Be the Rock That Starts the Avalanche for Your Cause with Marion Byrne, Ph.D
//What’s your response to those who are marginalized? What is lost when a culture dehumanizes or disenfranchises certain groups of people? How can you be an advocate that truly lifts up someone else’s voice rather than inadvertently using the vulnerable to pursue your own agenda? Dr. Marion Byrne offers wisdom about how to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced.
Mentioned in this episode:
Give great, effective feedback!
This show is brought to you by the Deep Impact Method free course. Handle problems and present changes with care and influence. Register for the free 30-minute course here.
Transcript
Hey, hey, it’s Andrea. Welcome to the Voice of Influence podcast. Today, I have with me a dear, good friend that has been around for a long time. We were just discussing beforehand how long it’s been, but today, I have with me Dr. Marion Byrne. Can I say that?
Marion Byrne: You can indeed.
Andrea: That’s fantastic! Congratulations on completing your PhD.
Marion Byrne: Why, thank you!
Andrea: And welcome to the podcast. That’s kind of funny.
Marion Byrne: That’s alright. You probably already have a few people asking, “That’s a bit of a strange accent I wonder where that comes from.”
Andrea: Yes, indeed. Well, I certainly wondered when I first met you. We were just talking beforehand that I met Marion… we decided it was almost twenty years ago when we were both at seminary in Chicago, Illinois. And I was just kind of fresh out of college, wandering around wide-eyed, and in comes this bubbly, exuberant, fun, Australian woman. And everything got rocked. My whole paradigm of everything got rocked in the next couple of years. So, it’s really so fun to have you here, Marion.
Marion Byrne: And well, thank you for having me, Andrea. It’s been fantastic seeing how your podcast… well, certainly how you’ve grown, I think, literally from the first time you wrote Unfrozen, and even before writing that, and then how you’ve grown through this and how this has just taken off. So, you know, you’ve done a great job. So well done!
Andrea: Thank you! Thank you! So, Marion, I’ve been wanting to visit with you for a long time, and it’s just finally kind of worked out. And so, you have a lot of degrees, and that was one of the things that first struck me when I met you. You said that you were a lawyer. And I was like, “Wow, you’re a lawyer, and then you’re going to get an MDiv,” – from Master of divinity. That’s a really big degree if you don’t know about it, and she said, “Yeah.” So, Marion, you have a lot of them; tell us what your degrees are? And then I’m really curious, is there a through line or theme that really resonates throughout your education and experience?
Marion Byrne: Oh well, if there was a through line, I think it’s just I love to learn and I love to think so. And I think I’ve hopefully also ruled out doing any more degrees. I’m a little bit over them now that I’m in my fifties. But I’ve studied… I did arts with a English and history major back here in Australia. I did law, then I majored in law, in international law, and then I did my Master of Divinity. And then I’ve more recently spent a good six years, while working full time, doing a PhD in mental health law and human rights.
There’s been a couple of minor diplomas in between, but yeah, I think I might have reached my limit. I think if there’s a through line, I think I’ve seen my studies particularly as more reflective of chapters in a book and chapters of my life. So, there’s not necessarily… from a first glance, you can’t really see a great through theme other than it’s just been building on and progressing in my knowledge and experience.
And as I’ve got older, too, I think I’ve become much more focused. So, I started out very broad-based for many years. But as I’ve aged, I think I have become more determined and more focused, particularly on doing advocacy, and representing the rights and interests of people who are invariably unable to either speak for themselves or disadvantaged or vulnerable.
And so, I think, more than anything else, there’s been a lot of skills that I’ve developed over the years. And that’s drawing together theology, law, arts, and reading, and writing, and literature, and history. And some of the key things that I thought that I’ve learned out of that has been certainly the ability to establish a good argument, a logical progression of thought… or well, relatively logical. I think I’m being fairly logical, particularly through my PhD.
And I think one of the great disciplines about doing a PhD is keeping a strong focus on what the problem is and what you have to address, and not being distracted. Because there’s so much information out there, so much that you can go down the avenue of exploring. And I think that’s a very, very interesting discipline that I’ve learned over the years, which, when I talked through it with my professors when we were doing things, we were just like collegiate friends, really. By the end of it, they were loving what I was writing, I think, just because of the ability to actually discern what the key issues were and not get distracted.
Whereas, they had a lot of younger PhD students who would just get lost in trying to put everything in there and then lose that one through port of thinking. So, I think also the ability then to think about the pros and the cons of both sides because you have to write a good logical argument. You need to address it as good things that come from all sides of camps and around the joint, but then actually making sure that you’re addressing any things you don’t agree from a rational or a logical perspective. Speaking and writing with clarity; I think that’s been the key because we’re not getting lost in the forest because of the trees.
And I think, thematically more than anything else, I think a strong theme that’s come through whether it’s through my law or theology or whatever I’ve done, it’s been the pursuit of justice. And I think, certainly as I’ve gotten older, I felt that develop into much more of a fire, the ability to speak, help others to speak out for themselves or supporting others who need to have their voices heard. So, that’s probably how I’ve progressed over the years.
Andrea: Yeah, you always had a bit of a fire, and it did seem like it was related to justice when I knew you as well. What has fanned that flame for you over the years?
Marion Byrne: What has fanned that flame? To be frank, actually, I think what it fanned very, very early on as I’ve thought about these things is when I was sixteen years old, I went overseas for the first time of my life, and I went to Israel, amongst many other places. And I went to a place called Yad Vashem, which is the Holocaust… it’s a memorial to the Holocaust victims. And it took us a day, I think. It felt like a day, but I can remember not even being able to finish it because I was so harrowed by what I’d actually seen.
And I can still remember piles of shoes, piles of gold teeth, of suitcases, really simple everything day-to-day items that were left there. And I think Yad Vashem really made a huge impact on my life and my thinking over the years. And as I’ve grown older and I’ve seen things happen in life and I’ve looked at, you know, the Rwandan genocide, 1994, and I went, “Why didn’t we respond? Why didn’t we react?” But I’ve also had to look at myself and go, “There’s so much that I haven’t seen, so much I haven’t done,” and rather than condemn myself, I think in many ways, this has been growing awareness that there’s so much I didn’t see, so much I have been blind to. And rather than beat myself up, I suppose, with a stick and say, “Marion, why didn’t you see these things?” I think there’s just been that gradual fire of saying, “Well, so what? What are you gonna do now?”
And I think, for me, in my small part, there’s things that I’ve not been able to speak into – and you can’t do everything – but for my small area, there’s things that I can do. And as I progressed and got older and I worked in the mental health sort of sector for a while, for a brief period of time doing policy, I suddenly realized, for me, there was just such an invisible bunch of people who were locked away on the mental health floors that no one saw, no one knew about. And because they have mental illness, no one really speaks for them and no one really speaks out for them. And they think, “Well, they’ve got mental illness,” and they put them into a box that, “Oh, somebody will sort that out.”
I suppose there’s just been all these things that have culminated over the years of going, “Well, actually, no, I think I need to be able to speak out and need to be able to help these voices be heard because otherwise there are still people who are invisible in the world. And will I stand up and be counted?” Because I don’t want, when I look back on my life, to think, “Marion, there were so many people…” just small things that were put in front of me that I could have responded to and could have spoken out on but I didn’t.
I suppose it’s me… it’s holding myself accountable because I have – going back to that whole idea of the Holocaust – I’ve always wrestled, you know, mentally over the years, “Why is it that some people saw it and didn’t do anything?” And I looked at someone like Oskar Schindler, who was a drunkard, a womanizer, he wasn’t a very good businessman, but he managed to rescue well over a thousand Jews just because he put himself out there because he saw he had to do it. And for me, I want to be that person who… even though I may not do it beautifully, I may not do it perfectly, I may stuff up, I may make mistakes; I wanna try.” And I think that, for me, it’s I want to be counted on the right side of history, not the wrong side.
Andrea: It’s a beautiful answer. So, as you have continued to pursue justice and you ended up going into a PhD program, can you share with us the theme of your thesis or your research? What was it about, and why did you choose that?
Marion Byrne: What I wrote about in my thesis was about measuring compliance of civil mental health laws with the human rights of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That’s a big mouthful, take a breath. Theses are always a long, long topic. But in layman’s terms, it’s basically about how laws that enable somebody who hasn’t committed a crime, who hasn’t done anything wrong… can actually be locked up and forcibly treated for mental illness, and recognizing that person’s right to be supported to make their own treatment decisions. And several of these mental health laws are not necessarily something that many people are familiar with. They affect a smaller proportion of society, but they exist in most societies.
They certainly exist all throughout America. They are in Australia, Canada, Mexico, you know, around the world, all throughout Europe. They’re there, these sorts of laws in different various ways and types. And they also have different nuances in various different ways. But you’ve got some generally central things, is that you can take somebody out of their life that they’re in and forcibly treat them.
And I think some of the key factors that… There were three key elements, I think, for me or three key factors that drove me into going, “I want to do this research,” and kept me going the whole way along. Because, I think, to do a PhD, to do an extended research, you need to be pretty passionate and you need to be passionate right to the bitter end. And it is a slightly bitter end at the end, because you just keep on writing, and going, “I must get this finished.”
But I think it started when, about ten years ago, I was working in the Queensland Government here in Australia in the mental health sector. And I worked for a short period of time just helping out on a mental health line. And there were people who were ringing in who were actually locked up under these laws in the mental health services. Again, that was one of those moments of where I just went, “Why have I not seen this before?” And I realized how invisible these people were and how powerless they were, because they were up against a system. They were locked away, and they weren’t allowed out until they’d accepted their treatment and until they’d actually got a little bit better.
But they would ring up on these lines, and they would be so helpless, and there was nothing I could do because, under the law, there was every right to lock them up if someone suspected of having a mental illness and of being at risk to either themselves or others.
Andrea: When you say mental illness, like to what degree? What kind of situation are we talking about here?
Marion Byrne: It seems to be such a range. So, it’s a mental illness, but it’s generally defined, you have to have a mental illness to be locked up under these sorts of laws. But that is a definition that fits under the DSM-5, which is a term coined and established pretty much by psychiatrists in many ways. And so, there’s a vast number of things that can fit into that, but then also, it’s whether you’re at a risk to yourself or risk to others. And it’s very hard to determine if you’re at a risk to yourself or risk to others. And that’s not even, “I have committed suicide.” It could be even, “Well, we just think that you’re deteriorating.”
And we used to have something in Queensland law – it changed only in 2016 – you refused them unreasonably to accept a psychiatrist’s recommendation for treatment. And so, you know, there’s such a variety of things that go in these laws and they are changing a great deal. So, there’s a lot of room to really think about… And plus, you know, you’ve got someone who’s been dragged in… and this is another factor that appalls me I’ll just recount to you a story of someone. And I’d been thinking about doing a PhD and thinking about doing some research, and I had done some small amount of research on the side.
And I came across this person in my own community. And they looked very rough. They didn’t look like me. I don’t look too rough, but they had tattoos all over their face. You know, they came from a less educated side of the track. Beautiful person, loveliest person, you know… I just love them. But they just looked rough, and they weren’t educated, and they had previously had a prison record because they’ve been implicated in a gun-related robbery. They actually hadn’t committed the crime, but because they wouldn’t rat out their mates or you know, sort of say who was guilty, they’d taken the fall basically. And then they’d also recently been converted as a Christian, and so, they were talking about things in a super spiritual way.
They weren’t very good at articulating, and it came across a little bit odd to somebody who might not be of a spiritual persuasion. And all of these things, combined with a vengeful family member who then said, “This person is a danger to their family, and they’ve got a mental illness so they should be taken in.” And this is prior to the laws, which have recently changed in the last few years in Queensland. But they were dragged out of the home in front of their children by the police into a mental health service.
The mental health service said that they had a mental illness, you know. The psychiatrists that they had a mental illness under these laws. They’re forcibly trying to treat them. They didn’t believe that this person had a business which they were running. And it wasn’t until six weeks later when they were allowed by the tribunal which oversees them, which didn’t believe them either… that they had a business. They were able to get the paperwork and say, “Look, I have got this business. I have been running it.” They went, “Oh, I guess then maybe you might be telling the truth.”
Andrea: Six weeks?
Marion Byrne: Yeah, six weeks, and that’s the standard. You can be locked up indefinitely for such a long period of time. It’s not a short couple of days. We’re talking four to six to eight, you know… a long period of time. Under one of these laws, they can also be forcibly treated with… I’ll call it shock therapy because that’s what people mostly understand it. We term it “electroconvulsive therapy” or something like that here in Australia. And that again, it’s that whole forcible treatment that, you know, was another factor.
And this person, the part that got me the most was that they were so ashamed of what had happened to them. They were so traumatized by the experience and so ashamed, they didn’t want to even go in and explore their own records. Because I offered to go in to help them to try and get the records, and see what had gone on to actually make a complaint against the system for having done this. But there was too much stigma that went into that person and their life and the trauma they’d gone through.
And I think I was one of the first people they’d really disclose to, and I was a bit of a stranger. But because I was obviously interested in this area, and for some reason, I think I’d spoken about it when I was preaching, that they’d talked to me about this. And it broke my heart, and I tell you what, this story was one of the elements of what fired me to keep going on because this should not happen. It shouldn’t happen to anyone. And you know, it just made me so sad. And I think the other reason why I did my PhD is because I think the other side of working in government and writing policy and writing legislation – and I’m about to leave government for a while, which is great – but I think when I was doing that work, I also looked and realized it’s so reactive.
Policy workers, the little government workers behind the scenes, don’t have time, they don’t think deeply about the questions and the issues. They pull in lots of information and then write laws. And there’s always a time pressure, a political pressure, and a social pressure. There’s usually some sort of reason why it’s being forced through. And you don’t necessarily get the best results because you haven’t thought through deeply, in a considered way the pros and the cons, the best way of doing things, researched what’s going on in other sectors.
And so, for me, I knew that if I wanted to be better at my job and better at doing policy in many ways, I needed to go and just spend time on my own and just do it myself. So that was another big factor why I went in to do a PhD. So, I think some of those factors were, you know… it’s that I want to do a better job. And I want to be a better advocate for quality policy and legislative reform in the long term. So, those were some of the factors that really led me to doing my PhD. So, it’s a little bit long way around.
Andrea: Is there anything that really stands out to you as some sort of lesson that you learned or methodology that you decided on, or something that you go back to on a regular basis about, “This is how I’m going to approach it here in the future because of the research that I’ve done?”
Marion Byrne: I think in doing any sort of research or any sort of advocacy, doing things better or even just doing anything like that, I think it needs to be methodical and thought out and structured. The lovely thing about the discipline of a PhD is it is disciplined. You, at the beginning, set out where you’re going, where you want to be at the end. Even though, you know, you think you’re starting it… my very first idea was writing a model mental health legislation, and it morphed into a compliance model instead.
But it’s been quite clear and structured. And so, if I’m doing anything where I’m sort of advocating for others, I definitely have a method or methodology. So, in my advocacy, certainly in the work that I do because advocacy is not aimless. It’s like having a strong quality of bow and arrow where, you know, it’s equipped for purpose – so it’s a good quality – and you’ve got a clear target to aim for.
So, I think one of the great things about doing something like a PhD is you go, “Oh, what’s the research problem?” And you really spend a lot of time drilling down into, “What’s the research problem? What are the issues that you’re trying to really solve?” And I think that is one of the key elements of good advocacy is being very clear about what the problem is. “What is the underlying issue I’m trying to address? What are the root causes of the issue?” And second, “What’s the evidence?”
So, is there evidence to support the problem? Is there evidence for the solution? And evidence may not be evidence I necessarily like, but you need to address all those factors because my voice is not the only voice. There’s a lot of thinking and research out there, and then a lot of other voices to take into consideration. And sometimes somebody may come from a completely opposing point of view.
So, one of the great things about doing my PhD was I was writing in an area where it’s quite controversial. And I went to a conference, and then they very nicely sort of said I’m part of the article 12 camp. And I went, “That’s okay. It’s not a bad place to be,” article 12 of the United Nations Convention. Whereas there was another bunch of people who are far more… I suppose they were conservative in their approach, and they had other solutions. And I think, some very, very valid concerns about how you would actually… for someone who was floridly psychotic how do you help to support them for treatment.
And I think that is an issue that we still need to wrestle through, but for me, I’d rather not just say, “Well, we just treat them.” I think we need to say then, “How do you support someone or even get before they’re floridly psychotic to help them and support them to make decisions?” So, the more that you wrestle with people that come from opposing points of views, the more that you look at evidence, I think you get a better solution in the long-term.
And then the third thing for me was, it’s not just about the problem. It’s not just about the evidence. You’ve got to have a long-term view of what’s the outcome that you want. And for me, it’s like a good program logic. It’s in that sense of, “Okay, what are my short-term outcomes that I’m looking for? What are my medium-terms, but what are my long-term outcomes?” And in particular, what are the system changes? Because you might be doing [it for an] individual you’re thinking of, and what are the changes you might want for them.
But generally, you want to see a systemic change because you want to see this change for other people, not just for one person. So, that I think is key, and then, “How is it going to happen?” I think it’s great having the ideas, looking at the outcomes, but I think it also needs to have that practical element, as I said just earlier, of, “What do you do with that floridly psychotic person? You know, how do you implement that in those circumstances?” And they’re not easy. They’re not, and I think there’s a lot of questions and a lot of things we need to constantly wrestle with. I don’t want to give up on my principle. So, how do we really work hard to get those principles to work in the difficult and tough cases?
So, for me, it’s not just about saying what the outcomes are, but then how is that implemented in the long-term? Because I think, for policy, for advocacy, for anything, you might get a short-term win. You think, “Yes! We have changed the law,” or whatever else. Or “We’ve changed that policy. We’ve changed the outcomes,” but the implementation is quite often forgotten about as a key factor of how you actually get good outcomes because it needs to be then followed through and turned into reality. And that often takes a thinking change, a culture change. And that is a long-term process, and much tougher, and much harder. So, those are some of the things that I think about.
Andrea: Oh, so true. Yeah. So many good things there. And I think about this sort of thing, in particular, the idea of people with different opinions, different points of view, coming together to collaborate to solve a problem. In the work that you’ve done and the research that you’ve done, do you have any suggestions for people who want to have a productive conversation with somebody that has a different opinion than themselves?
Marion Byrne: Oh, I think, for me, as I was reflecting on all of these issues earlier, one of the things that concerns me a lot in life is the influence of the mob, the influence of the insidious mob. Because I literally drew myself up a table of, “What is the difference between what is good dialogue and mob dialogue?” And a mob mentality is, for me, something that is autocratic. It polarizes debate. “You’re either with me, or you’re against me. There’s no other way.”
And it got this kind of a visceral vilification of somebody that can come up against you and oppose you. It’s, you know, that mob reaction. It’s reactive. It literally is. It’s bent on destruction, bringing someone down or something down. It’s not strategic. It’s kind of chaotic. It’s got short-term gains, and a lot of time, it’s a power play. It’s violent, virulent. It’s bullying. It wants to silence the opposition and silence dissenting voices.
And ultimately, for me, I fear it in some ways or I worry about it because I think it leads to, in society, a destruction of our democratic values. And I do value my democratic values, the ability to wrestle with people I just don’t necessarily either like or agree with. And I think it also undermines the rule of law. And it also means then that people who are silenced just go underground, and then they get angry because they’re not being heard.
So, for me in many ways, that’s what we don’t want to be like. And I don’t want to be like someone that feeds into that mob mentality of silencing another person. And because of that, I’ve really had to work hard – and I do have to work hard because I’m not the most patient of people – on what is, you know, good advocacy and dialogue.
And dialoguing with people that you really might disagree with takes patience. It takes perseverance. And it takes a personal and ethical commitment yourself to say, “I’m gonna keep on going. I’m gonna keep on engaging with these people.” Because one of the things about policy is it’s driven by government. It’s driven by change. It’s political half the time. You go forward two steps, back five, forward a couple more, around in circles, backwards, forwards.
And particularly in social policy, it’s a struggle because you’re always trying to solve something that is genuinely really tough to solve, and it’s a societal holistic. There are so many factors that go into it. So, for me, I want dialogue to be a critical element, to engage with other people on the subject, and bite my tongue and listen. And I think some of the people that I’ve respected the most – and I think they’re people particularly in theology that I’ve read over the years – are those who listen to other people.
And I’ve loved the way that they write because they put out a perspective, which is to hear the other person first and say, “I’m hearing this from you. This is what you’re saying. This is where you’re coming from, and this is the reason why I don’t agree with you, and this is the perspective on why I think this would work.”
And I think that’s where Miroslav Volf talks about the idea of “the other.” And I don’t do it well. I don’t do it perfectly. I stuff up, but I keep coming back wanting to do better. And I think that’s about being responsive, not reactive. It’s thoughtful engagement. And even if engagement is challenging and even if the other side doesn’t listen… which is why I think generally peaceful civil disobedience and boycotts are actually, if I’m thinking from a bigger picture, are a good thing because I say, “Well, we’re persevering. We’re hearing you, but you’re not hearing us. But we’re going to do it in a peaceful, thoughtful, responsive, strategic way.”
And it’s focused on building a better society, not at the cost of destroying others or silencing others. So, it lets other voices be heard, and that way if you’re letting other people be heard, you have less people then going underground being reactive. And I think you end up with a less polarized society. But it’s not easy. It’s not perfect. But ultimately, that is… if we believe in what is a democratic society, democracy means that bringing together of the different points of views, and wrestling through and getting the best outcome. Sometimes the other perspective wins, but if you’re strategic and smart in your advocacy, you work out how to use the best of the system and transform it.
So, I am always looking for the weaknesses and all the little flaws to actually then use that as an argument to build upon to strengthen my argument. And so for me, for example in policy or in systemic advocacy, I will look for my opening and think, “Ah, that’s where the opening is. They may not agree with this position at the moment, but I’m gonna hold them accountable to that and hold them to the logical conclusion of what that could mean, which supports my advocacy.”
So, I think there’s places certainly for things like civil disobedience. I’m just looking at Myanmar at the moment. Look at Hong Kong – I’m just going to use them because they’re outside of America. They’re outside of Australia. We’re not getting too engaged in our own political situations. But I think there’s people who are standing up – civil disobedience – for right reasons and for good reasons.
So, there’s certainly time for that. But I do fear the mob, and the growing and insidious voice of the mob that silences people, particularly through social media. And it’s faceless, and it’s anonymous quite often, and that will be destructive in the long-term to our societies and to democracy. Because we will just end up with a tyranny of the loudest. So, I think there’s some of the things. That might be a bit off track, but they are just some of the things that I’ve been thinking about of late.
Andrea: “The tyranny of the loudest.” Hmm. Is there room for compromise? How do you know when there’s room for compromise?
Marion Byrne: I think there has to be room for us to compromise on some things, and then for other things, no. So, it depends on your circumstance.
Andrea: Yeah, I think compromise is tricky because – whether it’s a theological issue, whether it is a political issue, it’s an ideological issue of some kind – a lot of times we believe that we are a stronger person or a stronger person for our issue. We’ll say a stronger Christian. “If I stand firm, if I do not give…” And I struggle with trying to figure out how you can possibly even exist in the world that isn’t going to be perfect knowing that… you know, there’s these things that I really care about, but if I really care about things on many different sides or in many different issues, it can be difficult to know. I mean, if you’re going to have a real productive conversation with somebody about solving a particular issue, you might have to end up giving on another issue, and that’s a tough thing to do.
Marion Byrne: I think it depends on what you’re asked to compromise. I think for me, if I’m asked to compromise my character, that’s a no. I would lose my job over that rather than compromise my character. A lot of the time, it’s my job that’s probably on the line, or my beliefs, my center of faith, and principles. So, there have been times that I’ve gone, “I really hope they don’t ask me to do any sort of work on these things.” And I think there’s certain areas that I don’t go into because it would just distract. And so, I think for some things, I will have a challenge, and I haven’t faced it yet.
But I am very conscious of the fact that one day I may end up by having to lose a job because I am not going to compromise on certain aspects of my faith. And that’s something I think I’ve had to live with. And same as I think that there will be a point in time where – I think with the way that society is going – there may be a point in time where I end up having to face a prison sentence, who knows. Because there are certain things that I will not compromise on, depending how much freedom to speak out about my faith is lost over time.
But for a lot of things, you can compromise in the short-term because you’re still aiming to go for a different change in the long-term. It really depends what you’re asked to compromised, what the issue is. So, it’s being discerning on that. I think, critically, for my faith, for my principles, my personal principles, no. But when I’m trying to advocate for someone else, there’s some things you do compromise, but you’re saying, “Well, this is only just a short-term solution. It is not the long-term.”
And I think that’s the reason why I talk in the terms of what’s a short-term solution, medium-term and long-term, because a lot of things do actually… you can achieve a few things in the short-term, but you also require some major changes for the longer-term. And that’s why, for me, it’s not just a quick… often advocacy and particularly for social policy, it’s not a short-term thing because you are looking at some, you know, quite often dramatic changes in a way that the system operates, or in the way they think, or in the culture, and they’re longer-term outcomes.
And I think that’s a key factor of doing anything in advocacy is you might get some short-term wins, but it’s a long-term haul. It’s a long-term struggle, and you need resilience, and you need persistence. But if it comes down to personal compromise on issues, there are some things that are just not on. And I’ve had that before in the past when I was a young lawyer, and it was something I was asked to do when I was in London, and I just went, “Nope, not doing it. If I have to work in a bar, if I have to work in a shop, whatever. I shall see you later.”
And that’s I think, it comes down to what really is being asked to be compromised about, and that’s a personal, ethical moral decision that you have to make. But you need to be very clear about knowing what your boundaries are, and what you believe, and counting the cost.
Andrea: Mhmm. So, with the advocacy, you’re talking about these short, middle, long-term goals that you are pursuing, knowing that the biggest change is going to be that systemic change in the end that’s going to take a long time. How do you build that resilience? How do you keep that persistence that you’re talking about?
Marion Byrne: Well, it’s keeping your passion alive. I’m very lucky because I think the advocacy work that we do, I don’t generally do it in isolation from the young people or the older people in the past I’ve been helping to represent. So, a lot of the time, it’s a key factor of advocacy and the systemic advocacy that I’ve been involved in and I want to do is making sure that it’s always influenced by the voice of individuals behind it.
So, it’s not just statistics or evidence. It’s not just saying, “This is the best research.” It’s actually hearing the individual’s voice come through as well. So, I love that. And for me, that’s been a key factor of a lot of the work. It’s gradually been growing in a lot of things that I do, but I would love to have that… And I’ve had the privilege, I think, of working with organizations, where I have been able to tap into those voices and putting their stories in there. And for me, when you start to see little things change and turn around, that’s very exciting.
But also, you know, I’ve worked in a sector where you’re dealing with disadvantaged children and adults, and the stories are heartbreaking. So, when you see little wins, you just go, “This is fantastic!” But it’s the many ongoing stories of the bad stuff that still keeps happening, I tell you what, that keeps you going. So, I think the question is not so much, “How do you keep going?” It’s the resilience not to be worn down by it.
I’ve watched some people who’ve been very broken, I think, in many ways by not being able to separate themselves from – particularly, when they’re very exposed to it, and they’re very responsible – the tough stories of abuse, disadvantage. And I think that there’s some of those jobs when you are constantly exposed to it. I have a very nice element. I hear about it, but I’m still removed. Those who deal with it constantly every day dealing with the individual and advocating for the individual, I think, would have a far tougher time and would need to take a break – come in, come out – because I think they end up with vicarious trauma.
And I think I’ve been quite blessed to not… I couldn’t do that because I think that would break my heart every day if I was dealing with it all the time in and out. Some people managed to build better boundaries, but I think I’ve watched how it can really break people who have to see that all the time. So, for me, I keep myself fresh by constantly making sure that I include the stories and the voices of younger people or you know, whatever advocacy I’m actually doing at the time.
But if I was much closer and doing that on an individual basis all the time, constantly hearing their story, for resilience, I think a person would probably need some good people to talk to, some good strategies to maintain boundaries, and their own good mental health, and dealing with that trauma as well as, I think, time out. I’m amazed at people who can stay in those industries and on the front-line day in and day out for year in, year out. They’re remarkable human beings, and I don’t know how they do it.
Andrea: You are someone who has a lot of heart and sensitivity while at the same time having such a logical process of thinking, strategic way of thinking. How do you balance those two things when it comes to going through life and dealing with these hard things like advocacy?
Marion Byrne: It’s probably funny because, actually, emotion catches up with me after the event. I’m actually very fairly good in a crisis. So, for my family, I was always the one that was sent into. My mother who had multiple sclerosis for many years, and I was the advocate. I was the one that always dealt with the hospitals and the crisis for some reason. And I think probably because I could be fairly direct, get to the point, and get the issues out without being utterly distracted by the emotion.
But there were times when it really got me. I think, a few times, I can remember still sort of being very frustrated with conditions which my mother has been cared for in certain circumstances. But I think for me, I always know that that’s who I am, that’s how I work. The emotions catch up with me after the event. And for me, I have my own mental therapy. I think my dogs are my mental therapy, but it’s always making sure that you actually have the time out when you can reflect.
And I’m very keen on having time when I can get away and be by myself. And by myself, it can either be with my dogs or actually hiking. And one of the things I’m certainly looking forward to when our borders open up again is going hiking again in New Zealand in the mountains. And I don’t take anyone else. I just go by myself, and I go hiking for a week because it’s away from the pressures of everybody wanting something from you, or having to answer the telephone, just having the pressures. I don’t have to worry about anybody. No one can contact me.
So, I think for me, I’m good in crisis, and I know that. And I also know that I need my time and space. It’s not all the time, but I’ve developed a sort of more of an introvert of nature over the years where I do have my space, and I do have my own time. Otherwise, I think I would be a very nasty person to be with. I would not be very friendly. I get a little bit agitated, and I’m very annoying. So that, for me, has been a key factor for my own mental health, I think, just to have my own timeout and to build it into my life. So, I’m waiting for the borders.
Andrea: Do you cry? Do you cry? Like, when it catches up with you later, do you cry, or are you able to just kind of work it out? How do you do that?
Marion Byrne: Yeah, do I cry? I think I find it sad. I listen to music a lot, and I think I probably cry vicariously through the music. I do actually spend my time… I will snuggle, I will listen to my dog, and I will just listen to music, and I think somehow there’s some sadness to the music that somehow I think it just speaks to my soul.
Andrea: You feel it.
Marion Byrne: Yeah, I feel it. I probably feel it more than actually crying if that makes any sense. I don’t generally break down and cry, but I do let myself feel mournful, I suppose, and sad by some things. I think you have to because if you don’t, you lose touch with some of the tough things you read about. Otherwise it can make me angry, and that’s when I need to exercise.
So, for me, when I start finding myself getting stressed and angry… Actually, I may not look like I exercise all that much, but I do find that I need to get out there and either walk or exercise. And I live in a beautiful part of the world. I live in a semi-rural kind of area where you can go walk down by the creeks.
And frankly, my dogs have been great therapists. I have three crazy little Jack Russells. And they are extraordinary because a dog just eats in the moment, and they teach you about being in the moment, and I love that. I haven’t quite got to the extent of sniffing trees like they do, but it’s being in the moment and getting out into the world.
And I know when I’m getting stressed and when things are affecting me, and that, for me, is when I know I’ve got to get outside and smell the fresh air and smell the roses and actually, frankly, act like a dog. It sounds a bit bonkers. But it’s just a really simple way of just looking at life through a completely different lens. And that seems to work for me. Different things work for different people, but for me getting outside, fresh air, walking, breathing in life is a good healer.
Andrea: It’s interesting. I do cry. So, it builds up in me the same way where I can stay good in that crisis moment. I get over it, and then it catches up to me. And it’s just sort of like a dam has to break for a little bit so I can cry for a minute, and come back, and go on. Advocacy – there have been times that I know that I have learned a lot about my own self, my own tendency to think that I know what should happen for somebody else.
I guess I worry about myself ending up stepping over somebody instead of actually giving them the voice that they need, that I end up being a voice for them in a way that may not be representative of them. How can somebody be an advocate that truly lifts up somebody else’s voice rather than, you know, kind of using the vulnerable to pursue your own agenda, even though that’s not what you’re trying to do?
Marion Byrne: Now, I think it’s actually a very good question, and I have done a fair bit of individual advocacy. I’ve done it for my mother. I do it for my father who’s aged now. I also have been a power of attorney – which is basically a decision maker for somebody else – for some very challenging people in the community that I’m not related to, barely even know, but they just knew that I would stand up for things. And I have, you know, done that.
That’s been very, very interesting because sometimes it’s really pushed my boundaries, certainly pushed my patience. And by no way am I perfect, so I think that’s what it is. You go into not perfect. But I think I’ve learned the discipline. I think the great thing has been it’s a discipline I’ve learned in doing systemic advocacy, plus the principles that I’ve learned along the way that really helped to inform me because I’ve gone, “Well if I wrote that, I need to live it out.”
And I think that’s the toughest part of being an individual advocate because it’s very nice in doing it in a systemic way – you can write about it. But then you go also, “Okay, live it.” A couple of things here is that you need to have a mental focus that you’re a champion, but you’re not a champion for yourself. You’re not a champion for your own ego. You’re not a champion for deflecting your own inadequacies. You’re a champion for them.
And one of the key things that I’ve always taught my staff or others about doing good systemic advocacy, I’ve said, “Look, it’s like being a ghostwriter. The idea is it’s not my voice that I’m letting be heard.” So when I’m talking to my staff about writing, I said, “It’s about me being invisible. It’s about letting the voice of the other person that I’m representing, letting that be heard.” And quite often, that could be my CEO of my company. What’s their voice? What’s their tone? What are they saying? What is the voice of the people, you know… the clients that we’re trying to actually represent?
So, I think for me, that’s been a great discipline, having to learn that over the years. And so, it’s easier said than done. And one of the greatest challenges is – certainly in our legal system over here and in our work, and in our policy work – there’s a much greater focus on letting the voice of a child be heard, which is actually great because it does actually completely transform the way that we do our child protection system. It completely changes the way that we think about them in policy. So, letting a child’s voice be heard, even though it may be something that we think, “Well, no, that’s not very good, and we don’t want to have that.”
And then if you take that into a circumstance where it’s someone with an intellectual disability or someone who may not be the most rational person in the world, but they have their own idea about how they want things to work, that’s letting their voice be heard. I’ve had the privilege of seeing, in the work that I’ve done – and going to disability conferences, and engaging with a lot of people from a lot of different areas and a lot of different practitioners – is I’ve heard some fantastic accounts, particularly of nonverbal people who’ve been able to get better outcomes for their lives because people have actually listened to them. Not so much [by actually listening] because they haven’t been able to speak, but by watching what they’ve demonstrated.
So, they’ve liked things by saying, you know… they’re not frustrated and angry and throwing things around, because they don’t like something. But they’ve responded really positively to doing certain activities or doing certain things, living in certain places, having certain people work with them. And I think for me, that’s really strengthened my ability to do advocacy on a personal level, because I’ve had to go, “That’s a really great way to do it. That’s really helpful, and I really believe in that. Now, I need to put it into practice.”
So, you know, I think it’s important to recognize that, you know, being a champion doesn’t always mean you need to speak always for someone either. It can also mean equipping that person for what they need to have their voice heard, what they need to take action because helplessness is just as well something that can be learned. Or sometimes, you know, it might mean being the coach behind the scenes, supporting that person to put into action what they’ve actually struggled to do on their own, even if that takes an extraordinary amount of time. And I think that’s one of the key things that I have…
There’s one person I’ve been working with in the community, and everybody… They’re an older person. They’ve got some challenges, decision making challenges, and everyone wants to rush in and do everything for them. And I said, “No, no, no, you’ve got one thing to do, and I’m not gonna do it for you. You can do this.” And so, there was something that took them… and I think I did it at the end of last year and it took, I think, six to eight weeks, finally, just to get them to go to this shop. Well, actually, it isn’t a shop. It’s a government agency to sort some things out, but they did it.
Now, any other time, everybody else has stepped in and done this for this person, and they’re in their seventies, and they finally did for the first time in their life. It’s a woman who has come from a country where she wasn’t really taught to be independent. She has always had other people doing things for her. But she’s on her own. She has come from probably a background of violence in some ways, certainly, I think, psychological violence and probably some domestic violence there and certainly just being taught, “No, no, you’re incompetent. You can’t do it.”
And so, for me, I thought, “You know, even in someone’s seventies, they can still learn that they actually can do these things.” And so, for me, one of the key principles is going… I keep coming back to the UN Convention, that article 12 that I talked about. Because one of the key aspects of decision making right is not only the ability… You hold a right, you have a position. So, I have the right to make my own decisions. I know that, but a key aspect is not just to have that right but to exercise it.
So, if we keep saying, “Yeah, you’ve got that right, but I’m gonna exercise it for you,” you’re not actually helping them to exercise the right or to own their own rights. So that’s been a really big discipline for me to go… even though someone’s slow. They might be getting completely sidetracked. You know, it’s like that movie Up with the dog that speaks with a collar on, you know, and then every now and then it sees a “Squirrel!” Someone may get distracted all the time, may not be able to focus, but if you keep going, you keep supporting them, keep coaching them; they actually can make their own decisions, and they can actually stand up for themselves.
And I think that’s a far better outcome, rather than me saying advocacy is something about me just speaking out for someone. I’m always looking to say, “Okay, that could be the easiest route and the fastest route, but is that the best route for that person?” And I think that’s been one of the great disciplines of having spent so much time dwelling on this article and writing my PhD is going, “Even if that person makes a wrong decision, something I think is wrong, even if it’s not a wise decision, even if I think that, you know, it’s not a very good decision, they’re making a descion.” And they can actually learn.
They might make mistakes, but they’re going to go through a process that we all grew up with as kids learning, “This is how you make decisions. Okay, you make bad decisions. Okay, you have consequences. So, how do we go forward with that?” And I think that’s what we’re always afraid of. We need to wrap people up in cotton wool and always make decisions for them or advocate for them. Whereas, actually, the best thing we can really do is say, “You know what, I’m gonna coach you through this, I’m gonna help you make that decision. This is what you have to do. This is where you go. Now off you go.”
And for some people, you may not get them to the complete end of being very articulate, but you might have helped to nudge them along the line to being more of an advocate for themselves. So that’s a discipline that I keep, I think, within myself whenever I’m thinking about advocacy. And that’s one that I’ve certainly tried to do, and I’m doing it now with a particular person in our community, where I’m going, “I’m not going to make those decisions for you because you are more than capable of doing it, and this is a process that you need to go through.”
And though, you know, we’ll get somewhere, and then we’ve got another six to eight weeks. It might take me tweleve weeks. It might take me three months, but again, the next stage, we will get through. But she will have owned it and she will have done it, and she will have built confidence, even in her seventies. I think it’s an exciting thing that you can keep on learning and keep on making mistakes even at seventies and eighties and nineties.
Andrea: It’s so important because, like, you mentioned the word “owning it.” I mean, I think that’s something that we’ve found in any kind of situation where someone is trying to make some sort of change. They’re giving feedback, they’re trying to change a system within their organization, whatever it might be. When you give other people the opportunity to choose… yes, we lay out the consequences. Like, “This is what would happen if you choose this, and this is what would happen if you choose that. But it’s absolutely your decision.” People can then own it. They own their own voice, and they can own the consequences. And it’s such an important piece of engagement and truly allowing people to be human.
Marion Byrne: Hmm, absolutely, absolutely. And I’ve momentarily forgotten the philosopher that this comes from. I think it’s John Locke, but anyway. It’s the concept of the bridge, and there’s a bridge there that you can cross over. So, the idea is a bridge is broken. It’s risky to walk over. Someone crosses over at their own risk and at their own, you know, peril, but if you’ve done the right thing by wanting them, saying, “Look, here’s the risks. Here’s the dangers. Here’s the problems. If you choose to cross over, so be it. You are informed, and here you go.”
So then he says, “But that doesn’t apply to people who’ve got an intellectual disability, or to children.” But I think we do the same thing with children. And I think the more that we equip children or the more that we help others to say, “What supports do you need to be able to make that good decision?” Because ultimately, even kids make small, you know, little decisions, and they’ve got consequences, and they learn that from a very early age.
And I think that’s something, that how do we help and support people to say… when they need a bit more support than others might because they may not be able to weigh up and toss up those risks that go with it, how do we help them and support them to say, you know… does that mean we walk with them? You know, what are the supports that they need? But I think the danger is we say, “No, no, no, too risky. You just can’t go,” and that doesn’t help them to learn.
I think it’s how do you help people to make good decisions no matter where they’re at in life, and support them to go through and to cross that bridge and to weigh out whether to cross it. And if they need to go, “Well, if you need that, what sort of helps and supports can we put across to walk across that bridge and to make that decision?”
So, I think that’s, for me, a key aspect. I have learned an awful lot about what I want to be like in my life by doing the research that I have. And I think it’s because I’ve gone, “Well, if I really believe that, I need to be saying it is a basic human right for people to be able to make their own decisions but also to be supported where they need to be to make their own decisions.” Because it’s no good that I can just take that right away because you dehumanize someone. As soon as you take that right away, you dehumanize them and say, “Sorry, you’re less than human. You don’t actually have that right. I have that right, but I can take it away.”
And I don’t want that. I want to humanize people. I want to give them every opportunity to be as much of a person and explore as much of what it means for them in whatever state they’re in in life. Whether they’re very young, whether they’re in the middle of their life, whether they’re very old, whether they’ve got disabilities, whatever that is, I think it’s key that we do what we can to help that person to find out what it means to be a human and to make decisions, to exercise their rights, and to speak for themselves.
Andrea: So, thank you for being here. This has been lovely! Truly, truly a joy! You know, I think meeting you, having the opportunity to be around you for a solid year and a half gave me the opportunity to really dive deep into my own thinking and the way that I process things. It was good to be around somebody else that was somewhat similar to that but further down the road. But I think, that in particular, this wrestling with these kinds of issues, and hearing your processing as you’re going through things, and then me being able to process and get your feedback certainly was hugely influential for me. And I’m really grateful, and it’s really fun to reconnect.
Marion Byrne: That’s really lovely, Andrea, and it’s always lovely catching up with you, too! It’s been too long.
Andrea: Yeah. So, the last question I’d like to ask for you is for somebody who wants to have a Voice of Influence – they maybe recognize that, yeah, it is more influential to let other people have a voice, to help other people to their own agency – what last piece of advice that you have for somebody who would like to have a Voice of Influence?
Marion Byrne: Never underestimate the small things. I think one of my heroes is Rosa Parks. And I can remember coming across her years ago and you know, I’d grown up hearing about amongst other people, Martin Luther King. And yet it took me many years to realize how it was Rosa Parks who in her small little, you know, [sitting down] on that bus in Birmingham, Alabama, that she did that…
It was like the little rock that started the avalanche. And that may not appeal to many people, but I think of so many great people behind the scenes. I think of a great spiritual leader that I’ve always respected, and he was an English. It was John Stott. He was a good churchman, a good theologian, a good pastor, and very influential on me. When I referred to the theologian earlier who would actually talk about hearing from another person’s side, he really showed me in his writing, I think in particular, the way that he listened to another person’s perspective.
More than anything else, what I got out of him was his ability to say, “I’m hearing you.” And these are people that were completely opposite to him, but then he said, “I hear your pain and where you’re coming from. But this is my perspective, and this is what I think is a biblical perspective or the perspective that I’m coming from.” And yet, he was only there because of a bloke called Bash who picked him up as a young man, you know, at camps, and taught him the Bible, and mentored him, and trained him.
So, I think it’s in those small things behind the scenes is that you may not be the big person at the front, but never underestimate that it’s the smallest little rock that starts the avalanche. And you may not be the great person that everyone applauds to the end of the show, but you’ve been that little rock that started it. And I think that’s a part in history, you know… and that’s why I love Rosa Parks because, for me, she epitomizes the little rock that started the avalanche.
And there are plenty more of those along the way that you can look at in history if you start, you know, delving into key movements, key things changing. There’s always someone behind the scenes that is doing that. And they don’t always get the great recognition at the end of the day. There’s always somebody else who stands up, you know… might look more powerful, might look more influential, might speak more powerfully, might speak more influentially but it’s having that voice, standing up. And as Rosa Parks, it was, “Meh, nope, not standing up. Not today.”
And I think for me, that’s a very, very powerful thing. It’s the little rock in the avalanche, and not being afraid to stand up because sometimes we need avalanches. And again, it harks back to the very start of what I was talking about is the impact of what started to influence me in the idea of justice and social policy, which is, I think, the Holocaust and having seen Yad Vashem, and those issues have really resounded for me.
Because if you ever want to break me to tears, you make me watch a movie from World War II because I can’t do it. I mean, it just breaks me out. So, actually, that is the one thing that just tears me apart. But I think, you know, that for me is the point that I want to be on that side of history that is in the right place where I start the avalanche because we need an avalanche to stop horrendous things from happening.
You know, there were people in there who did that, but I want to be in a place of history where if there’s something that stands up or there’s an injustice that I see or something that’s going wrong, I just want to do my little part to be able to know that I was on the right side of history when it really counted. So, that would be my words of encouragement.
Andrea: Thank you. Thank you for being a Voice of Influence to me and to our listeners!
END