Meeting for Sufferings: Speaking out
The Speaking Out Group reported back to Meeting for Sufferings
The rapid pace of change in the world of communications, including the development of social media, has prompted Friends to address the subject of ‘speaking out’ on behalf of Quakers in Britain. A Speaking Out Group, composed of three Friends and three members of staff, was set up in July 2012 to look at the issues involved, to discern boundaries, test thinking and to revise and re-draft a policy.
For the past twenty years Friends in Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) have been guided when speaking in public on behalf of Friends by Quaker faith & practice section 3.27 and more detailed policy documents.
Janet Quilley, clerk of the Speaking Out Group, talked to Meeting for Sufferings about the background to the subject and highlighted the main points of a revised policy document.
The policy document aims to define the different ways in which Friends engage with the wider world and to offer guiding principles that are helpful to those who have to speak out at a national and local level.
Friends were reminded of the importance of distinguishing between the different types of statement or comments made by Quakers.
Yearly Meeting Statements arise from a process of discernment by Yearly Meeting in Session or by Meeting for Sufferings. They are primarily addressed to Friends.
Public statements or comments are addressed primarily to the wider world and may be made using the full range of modern media.
Joint statements are those that are signed along with other bodies.
Meeting for Sufferings was asked to accept a draft revised policy document, to be binding on those who speak on behalf of Britain Yearly Meeting, and to commend it to Friends and Meetings.
Janet Quilley spoke of a policy document that addressed ‘structures, frameworks and boundaries’ and, while emphasising the need for clarity, stressed that definition is difficult in a ‘non-credal community’. She also highlighted the increasing use of the internet and the challenges that arise in a world where ‘things move on so quickly’.
It was a question, a Friend said, of ‘putting our trust in those who speak for us’ and that ‘speaking with a confident Quaker voice comes from the authority with which we speak’.
A Friend remarked that it was a ‘brilliant document’ but was concerned on one point. There was an increasing use of the words ‘Quakers in Britain’ in statements from Friends House. She said: ‘What does this mean? We need to know?’ Who, exactly, was the speaker speaking on behalf of when these words were used?
The policy document was praised by a representative as ‘much better than the 2006 equivalent’ and by another as a ‘very thorough piece of work’.
A Friend from the west of England described how he had brought the policy to ten local Quakers. Their reactions to it ranged from ‘hugely enthusiastic’ to the ‘very opposite’. One person said: ‘we need encouragement and plenty of examples. We don’t need bureaucracy!’
A Friend was extremely concerned about the way the term Quaker is being used in the social media. He raised the idea of ‘perception’.
He said that there was nothing in the document on the risk to our ‘reputation’ as a Society when comments are made in the social media using the word Quaker. He commented that the present recording clerk was a great user of social media and used the word almost every day. He explained that he ‘posted’ less frequently but was very careful in his use of the word.
The recording clerk, Paul Parker, agreed that ‘reputational risk’ was a very important concern and that the social media presented challenges for Friends. He said he was very careful, for example, about the ‘likes’ he is endorsing. He also explained that Friends House has a particular ‘voice’ for its Twitter communication and another for its Facebook page. It was important to create ‘different identities’.
He also said that the words ‘Quakers in Britain’ felt ‘like an acceptable shorthand’. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), he explained, ‘is not something we find is terribly convenient.’ He said that they did distinguish when a statement is made on behalf of a committee or a section, such as Quaker Peace & Social Witness.
A member of the Speaking Out Group said that the emphasis had been placed, throughout, on ‘the underlying Quaker principles’. The Group did not want to be prescriptive but to produce a policy where there was strong guidance, a focus on Quaker principles and clarity about authorisation.
The report was welcomed and accepted.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.