Who
Cares?
Creative Responses to Social Obligations
—
A
Dialogue Series
Monograph
1
A
Dialogue with Dr. Colin Maloney
March
12, 2001
“Evolution
is a part of life but it is not always easy to determine the good
and the bad in something that is evolving.
How to maintain the old and prepare for the new?
It is not a question of rejecting the past but of letting the
past guide us as to how to live in the future.”
Jean
Vanier
‘Who
Cares?’ is a series of eight dialogues among respected leaders
in British Columbia’s communities about how people care for each
other, particularly those who are vulnerable. Sponsored by Simon
Fraser University and created by a community-based steering
committee, the purpose of the dialogues is to generate creative
responses to our social obligations.
The series has been developed to provide opportunities for
reflection, engagement and action.
It is anticipated that these actions will reflect new ways of
thinking among civic, corporate and community leaders as a result of
a thoughtful dialogue about caring.
This
summary document is the first of a series that will review each of
the ‘Who Cares?’ events. These monographs will document the
process and provide analysis through the identification and
exploration of dominant themes, challenging questions and potential
pathways to action. Other
sources of documentation of ‘Who Cares?’ include CBC’s
‘Ideas,’ The Vancouver Sun and Simon Fraser University’s
Centre for Dialogue web site.
The
design of ‘Who Cares’, its content and process, are based on
three core assumptions:
-
Communities
have the responsibility and the inherent capacity to care.
-
In
spite of good intentions, values and hopes, most efforts to meet
our social obligations have not evolved in ways that reflect or
promote this capacity.
-
A
thoughtful exploration of caring through dialogue and reflection
can lead to the identification and implementation of creative
responses to our social obligations in British Columbia.
The
steering committee invited approximately fifty individuals to
participate in the dialogue series.
The committee did not work with a rigorous set of criteria in
identifying whom to invite. Individual
names were put forward because they were known by members of the
committee to be respected leaders and mentors in their fields of
endeavour. The steering
committee wanted to ensure British Columbia’s diversity was
represented in the group and that individuals from all three sectors
of society (public, private and civic) would be present.
People were invited to attend as individuals, not as
representatives of organizations or sectors to speak on behalf of
others.
The
series began with a four-hour event that had two goals.
The first was to create an opportunity for participants to
meet one another. The
second was to structure the dialogue to promote reflection and
engagement. As
thirty-four group members introduced themselves it was clear some
approach the question of ‘who cares?’ with optimism.
They believe creative examples of meeting our social
obligations already exist and that new answers are waiting to be
discovered. Others are
approaching the question with skepticism.
They reflected that our individual and collective efforts
have not resulted in a more caring society. One member described
himself as a ‘devout optimist.’ This term could be viewed as
reflecting the faith that is required in light of much of our
current experience.
Regardless
of the stated spirit of engagement of the group members, what became
apparent, as the introductions proceeded, is that the group reflects
a wealth of wisdom, energy and commitment.
Many were humbled as the depth and breadth of experience in
the room was revealed. As
the group members stated why participating in ‘Who Cares?’ is
important to them, the themes of personal meaning, intellectual
challenge and the desire to collaborate and co-create emerged.
Many
members have a deep personal connection with the question ‘who
cares?’ They, or
people close to them, are members of communities that are marginalized
and have been the recipients of what one participant described as
society’s ‘institutionalised caring.’
Some
members described the limitations of their own efforts to answer the
challenging issues presented by the question ‘who cares?’
Members expressed their wishes to move beyond political
polarities, reduce their solitude and collaborate with others.
Some spoke of the challenges of caring and of their own
limitations in extending care.
Many
members decided to participate because of the opportunity for deep
reflection on complex issues. Several
came with challenging questions they are hoping participation in the
series will help answer. These
questions include the following:
-
Why
do our good intentions and efforts to care for each other not
lead to successful results?
-
How
can we create responses that result in citizenship versus
clientelism?
-
How
can we maximize human and social capital?
-
What
are the points of intersection between the sectors in responding
to our social obligations?
-
How
do benevolence and systems of caring fit together?
Can policy complement the caring we individually extend?
-
How
do we take good ideas and effective responses to scale without
creating bureaucracies?
-
How
can we care with the pressures of modern society upon us?
The
theme of wanting to work in concert to create change rippled
throughout the group. Some members described the power of
‘constructive conspiracy’ and the potential of mobilizing
collective forces and resources.
Others expressed interest in moving beyond ideas to create
‘a responsibility revolution’ and to contribute to the renewal
and re-building of our communities. Many members see their
participation in ‘Who Cares?’ as having the potential to
generate new insights, ideas and connections that will be directly
applicable to their work.
Dialogue
with Dr. Colin Maloney
Dr.
Colin Maloney is the Chair of the Board of L’Arche International.
He is a recognised theologian, philosopher and self-described
‘cultural explorer.’ His
presentation focused on the exploration of three questions: Who
cares? Is caring
enough? and How can caring be culturally institutionalized?
Who
Cares?
Dr.
Maloney asked the question, do you think that people care?
There was general consensus in the group with the statement
that ‘most people care most of the time.’
Discussion at individual tables led to the following
questions, qualifications and considerations:
-
Most
people do care most of the time but this is not the public
perception or how caring is presented in the media.
-
Caring
is easier when it is mutual or reciprocal.
Do most people care when it is not?
-
Unless
we care for ourselves we cannot care for each other.
-
People
do care but why they care is not clear.
Self-interest, human survival, collective best interest
and human development are all possible theories to explain why
we care.
-
Caring
is intrinsic but it varies culturally and can be unlearned.
-
How
we define caring influences whether indeed most people do care
most of the time.
-
Is
caring a thought, feeling and/or action?
Is
caring enough?
Dr.
Maloney asked the group to consider why our publicly funded systems
of care don’t work even though most of the people who work in them
care. He expressed his
belief that caring is not enough.
His experience at L’Arche has illustrated that unless
individuals are valued and respected, they will not be able to move
forward and grow.
In
exploring the experiences of people who have had successful
encounters with formal systems of care, a lesson has emerged.
The caring they received communicated that they were valued.
We have spent billions of dollars on systems of care that
communicate to those receiving help that they are burdens.
We face challenges in learning to value people in need. Dr. Maloney asked how, for example, can we value those who
cannot contribute intellectually and economically?
Discussion
at individual tables brought forward the following observations:
-
System
is ‘one size fits all.’
Can it be structured in a way that promotes
individuality, innovation and flexibility?
-
If
we had more vibrant and caring communities would we still
require a system of care?
-
Our
systems of care tend to value/emphasise what a person does not
have. In other
words, the more needy a person is the more the system values
them. Some people
have needed to opt out of the system in order to survive.
-
Size
and scale are issues. The bigger the system, the less valuing there is of its
individual stakeholders.
How
can caring be culturally institutionalized?
Dr.
Maloney introduced this challenging question by describing an organization
that had the values, people and resources in place to create a more
caring system. However,
it failed to sustain itself in the long run because of a culture
clash between the funder and the organization.
Dr. Maloney observed it is difficult for an organization to
have a different culture from that which controls it.
He
introduced the concept of a social dividend as a way to measure the
power of caring. Perhaps
if we can measure the transformative power of caring for all
involved, institutional and caring cultures will be able to
communicate.
When
we extend care in a way that values others everyone involved
benefits. Both giver
and receiver grow in a caring interaction.
When people heal and find their voices, communities are
strengthened. When
communities are strengthened society benefits.
Interestingly, the bigger the challenge we face in extending
our care, the bigger the potential social dividend. Dr. Maloney used
the example of the Downtown East Side of Vancouver.
What kind of city Vancouver will be in the future depends
directly on how the Downtown East Side ‘develops.’
The challenge is great but so is the potential social
dividend.
Some
of the group’s reflections on this question included:
-
We
need to know more about the people and places that we are being
asked to care about and invest in. For example in the Downtown Eastside we tend to recognize
only the deficits of the community.
One member challenged the group with the following
questions. What is
so bad about being poor? Why
does everyone have to be middle class?
Does it mean we lack value if we are not?
-
Given
that large corporations work, does size have to be an issue?
Size may not be such an issue in business, because cost
centres provide a kind of organizational glue that holds things
together. The
profit motive sets out a very clear structure for
accountability. The
public system however has dual accountability: funders and the
people it serves. This has resulted in high levels of accountability, in terms
of standards and low levels of accountability, in terms of
delivery.
-
We
expect caring from friends, family and community.
Business relations are based on exchange, not caring.
We need to recognize the contradiction between economic
liberalism (our dominant system of exchange) and democracy (our
system for public decisions regarding care).
-
Do
we need to abandon public social responsibility as a flawed or
misguided attempt at caring for each other or do we need to
re-configure it?
Concluding
Observations/Remarks
The
first event of ‘Who Cares?’ clearly provided the context for the
group to begin its explorations.
Many of the deep challenges silently posed by the series
title began to emerge in the group’s reflections.
The
profound and difficult questions that were raised remain largely
unanswered. They will
continue to be discussed over the next several months.
Back
to Dialogue Introduction
Back
to Actions
|