particularly popular in the field of child welfare. In addition to private philanthropy, public dollars are also supporting this approach. In a recent request for research  proposals offered by the Administration for Children and Families, applicants are asked to develop an “equity impact statement” that should … include “qualitative input from experts, such as those with lived experience.”

But “lived experience” in child welfare has been solicited and disseminated in ways that distort the conversation and promote policies that ignore data and evidence.

The irony of elevating lived experience is that, while it appears power is devolved to the speaker, power is often held by mysterious ‘Wizard of Oz’ type figures who select ​the people with lived experience to serve on advisory boards, testify to Congress, give media interviews, or otherwise disseminate their story. Individuals and groups with a platform—foundations, journalists, celebrities— are able to select and elevate specific lived experiences in ways your average person cannot. The selection of voices is never viewpoint neutral or without an agenda. The personal story of an individual is used to motivate political or social change and is thus selected based on how much it conforms with the talking points of the person doing the selecting. Advocates who want to reduce congregate care (care provided in group or residential settings) promote stories of abuse in facilities. Anti-abortion advocates share stories of women who regretted their abortions. Those stories are real and heartbreaking, but when and how should they drive social policy?

*  *  *

Source:  https://quillette.com/2023/07/17/the-problem-with-lived-experience/