dignity, responsibility, subsidiarity

8/3/2019 Dignity, Responsibility, Subsidiarity

1/23

Dignity, Responsibility and Subsidiarity:

Adopting a Personalist Stance Within Impersonal Service Structures

submitted to the CanadianParliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care

by Marc Tumeinski, PhD candidate (Liverpool Hope University)

4 October 2010

Introduction: The devastation of systemic abuse and harmdoing

Abuse and harmdoing against a range of highly vulnerable and societally devalued people,

carried out by human service workers within service settings and structures, is an individual as

well as a systemic plight in our society. Whether in nursing or rest homes, homeless shelters or

foster care, psychiatric programs or group homes, hospitals or rehabilitation programs, so many

of our most vulnerable citizens find themselves in desperate even life-threatening situations,

harmed and often abused by those who should be in their lives to help them, and seemingly

without anyone listening to or speaking up for them. Some of the roots of such harmdoing are

found inside the abuser while others have their origins in the very structures of our service and

social systems; the latter tending to be the most intractable, invisible and multifarious. This paper

will primarily focus on the more systemic problems of abuse directed against vulnerable

individuals and groups.

To abuse is to treat another person with whom one is in relationship in a harmful, injurious or

aggressive way. We do not typically speak of violence committed against a random stranger as

abuse; we typically reserve the word abuse for a situation in which a person in a position of

trust violates someone whom they have some responsibility for. In human services this includes

both paid and voluntary service relationships. While many conditions can lead to abuse in

services, I will briefly describe only three. My purpose is not to exhaustively analyze human

service abuse but rather to set a context for describing the philosophy of personalism, a

Tumeinski/personalist response! 1 of 23


2/23

potentially adaptive response to such systemic human service harmdoing.1 Personalism builds on

the pillars of dignity, responsibility and subsidiarity; concepts which I will describe further in

this paper. I end by offering a group of nine interrelated recommendations derived from

personalism and by describing some of the likely fruits of adopting a personalist stance.

In hopes of giving the reader a sense of the direction and tone I will be taking, let me simply

list theses nine recommendations before further treatment of abuse and of personalism as a valid

response to systemic harmdoing:

develop a sustaining narrative of service

discern advantageous principles and virtues which can sustain a personalist approach

join together with others in providing service

engage in service relevant to ones calling

focus on personal as well as communal formation of servers

provide relevant and potent education and training to servers

broaden the scope of participation in service

foster small, local pilot projects

build in regular opportunities for internal and external evaluation

I will return to and flesh out these recommendations toward the end of this paper.

Three conditions which can lead to systemic human service abuse and harmdoing

A first likely causal factor of service abuse and harmdoing, particularly systemic harm, occurs

when a human service program or system becomes increasingly centralized, standardized,


1 On the attached resource list, see Flynn & Lemay (1999); McKnight (1995); Sobsey (1994); andWolfensberger (1998) for more complete coverage of the concept of service harmdoing.


3/23

formalized and bureaucratized (Shevellar 2008). It is important to recognize that the common

dynamic of organizations is to become larger, more complex and more stratified over time. Signs

of this process within a human service agency or program can include an overabundance of

policies, committees, regulations, organizational layers and so on. It is so easy for individual

service recipients as well as servers to get lost in this bureaucratic thicket. Such dynamics can be

both a cause and a result of non-programmatic factors driving out or overshadowing

programmatic ones.

Programmatic factors are those most directly linked to addressing the real, fundamental and

pressing needs of service recipients, a distinction rooted in a deep understanding of the

fundamental identity of service recipients. By comparison, non-programmatic factors will

certainly affect provision of service but are primarily rooted in the needs and interests of others,

not of service recipients. Some non-programmatic factors include staff pay scale, paperwork and

funding requirements, regulatory issues, union demands, political pressures, and so on.2 Many

(though not all) of these non-programmatic factors can be quite legitimate in and of themselves,

but intrinsic problems arise when they take priority over, limit, interfere with or even drive out

the programmatic factors. A nurse on a ward may have to spend more time filling out required

paperwork than caring for their patient; a case manager may spend more time on the phone and

computer dealing with bureaucratic requirements than getting to know a vulnerable person and

their family.

One predictable result of formalization and bureaucratization in human services is that a non-

programmatic and bureaucratic mindset takes over the time and mind of its employees and


2 The topic of programmatic/non-programmatic is covered extensively in leadership level Social Role

Valorization workshops taught in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Seewww.socialrolevalorization.com for more information on such workshops.
http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/


4/23

volunteers. Support for accessing typical resourcessuch as family, friends, schools, jobs, social

clubs, parishes and synagogues, neighborhoods and communitiesgets pushed out of sight. Use

of common approachessuch as effective teaching, bridge-building among different concerned

parties, offering positive role models, and holding high expectations for the growth and

development of individualsgets driven out of mind (Wilson 2006). Instead, what becomes

paramount are non-programmatic, bureaucratic considerations: doing paperwork; avoiding

liability; following agency procedures; determining who is in control and who makes decisions;

and so on (Kendrick 2002). Such a reversal of priorities often contributes to the condition

described next; indeed, these three conditions which I am describing in this section do often

overlap and become mutually reinforcing.

A second causal factor of systemic abuse and harmdoing occurs when a human service

program or system takes precedence over the people served, over the service workers, or over

both. The program becomes more important than people. We might picture a large bureaucratic

organization, as mentioned above, although smaller, less-bureaucratic services and systems can

also take precedence over people. This can be thought of as the de-personalization of the

system or organization.

The program or system can take precedence over the needs, interests, abilities, relationships

and well-being of the people served and also of their families, a particularly relevant point for

vulnerable children, teens and young adults in services. For example, an agencys financial

concerns can outweigh what is in the best interest of the service recipients.

The smooth functioning of the service system or program can also take precedence over the

abilities, ideas, strengths and relationships of the service workers. So often, service workers are



5/23

given the message that they should not get too emotionally close to the people served, as this is

against agency policy. Overall, a de-personalized program or system can become a wedge

driven between people: (a) between the people served and service workers; (b) between co-

workers; and (c) between the people served and typical citizens (McKnight 1995).

A third causal factor (which can also grow out of the first) contributing to systemic human

service abuse is likely to develop when direction and mandates are imposed on service workers

from above. Human service leaders, managers, administrators and directors are certainly

expected to, and should, set a vision and direction for programs and systems. Yet it becomes

problematic when that direction is imposed without room for personal responsibility or

accountability on the part of those carrying it out. The second-shift nursing home attendant who

spends the most time with an elderly resident may develop a good sense of what that elder needs,

but be hamstrung by rules set by someone who has never met Ms. Grondin or sat by the bedside

of Mr. McManiman.

Often and over time, any personal agency3

on the part of individuals, even at high

organizational levels, is weakened. This can be troublesome whether the imposed vision is itself

good or bad, because imposition tends to diminish personal agency and can lessen the long-term

safeguarding of relevant and effective service approaches. If staff do something right largely

because they are following the rules without understanding or being committed to the underlying

rationale, they are more likely to notfollow the rules if they think no one is watching or that they

will not be found out. Such a dynamic is often exemplified by a topdown, one-way

communication style.


3 Personal agency refers to the more or less conscious, intentional exertion of will, and therefore to theassumption of responsibility for ones individual acts.


6/23

In this third problematic contributor to service abuse and harmdoing, program priorities and

responsibilities get set by service managers or system administrators who are often far removed

physically and/or socially from the devalued person and his or her situation. This imposition can

occur through several layers of staff in a large hierarchical organization or when government

directives and policies filter down to smaller organizations, even those which are less

hierarchically-structured.

Systemic patterns of service abuse

These three developments (and others) can open the door to service abuse and harmdoing in

myriad ways which have multiple implications and nuances.

First, these developments can take away from a sense of relationship, interpersonal

identification (Wolfensberger 1998) and personal involvement between the people served and

service workers. When the preconditions described above exist, concerned service workers are

much more likely to find themselves physically, emotionally or socially separated from the

people served. This separation often develops to the point where service workers feel that they

have nothing in common with the people served, not even a shared humanity. A sense of

responsibility for one another is therefore damaged or lost. Service workers may find themselves

thinking I know this is wrong, but its out of my hands ... its not my job ... what can I do?

When relationship, identification and personal responsibility are lacking, this likely leads to

apathy, neglect or outright abuse on the part of at least some service workers. When a service

worker becomes just a slot on an organizational chart working on a depersonalized service

recipient, or when they do not see service clients as fellow human beings, then it becomes easier



7/23

to treat service recipients abusively, even if those doing so have become less aware of exactly

what they are engaged in.4

Second, as a result of the developments described above, societally devalued people often

become so physically and socially isolated as to be hidden in plain sight within human service

systems. They are not known in meaningful, positive ways by those in their particular locale.

Many devalued people are served in publically-funded programs in the midst of typical

communities, and yet rarely see, or are seen by, typical citizens in typical places or in typical

social situations during typical timeframes. How can we get to know someone who is in a

wheelchair or has an intellectual impairment, for example, if they are not students in our

neighborhood schools, do not eat at the corner coffee shop, are not employed, never do a

workout at the local gym, or are not members of our synagogue or church? This negative reality

is consistently described in evaluations and surveys of human service programs for many

different groups of devalued people (e.g., Flynn and Aubry 1999).

Socially devalued people are commonly made and kept disconnected from community

members by the actions of their very own services (Barken 2010). Almost all significant aspects

of their lives get transacted within the confines of human service programs, agencies and

systems. Such isolation is a reliable predictor of abuse. Harmful and abusive practices get carried

out without anyone or very few seeing the negative consequences or the whole picture. This

isolation and invisibility is a true vulnerability for people with low social status. Such social

invisibility can also result from the coverup and deception which is inextricably linked with

violence, abuse and harmdoing (Gilligan 1996). This last point concerning the often unconscious


4 See Wolfensberger (1998) for a more thorough discussion of the common human service phenomenonof unconsciousness surrounding the fundamental dynamics of social devaluation.


8/23

coupling between deception and violence is profound, and bears further studying in light of

several contemporary human service practices.

Third, the developments described above can cause service workers to become overwhelmed

and frustrated. They may feel constrained by rules and regulations, and feel as if they are not able

to accomplish anything positive or to see any positive fruit of their efforts. Such frustration can

get taken out on essentially powerless service recipients, even by good service workers, often

unintentionally or unconsciously. Ironically, frustration does not often get taken out in any real

way on those in leadership or management positionsthose who are responsible for the rules and

regulationssince they have power and status which devalued people clearly do not have. Such

(unconscious) acting out of frustration can become abusive when directed at service recipients.

Human beings are always tempted to vent anger and frustration on the weak or on other

scapegoats.5

This critique of programs and systems is not meant to suggest that individual people are

perfect, or that individuals would never cause or carry out abuse unless or until they were

working in human service organizations. Yet individualservice workers are persons who can at

least grow, think, change, take responsibility and make moral decisions. Organizations by

definition cannot do these things.6


5 See Allport (1979) for more on stereotyping and scapegoating.

6 Particularly in light of contemporary ideas such as learning organizations, I find this to be a helpfuldistinction. Organizations quaorganizations do not think or learn or have the power of reason; human

beings do. Individual people can think and learn; communalities of persons can learn and think together;but organizations in the strictest sense do not. If we speak of learning organizations for example, I believethat we are more accurately speaking of persons individually and communally who are learning within an

organizational context. This is not a mere difference of language; one implication is that we wouldfundamentally focus our efforts to address service abuse at people first, not at new rules and regulations.


9/23

These and other systemic patterns of devaluation and harmdoing are notoriously intractable,

in part because they are so often invisible, so part of the way things are, that we do not even

recognize their existence, let alone see them as problematic or try to do something about them.

The real patterns of social devaluation, rooted in the negative perception and negative treatment

of certain groups of people, set up barriers which are not easily identified or addressed. Negative

stereotypes and negative perceptions (fueled for example by human instinct, societal values,

media influences, physical and social environments, education, social pressures, etc.) are

notoriously difficult to change. Historical momentum, reams of regulations and complex funding

arrangements can freeze these patterns of abuse into virtual icebergs, immovable and largely

hidden under the surface.

Personalism: Who am I in the life of each person I serve?

A classic human service dilemma is for human service workers to find themselves wanting to do

good, but working in a program or system that has some or all of the characteristics of

separation, isolation, depersonalisation and frustration described above. This is an extremely

difficult position to be in, and quite often causes service workers to feel great anguish. In this

situation, what are we to do, or more to the point, who are we to be?

A person in such a situation may engage in eithermore orless valid and adaptive responses.

A troublesome first response from many people, including service workers, is to look outside

oneself for the answer: its someone elses fault ... someone else must change ... this other

person should do something ... if only a new law were passed, or a better policy written ...



10/23

Another common problematic response is for a service worker to themselves feel oppressed by

the organization, while essentially ignoring the true plight of service recipients.

One potentially more adaptive response lies in the ideas of the philosophy of personalism.7

Personalism is a philosophy described and exemplified by writers, thinkers and activists such as

Emmanuel Mounier (1952), Peter Maurin (1961) and Dorothy Day, Jean Vanier (1989) and John

Crosby (1996). As described by Wolf Wolfensberger,8 personalism builds on three pillars or

foundations, which I will review. These pillars are simple to explain, but complex and profound

in their applications and implications. It is all too easy to dismiss these ideas as mere platitudes,

or to underestimate their power and depth.

The first pillar of personalism is the honoring of the inherent dignity of each and every

person (Mounier 1952). Dignity refers to the inherent nobility and worth of a person. In human

services, this includes the dignity of societally devalued people, their family and friends. It also

includes the dignity of service workers. Personalism calls us to strive to uphold the dignity of

each person; regardless of age, ability, social status, past history, bad decisions, income, culture,

personality and so on.

Adherence to this first pillar can provide an anchor for service workers within impersonal

service structures and againstimpersonal structures. It elevates the person above a thing, such as

a program, law, policy or system. Even when an agency does not recognize the dignity of people

served, an individual (service worker) can. Recognizing dignity personalizes rather than


7 Note that there are a number of other potentially valid responses to abuse and harmdoing, some of

which are also consistent with personalism. See Hildebrand (2004); Kendrick (2002); McKnight (1995);and Wolfensberger (1998) for examples of other responses.

8 This three-point structure is based on a 1-day workshop entitled The philosophy of personalism, and

implications to human services and advocacy for the lowly, presented for e.g. in 1996 in Framingham,MA (US).


11/23

depersonalizes. It helps the service worker to identify with the people served as people. This

recognition helps build a safeguard against abuse and harmdoing.

Each one of us should ask ourselves, how can I honor the dignity of others, no matter how

well-disguised or hidden? Do I see the dignity of someone who cannot speak, who is not

intelligent by most standards, who is addicted to drugs, who is apathetic towards others, who

does not look like our usual idea of a human being, who has hurt a child or who has abused

someone? How do I practice ongoing consciousness of the dignity of others?

The second pillar of personalism is the assumption of personal moral responsibility (Mounier

1952). It speaks to our obligation to do what is right, and to try to live morally.9 Implicit in this

pillar are the assumptions that: right and wrong exist; we can discern (though imperfectly) what

is right and what is wrong; and that we should strive to do the right and to avoid the wrong as

much as possible. If asked as part of a job to do something which one believes will cause great

physical or emotional harm to a vulnerable person, then personalism calls for a courageous No.

Some of the more obvious examples of such courage have been displayed by nurses or family

members who have refused to do things which would hasten the death of a patient or of a loved

one. Sadly, these examples are growing less likely insofar as our culture and our healthcare

systems erode our notions of dignity and our sense of responsibility for the most vulnerable.

Personalism teaches that we are responsible for what we do. We are not responsible for

others (bad) decisions or acts; they are. We are not compelled to carry out someone elses bad

decisions if it goes against what we fundamentally believe is right and true. Indeed, in serious


9 See for example the 2005 Canadian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics; www.casw-acts.ca
http://www.casw-acts.ca/http://www.casw-acts.ca/http://www.casw-acts.ca/http://www.casw-acts.ca/


12/23

matters, an assumption of personal moral responsibility would compel us not to carry out that

bad decision. We are not cogs or robots, but persons who are free to decide.

This pillar does not imply that we always work alone, but rather that we seek out other moral

actors and allies (Mounier 1952). We invite, support and challenge others (no matter where they

stand on an organizational chart) to take responsibility for their own acts, remembering with

gratitude when others have similarly reminded us of our responsibilities. This pillar too raises

difficult questions. How do we take on personal moral responsibility in the face of pressures not

to do so? How do we invite others to assume personal moral responsibility, some of whom will

not want to even think about it? Acting as part of a communality of like-minded allies can help

us to address such difficult realities.

The third pillar of personalism is the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity calls for taking

action at the lowest level of formality and organization which is effective. If something can be

done at least as well or even better on a smaller, less formal, less structured or more local level, it

will be better done that way. It will be better for all involved, and better (or potentially more

effective of positive change) in the long run.10 This principle implies doing things on a personal,

friend, family, school, neighborhood and/or church level before going up the ladder to more

formal, often agency-based, social structures and organizations. Citizen Advocacy, a model

initially developed by Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger and currently put into action in many countries

across the world,11 beautifully illustrates the principle of subsidiarity. Citizen Advocacy


10 See for example Kohler (1993).

11 Wolfensberger and Zauha (1973); Hildebrand (2004); http://www.savannahcitizenadvocacy.org/; http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/.
http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/http://www.bmartin.cc/CAN/http://www.savannahcitizenadvocacy.org/http://www.savannahcitizenadvocacy.org/


13/23

coordinators, with the support of local citizen boards, recruit and support typical citizens to take

on a variety of freely-given advocacy roles in the life of one vulnerable person.

We can also learn from examples of families taking small steps as well as extraordinary

measures to care for a vulnerable family member themselves, resisting the tendency to place

their loved one under the total care of a human service program or system: the parents who give

up luxuries as well as essentials, or who go into debt, to care for their impaired son or daughter;

the mother who rarely gets a good nights sleep because she spends each restless night by the

bedside of her daughter who has a serious lifelong medical condition.12

In human services, subsidiarity calls for those closest in relationship to the devalued person

to be involved in helping. Those with the closest perspective on an issue (i.e., the person

themselves, their family, their friends, their neighbors or co-workers, often their long-time

closest service workers, etc.) should ideally be part of addressing it.13 Thinking more about

people than systems and more about small, informal efforts can help make individual and

systemic abusive practices less likely.

Focusing on local, informal efforts requires ongoing struggle and consciousness raising. Our

tendency is to jump straight to the organizational approach. We in the developed world of the

21st century especially have learned to go almost instinctively and immediately to an agency or

to the government for help when faced with a problem. Personalism invites us to resist this

tendency, as well as the tendencies for our organizations to get bigger, to add layers, or to build

up formal bureaucratic structures which often grow out of individual control. Big is not


12 Sadly, even parents and family members can act abusively toward their vulnerable family member.

However, this reality does not take away from the more personalist example provided by so manyfamilies.

13 See Kohler and Earle (2004) for an illustrative example.


14/23

intrinsically bad, yet it does create a set of predictable and often intractable problems. An

important question is, how do we resist those temptations to get bigger so we can help more

people without also acknowledging the associated short, medium and long-term problems in

getting bigger, including the inevitable problems we could not foresee? Another fundamental

question is, how do we stand by or walk with people as the programs and systems around

them get bigger and more formalized? Though not perfect, the philosophy of personalism and the

concept of subsidiarity at least have the potential to help us individually and communally to

respond adaptively to such questions.

Recommendations for initial steps: Now what?

How can we individually and communally build on these three pillars of personalism, not only to

counter the tendencies toward abuse and harmdoing but to improve the relevance and potency 14

of help provided to the most vulnerable? The following interrelated suggestions are meant to be

illustrative of possible adaptive steps, not exhaustive.

Within programs, agencies and systems, begin to craft a narrative and a tradition of service that

will help to sustain personalist responses and decisions.15 Narrative and tradition can shape and

help to anchor a personalist philosophy and mindset of service: What are we doing and why?

Find, reflect on and share stories of personalist action and stances, including within services and


14 Relevance speaks to the degree to which services address the pressing needs of service recipients;potency refers to the efficient use of time as well as the provision of material supports and competency-

enhancing possessions to societally devalued people. See Wolfensberger and Thomas (2007, p. 387).

15 A prime contemporary example of such a narrative can be found in lArche: Vanier (1989) has crafted acompelling narrative which undergirds lArches approach to service, community life, etc. See also

MacIntyre (1984) for a general description of narrative ethics, Charon (2001) for a description of narrativeethics applied to medicine, and Goodsell (2005) for an introduction to narrative sociology.


15/23

systems, on behalf of highly vulnerable people.16 Such narratives can help us to embrace

principles and virtues which will nurture and support personalist stances.

Following from the above, strive to root ones service in fundamentalprinciples (e.g., what

must we believe to serve vulnerable people and to embrace a personalist stance?) as well as core

virtues (e.g., who are we to be in the lives of vulnerable people?). Rules and principles by

themselves will not necessarily be protective; however, principled servers with the conscious

characteristics, habits and virtues that can help them serve others are more likely to be protective.

Join or form a group of committed and self-reflective servers who are capable of hearing and

living up to a personalist narrative and tradition (mentioned above), who can hold each other

accountable and provide mutual support as well as mutual responsibility.17 Such reflective

groups will necessarily be small, though networks of autonomous groups may profitably form

under certain conditions.18

Former Governor-General Georges Vanier articulated the importance of deep reflection:

I have a recipe for bettering the world which is simple. Everyday, every person who

has reached the age of reason should remain perfectly quiet for half-an-hour face-to-

face with themselves instead of with others or events. We are suffering from too much

action and not enough reflection.


16 As examples of sharing stories and lessons, see Zipperlen and OBrien (1994); Collins (2001); Collins

(2004).

17 Citizens Against Restraint in Ontario, Canada is an example of such a group. http://www.citizensagainstrestraint.org/car/car.htm

18 lArche to a certain degree is an example of such a network.
http://www.citizensagainstrestraint.org/car/car.htmhttp://www.citizensagainstrestraint.org/car/car.htmhttp://www.citizensagainstrestraint.org/car/car.htmhttp://www.citizensagainstrestraint.org/car/car.htm


16/23

Engaging in reflection concerning ones own role and actions will likely lead one to others who

share a similar perspective. Critical reflection as a key to deeper understanding can take a

number of helpful forms: individual and communal; written and verbal; silent and discussion-

based; and so on.19

Engage in service to others that is in line with ones strengths, inclinations and commitments.

This is possible and desirable both for individuals as well as communalities. Such engagement

also has implications for personal and communal formation, which is the next point.

Focus on personal and communal formation. A formation perspective includes but goes beyond

simply offering staff training, by incorporating such elements as personal identity, personal

strengths and inclinations, motivations, habits, beliefs, assumptions, primary relationships, etc.

Serving others well requires more than just a mastery of technical skills. Service is

fundamentally based in a relationship between persons.

Given that service is mostly offered by more than one person, communal formation of servers

is key. Important questions include: Who are we? How do we serve together? How do we

communicate? How do we relate to one another? How do we handle dilemmas, predicted as well

as unforeseen? How will we approach the question of compromise? And so on. Individual and

communal formation will take time, attention and intention.20


19 See for example http://www.communityservicelearning.ca/en/research_announcements.htm; http://

www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.html; or http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/.

20 lArche communities for example typically incorporate a long formation program for new assistants,

e.g., http://www.larchejacksonville.org/participate/be-an-assistant/or http://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.html.
http://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.htmlhttp://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.htmlhttp://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/http://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.htmlhttp://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.htmlhttp://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.htmlhttp://www.larchestlouis.org/aboutLArche.htmlhttp://www.larchejacksonville.org/participate/be-an-assistant/http://www.larchejacksonville.org/participate/be-an-assistant/http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/http://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.htmlhttp://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.htmlhttp://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.htmlhttp://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/reflection_manual/understanding.htmlhttp://www.communityservicelearning.ca/en/research_announcements.htmhttp://www.communityservicelearning.ca/en/research_announcements.htm


17/23

Provide potent and relevant training and education to servers, rooted in the identity and needs

of people served. This should be part of an ongoing process of formation, reflection and

consciousness-raising.21 When serving vulnerable people, start with reflecting on who they are

and what they need. Too often, almost across the board, services and systems tend to start with

what they have to offer and then try to fit vulnerable people into their particular service model.

This approach does not work; indeed, history has shown us that it is potentially quite destructive

(Wolfensberger 1975).

Broaden the scope of participation in and dialogue about service to vulnerable people. Pay

particular attention to doing this with vulnerable people themselves, as well as with families,

advocates, direct care service workers, typical citizens and so on. Isolation of vulnerable people

is a reliable predictor of abuse; isolation of programs, agencies and systems is similarly

worrisome.

Start small, local pilot projects in line with subsidiarity and personalism. Craft practices,

policies, legislation and funding patterns which will help resist the tendencies to grow service

programs into huge agencies, systems, super systems, etc. Wherever possible, create space within

existing systems for subsidiarity and for local, close, personal efforts (Shevellar 2008).

Evaluate communal, agency-based and system-based service efforts. Regular internal and

external evaluation of services provides a necessary safeguard to service efforts. Such evaluation


21 See www.srv-sotg.ca, www.srvip.org and www.socialrolevalorization.com for good examples of suchtraining.
http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/http://www.socialrolevalorization.com/http://www.srvip.org/http://www.srvip.org/http://www.srv-sotg.ca/http://www.srv-sotg.ca/


18/23

should be of the programmatic as well as of the non-programmatic elements of a service agency

or system; looking at what is being done for the people served, why it is being done, and the way

these efforts are carried out administratively. External evaluation should be independent and

unbiased. Any evaluation, internal or external, should include at least written, and often also

verbal, feedback to the program, agency or system. Family members and service recipients

should be part of evaluation, certainly in terms of gathering information, but also potentially as

members of the evaluation team.

Conclusion: Challenge and change

Taking a personalist stance can bring with it a heavy cost. The personalist actor may be ridiculed

or treated as an outcast in a human service organization. They may become (even more) isolated

within an agency, or be reassigned, disciplined or fired. Sometimes, they may begin to doubt

themselves and their decisions. Small-scale communal efforts can be physically, emotionally and

intellectually taxing. Despite best efforts, bad things can still happen to vulnerable people and

their families; as a witness to such suffering, this can be highly demoralizing for those

personalist actors standing with the vulnerable person and their family.

Yet embracing personalism often bears good fruit. Struggling to do what is right is often

ennobling. The personalist server often finds increased joy in their service to others.

Relationships with devalued people and with colleagues may deepen and become more genuine.

Often we see growth in maturity, wisdom and understanding. Like-minded people tend to come

together and form lasting bonds. As well, good things might happen for vulnerable and devalued

people, including long-lasting positive changes. Within a personalist mindset, the important



19/23

struggle remains to do what is right primarily because it is right, not because of any predicted

success. We human beings are such bad predictors of the outcomes of our actions, particularly

their long-term impacts.

Personalism is a simple yet profoundly powerful and radical philosophy. Honoring the

dignity of others, taking on personal moral responsibility, and embracingsubsidiarity can help

the server to not engage in systemic abusive practices, or at least to minimize the effects of those

oppressive dynamics which cause harm to service recipients. Personalism calls us us to do what

is right. It can motivate us not only to resist systemic patterns of human service abuse, but also to

seek more relevant and coherent alternatives. It invites us to keep our focus on the person and on

our relationships with others. It can guide individual as well as small-scale communal action.

Trying to live out the three pillars of personalism can cut through many of the distractions

and temptations that concerned people, including service workers, face. Doing so will require a

considerable amount of hard, ongoing, personal effort. It will be difficult to accomplish alone,

without like-minded allies. And finally, personalism raises a challenging dilemma for those who

work in services, namely: how likely is personalist service to survive within the highly

formalized, stratified, largely impersonal service structures we so often see today?

One of the philosophers of personalism, Peter Maurin, left those of us concerned with the

lives of vulnerable people a timeless warning:

People say: They dont do this, they dont do that, they ought to do this, they ought to

do that. Always They and never I.



20/23

By contrast, Maurin writes, a personalist stance affirms:

It should start with I, not with They. One I plus one I makes two Is and two Is makes

We. We is a community, while they is a crowd. 22

This paper is based on a conference presentation given at the Many Faces of Abuse

conference hosted by Standards Plus in Auckland, New Zealand on 10-12 August 2005. I am

grateful to Audrey MacIntyre, Harry van Bommel and Jack Yates who commented on earlier

versions of this paper, and as always to my wife for her encouragement and suggestions.

Contact

Marc Tumeinski, SRVIP, 74 Elm Street, Worcester, MA 01609 US. [email protected]


22 Maurin (2003), 105.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


21/23

Resources

Allport, Gordon. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Perseus Books, 1979.

Barken. Emma. (2010). Almost, But Not Quite There: Failing to Fully Develop Culturally Valued

Analogues. The SRV Journal, 5(1), 14-20.

Canadian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics.

www.casw-acts.ca

Care Library of Legacies Inc. in Toronto, Ontario.

http://carelibrary.com/Care_Library/HOME.html

Charon, Rita. (2001). Narrative Medicine: A Model for Empathy, Reflection, Profession, and

Trust.JAMA, 286(15), 1897-1902.

Collins, Pam, (Ed.).A Good Life, An Ordinary Life: A Collection of Writings from CRUcial

Times, Volume 1. Brisbane: CRU Publications, 2001.

Collins, Pam, (Ed.). Community Conversations: A Collection of Writings from CRUcial Times,

Volume 2. Brisbane: CRU Publications, 2003.

Crosby, John. The Selfhood of the Human Person. Washington, DC: Catholic University of

America Press, 1996.

Flynn, Robert & Aubry, Tim. Integration of Persons with Developmental or PsychiatricDisabilities: Conceptualization and Measurement. In R.J. Flynn & R.A. Lemay (Eds.),A

Quarter-Century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and Impact. Ottawa:

University of Ottawa Press, 1999.

Flynn, Robert & Lemay, Raymond (Eds.).A Quarter-Century of Normalization and Social Role

Valorization: Evolution and Impact. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1999.

Gilligan, James. Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

Goodsell, Todd. (12 September 2005). Defending Narrative: A Virtue Ethics Approach to

Narrative Sociology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p21305_index.html

Hildebrand, Adam. One Person at a Time: Citizen Advocacy for People with Disabilities.

Brookline, Massachusetts: Brookline Books, 2004.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p21305_index.htmlhttp://carelibrary.com/Care_Library/HOME.htmlhttp://carelibrary.com/Care_Library/HOME.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p21305_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p21305_index.htmlhttp://carelibrary.com/Care_Library/HOME.htmlhttp://carelibrary.com/Care_Library/HOME.htmlhttp://www.casw-acts.ca/http://www.casw-acts.ca/


22/23

Kendrick, Michael. (July 2002). Some Examples of Broad Strategies to Shield Consumers and

Families from Invasive Bureaucracy. CRUcial Times, 24, 9-10.

Kohler, Thomas. (Summer 1993). Lessons from the Social Charter: State, Corporation, and the

Meaning of Subsidiarity. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 43(3), 607-628.

Kohler, Tom & Earle, Susan. Waddie Welcome and the Beloved Community. Toronto: Inclusion

Press, 2004.

MacIntyre, Alisdair.After Virtue, 2nd ed. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press,

1984.

Maurin, Peter.Easy Essays. Washington, DC: Rose Hill Books, 1961 (reprinted 2003).

McKnight, John. The Careless Society. New York: Basic Books, 1995.

Mounier, Emmanuel.Personalism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1952.

Shevellar, Lynda. (2008). I Choose To Be a Person of Integrity: A Model for Constructive

Relationships Between Human Services and Their Bureaucracies. The SRV Journal, 3(2), 6-17.

Sobsey, Dick. Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities: The End of Silent

Acceptance? Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 1994.

Vanier, Jean. Community and Growth, rev. ed. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

Wilson, Ed. (2006). More Willing Citizens Needed. The SRV Journal, 1(2), 55-56.

Wolfensberger, Wolf. The Origin and Nature of Our Institutional Models. Syracuse, NY: Human

Policy Press, 1975.

Wolfensberger, Wolf. The philosophy of personalism, and implications to human services and

advocacy for the lowly workshop. Taught in January 1996 in Framingham, MA (US).

Wolfensberger, Wolf. A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization: A High-order Concept for

Addressing the Plight of Societally Devalued People, and for Structuring Human Services, 3rd

(revised) ed. Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and

Change Agentry (Syracuse University), 1998 (reprinted 2004).

Wolfensberger, Wolf & Thomas, Susan.PASSING: A Tool for Analyzing Service Quality

According to Social Role Valorization Criteria. Ratings Manual(3rd rev. ed.). Syracuse, NY:

Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry (Syracuse

University), 2007.



23/23

Wolfensberger, Wolf & Zauha, Helen. Citizen Advocacy and Protective Services for the Impaired

and Handicapped. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation, 1973.

Zipperlen, Helen & OBrien, John. Cultivating Thinking Hearts: Letters from the Lifesharing

Safeguards Project. Kimberton, PA: Camphill Village Kimberton Hills, 1994. http://

thechp.syr.edu/ThinkHrts.pdf

http://thechp.syr.edu/ThinkHrts.pdfhttp://thechp.syr.edu/ThinkHrts.pdfhttp://thechp.syr.edu/ThinkHrts.pdfhttp://thechp.syr.edu/ThinkHrts.pdf

dignity, responsibility, subsidiarity

Documents