The Dialogues:  One   •  Two  •  Three  •  Four •  Five •  Six  •  Seven

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.

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 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