Six Spectrums of Allyship: A Tool to Reflect on Labour, Capital, Community, Power, Risk, and Safety as Drivers of Attitudes and Approaches

In the last decade, #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and other social justice campaigns have increased awareness of the decades-long work of activists to address the structural exclusion of D/deaf, disabled, and neurodiverse, First Nations, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse, and LGBTIQA+ artists, in the arts industry, and the institutions that train for it. Increased commitment to individual, institutional, and industry-wide allyship is a sign of the success of years of activism. However, it also highlights gaps between rhetoric and day-to-day lived reality in the industry and the institutions that train for it. Strategies, policies, funding programmes, and initiatives notwithstanding, the statistical data suggests that the arts industry has considerable work to do to achieve full inclusivity in representation and industrial relations. In this article, I seek to assist artists and would-be allies in navigating the complex web of personal, social, professional, artistic, and financial motivators that drive different approaches to allyship relationships by examining them in terms of six Spectrums of Allyship. The six spectrums, axes, or motivators of allyship I identify – attitudes to labour, capital, community, power, risk, and safety – are interconnected drivers which, laid over one another, consciously or unconsciously direct would-be allies towards more or less appreciated modes of artist–ally collaboration. Together, these form a tool that can help reflect on why, despite stated commitment to inclusion, it remains difficult for arts workers, the arts industry, and the institutions that train for it, to enact the good allyship that leads to improved education, employment, leadership, and economic opportunities for disabled and otherwise diverse artists.