|
Chapter Aims
1.
To identify the sources of values for community psychology
2.
To consider ways of promoting a balance among values for personal,
relational, and collective well-being
3.
To explore ways of implementing community psychology values in
practice, and
4.
To take into account threats to value-based practice
|
INTRODUCTION
Think
again of the values of the French revolution: liberty, equality, and
fraternity. Although these values should exist in inseparable form, in actual
fact most societies prefer one over others. In our society, the supremacy of
liberty over equality and fraternity is costing us dearly. Not because liberty
is an unworthy value, but because liberty in the absence of equality and
fraternity degenerates into selfishness and greed.
All
over the world, values are out of balance, out of context, and out of control.
Values are out of balance because self-interest takes primacy over all other
values. Values are out of context because many people want more solidarity and
sense of community, but popular culture continues to produce images of personal
success as the ultimate goal in life. Finally, values are out of control
because individualism is rampant and nearly uncontrollable, with greed and
competition at an all time high in many countries. In many societies,
collective values such as social justice and solidarity are given minimal
attention. Even in countries with customs of mutual support, globalization is
eroding sense of community and the health of the poor (Aristide, 2000; Kim,
Millen, Irwin, & Gersham, 2000; Korten, 1995). Even strong collectivist
societies such as kibbutzim in Israel have experienced demoralization. In Box
3.1 you can see the dilemmas of a former kibbutz member, Isaac’s sister.
[insert box 3.1 around here]
To
fulfil our needs and obligations we require three sets of linked values. We
require personal, relational, and collective values. Personal and collective
values go hand in hand. But in order to avoid potential conflict between
private and social interests we need a third set of values: relational values.
Values such as collaboration and participation are essential for respectful
relationships. In Myriam’s kibbutz, relational values suffered because people
began to concentrate on their material well-being and the collective ideals
pretty much collapsed. In the absence of relational values, you can’t really
promote personal or collective well-being.
The
urgent and constant need to attend to the three types of values at the same
time is noted in Table 2.2 by the overall value of holism. By holism we mean
the complementary attention to personal, relational, and collective values.
Unless we espouse holism, we are bound to abdicate responsibility for one or
more of the three domains of well-being. Holism is complemented by the value of
accountability, according to which we commit ourselves to answer to oppressed
groups. Research and action about the poor and the disempowered must take place
with the poor and the disempowered. In the previous chapter we linked the value
of accountability to the issue of complacency and to the principle of
commitment and depowerment. For us, this is a new dimension in the values of
community psychology. It impels us to evaluate our work in light of its
potential contribution to people who suffer oppression and marginality.
The
values of holism and accountability are conceptually distinct from the values
of health, caring, compassion, support for community structures, empowerment,
social justice, and respect for diversity. Holism and accountability are
meta-values that apply to the implementation of all the other values. Holism is
precisely about the inclusion of personal, relational, and collective values in
our work, whereas accountability is about the beneficial effects of all these
values for the oppressed.
In
this chapter we present a framework for choosing and implementing different
values in community psychology. We discuss the sources of values as well as the
criteria we need to select them. We then offer a set of values for community
psychology and discuss their application in practice, programs, and policies.
We include a critique of the field and suggestions for improvement.
Our
approach to values integrates considerations that are usually fragmented. When
thinking about values, community psychologists typically pay attention to
needs, philosophers to moral theory, sociologists to norms, and activists to
social change. The chapter offers a way of integrating complementary
deliberations of values. In community psychology we have often invoked one set
of considerations at a time, and have rarely seen how the various parameters
come together. The framework we suggest incorporates multiple voices, combines
research and action, draws on various disciplines, pays attention to power and
context, and can be applied to community psychology practice.
SOURCES OF VALUES
We shouldn’t take any set of values
for granted, nor should we believe in any of them just because they are
endorsed by authority figures. We should question where values come from, what
is the rationale for choosing them, and what contradictions are present within
any set of values. Take the French revolution again as an example. Although the
values of liberty, equality, and fraternity were espoused since at least 1789,
women were not allowed to vote or hold pubic office in France until
1944. In the case of the kibbutz, the proclaimed ideology is one of sharing,
but more and more people are doing the opposite. Because of contradictions
everywhere, we recommend skepticism before adopting or believing in any set of
values. To make sound decisions regarding values we recommend taking into
account a variety of sources (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Table 3.1 shows diverse and
complementary sources of values. We will consider each one of these sources,
but first, let’s define what we mean by values.
[Insert table 3.1 about here]
Kekes
(1993) defines values as “humanly caused benefits that human beings provide to
others. . . . By way of illustration, we may say that love and justice are moral
goods” (p. 44). Values guide the process of working towards a desired state of
affairs. These are principles that inform our personal, professional, and
political behaviour. But values are not only beneficial in that they guide
behaviour towards a future outcome, for they also have intrinsic merit. We
espouse values like empowerment and caring, not just because they lead towards
a good or better society, but also because they have merit on their own (Hill
Collins, 1993; Kane, 1994; Kekes, 1993). Indeed, according to Mayton,
Ball-Rokeach and Loges (1994), “values may be defined as enduring prescriptive
or proscriptive beliefs that a specific mode of conduct (instrumental value) or
end state of existence (terminal value) is preferred to another mode of conduct
or end state” (p. 3). Schwartz (1994) points out that values “serve as guiding
principles in the life of a person or other social entity” (p.21). Values,
then, are principles to guide action. We invoke them when we have a conflict
with a friend or when we take a stand on a political issue. Are you in favour
of insurance benefits for same sex partners? What is your position regarding
the US embargo on Cuba? Would you boycott a movie theatre because there is no
access there to your physically disabled friends? Each time you take a stand you’re invoking a value. When Myriam left the kibbutz, she
took a stand, not without hesitation, to protect her family from the
deterioration of the quality of life in the kibbutz. Now the question is, how
do we choose values? We suggest basing our values on vision, context, needs,
and action.
Vision
Moral
and political philosophers debate visions of the best possible society. They
use the terms good life and good society to refer to visions of
the best possible situation. They explain the merits and shortcomings of
different values, the conditions under which one value may supersede another,
and potential contradictions among competing orientations. These considerations
answer the question what should be? Philosophers contribute to the
discussion on values by portraying an ideal vision of what we should
strive for. They can provide a blueprint of a better society in which values of
autonomy and community will be mutually enhanced (Etzioni, 1996).
Liberal
philosophers, for example, emphasize autonomy, self-determination, and the
rights of the individual. They are reluctant to promote too much state
intervention because they are afraid that governments will end up dictating to
private citizens how to run their lives. They may point to countries like the
former Soviet Union where citizens didn’t really have much personal freedom.
Today, they may even point to the declining kibbutz movement.
Communitarian thinkers, on the other hand,
claim that we have gone too far in meeting the needs of individuals and that we
have sacrificed our social obligations in the pursuit of private satisfaction
(Etzioni, 1993, 1996; Lerner, 1996; Sandel, 1996). They may point to countries
like the US where there isn’t a national health care system and where people
live in gated communities (ghettos?) to protect themselves. What type of
communities are those?
Each
position poses risks as well as benefits (Mulhall & Swift, 1996). Liberals
deserve recognition for promoting liberation from oppressive social norms and
regulations (citizens of the former Soviet Union did not appreciate the KGB
compiling files on them, nor did citizens of the Victorian era appreciate the
repressive sexual norms of the time). But these worthy ideals notwithstanding,
liberal philosophy is not without problems. In excess, the pursuit of private
goals can lead to unmitigated individualism, selfishness, and materialism
(Etzioni, 1996; Leonard, 1997). “When people pursue private goals, the risk is
that they may never acquire an ennobling sense of a purpose beyond the self”
(Damon, 1995, p. 66). This risk is very apparent in market societies where
state intervention is minimal and the powerful is free to seek pleasure at the
expense of others (Leonard, 1997; Sen, 1999a, b). Indeed, we hear that to climb
the corporate ladder you may need to trample on a few people. Not everyone in
society has the same amount of power, and those with less power have fewer
opportunities to advocate for themselves (O'Neill, 1994).
Communitarian
thinking, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that without
cooperation individuals cannot achieve their personal goals. Like liberals,
they endorse the fulfilment of personal goals and the liberation from
oppressive social forces; but unlike liberals, they think that we should
strengthen social and communal institutions because personal happiness is not
possible without them (Etzioni, 1993, 1996; Haste, 1996). Liberals freed us
from coercive institutions, but along the way they weakened even those
institutions we need to promote not only the good of the collective, but also
the good of the individual (O’Neill, 1994; Sandel, 1996). We know that strong
communities provide a better environment for well-being than weak communities
(Putnam, 2000). Essential public programs, sufficiently funded and effectively
managed can have long lasting and beneficial effects on all children (Schorr,
1997).
But
communitarian thinking is not without risks either. Collectivist societies are
known for expecting great sacrifices from their members for the benefit of the
public good. Citizens feel coerced to do things they don’t like and they
experience state intervention as oppressive (Melnyk, 1985).
Convincing
philosophical positions notwithstanding, they are insufficient to mount social
policies that meet the needs of minorities, women, families, children, and the
disadvantaged. An ever present danger in philosophical discourse is its
detachment from the social conditions in which people live. To counteract this risk
we need to explore the contextual circumstances that complement philosophical
considerations.
Context
This
set of considerations explores what is the actual state of affairs in
which people live. Community psychologists and social scientists strive to
understand what are the social, economic, cultural, and political conditions of
a specific community. This line of inquiry helps us to determine social norms
and cultural trends influencing people's choices and behaviour (Trickett,
1996).
A
contextual assessment is necessary to understand the subjective experience of
residents of a particular community. Individualist and collectivist societies
differ with respect to socialization, customs, and visions. Poor and rich
communities ascribe different value to basic necessities. An analysis of
culture and context draws on resources from history, anthropology, sociology,
communications, politics, economics, and cultural studies. These sources
combine to provide a picture of the context in which we want to intervene.
Knowing the context will help to determine the most appropriate values for a
particular situation.
The
meaning of self-determination in an individualist society is vastly different
from its meaning in a collectivist environment. In a totally collectivist
society, citizens yearn for more autonomy and resent state and communal
intrusion. Examples include “curtailing individual rights in the name of
community needs; suppressing creativity in the name of conformity; and even
suppressing a sense of self, losing individuality in a mesh of familial or
communal relations” (Etzioni, 1996, p. 26). In an individualist environment, on
the other hand, citizens want more sense of community and less selfishness.
Unless we know the context, we can’t really know what values to promote.
Needs
It
is not enough for philosophers to ponder what the rest of us need, or for
social scientists to recommend what will make our communities a better place.
Visions of the good society have to be validated with the lived experience and
the needs of community members (Kane, 1998, Montero, 2000). The story of Myriam
Prilleltensky (see box 3.1) shows that for any vision to succeed, people’s
changing needs must be taken into account.
Needs
are important sources for considering values. Needs address key questions: what
is missing and what is a desirable state of affairs. This source of
values pays explicit attention to the voice of the people with whom we partner
to improve community well-being. Community psychology is uniquely placed to
elicit the needs of people in position of disadvantage.
Qualitative
studies of people’s struggles, aspirations, conflicts, frustrations, and joys
provide a picture of what people regard worthwhile in life. Parents disclose
their doubts about how to raise children, children share their fears and
pleasures, and minorities relate experiences of discrimination. These accounts
reveal their needs and aspirations.
By
asking people what they want, need, and consider meaningful in life, we learn
about the ingredients of an appealing vision (Fals Borda, 2001; Gustavsen,
2001). This is not to say that whatever people say should be acceptable. For it
is quite conceivable that the majority of people in a society may be wrong, or
malicious. History shows that majorities can endorse vicious attitudes. Just
like philosophical arguments have to be checked against human needs, human
wishes have to be subjected to ethical scrutiny. This ensures that the needs
and desires expressed by people are not immoral or unethical.
Action
Whereas
the previous sources examined actual, ideal, and desirable states of affairs in
society, action concerns feasible change. Unlike previous deliberations,
which asked what is, what is missing, or what should be, the main question
answered by this set of considerations is what could be done. This
question is meant to bridge the gap between the actual and the ideal states of
affairs. Feasible change draws our attention to what social improvements can be
realistically achieved -- a distinct political goal (Fals Borda, 2001).
Agents of change translate values
and community input into action. These are the professionals,
para-professionals, politicians, volunteers and activists who combine values
with human experience to improve the welfare of a particular population. Agents
of change strive to promote well-being by combining values with knowledge of
what people want, need, and regard important in life. Agents of change bridge
between the abstract notions of philosophers and the lived experience of community
members. They try to adapt ideals of the good society to specific contexts. In
that sense, all of us who work in communities are agents of change.
The
complementary nature of the four sources of values now becomes apparent.
Without a philosophical analysis we lack a vision; without a contextual
analysis we lack an understanding of social forces; without a needs assessment
we lack an idea of what people want; and finally, without a strategy we lack
action. The interdependence of these sources makes it clear that we cannot rely
on single sources of values (Montero, 1994; 2000).
CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING VALUES
Now that we know what sources should
contribute to our menu of values, we need criteria to choose from the menu.
From all the potential values suggested by philosophers, community members,
psychologists and social activists, how do we know which ones are congruent
with the mission of community psychology? We recommend four criteria that try
to balance complementary considerations.
Balance Between Theoretical and
Grounded Input
A
balance between theoretical and grounded input is needed to complement
analytical with experiential approaches to knowledge. Philosophical analyses of
what values can lead to a good life and a good society are useful but limited.
What is the use of a philosophical framework that does not reflect the living
realities of people? The corollary of this question is that moral philosophy
is not enough. On the other hand, we can ask what is the point of knowing
people's needs and aspirations if that knowledge is not translated into action?
The corollary of this question is that grounded input is not enough (Kane,
1998). Theories of values have to be validated with lived experience, and lived
experience has to be interpreted meaningfully and converted into action.
Balance Between Understanding and
Action
A balance between understanding
and action is needed to ensure that knowledge does not end up in a shelf
(Gustavsen, 2001). The ultimate purpose of values is to enjoy a fuller life. To
make an impact in the world, our theoretical sophistication has to be followed
by action, a principle inscribed in the very name of the Division of Community
Psychology (Division 27) of the American Psychological Association: The Society
for Community Research and Action.
But
the urge to act should not come at the expense of reflection. We need to reflect
on the risks and benefits of pursuing one course of action over another
(Sánchez Vidal, 1999). Whereas one set of values may be appropriate to one
social context, it may be inappropriate in another. Thus, while we promote more
autonomy and control for disadvantaged people in oppressively controlling
environments, we don’t want to push for more self-determination of violent
people. Blind adherence to any value,
from personal empowerment to sense of community is risky.
Balance Between Processes and Outcomes
A
balance between processes and outcomes is needed to ensure that dialogue
is not an end in itself. By the same token, we need to assert that ends do not
automatically justify any means. If the object of an intervention is to uphold
the rights of a minority group, do we justify any means, including terrorism?
On the other hand, can we justify endless talk when the lives of vulnerable
children and families in conflict zones are at risk? These tensions between
valid processes and just outcomes should be reflected in any framework of
values.
When
Isaac was director of the community psychology program in Wilfrid Laurier
University, staff and students embarked on a curriculum revision. People were
so focussed on reaching consensus and having a good process that we nearly
forgot the main reason of the whole exercise. Students and staff became
disenchanted with the process because nothing much was being accomplished. Once
we realized as a group that process is not an end in itself we made progress on
the curriculum revision. Too much process at the expense of outcomes is not a
good process.
Balance Between Differing and
Unequal Voices
A
balance between differing and unequal voices is the fourth criteria for
choosing values. Social policies and programs are typically formulated by
powerful politicians, educated government officials, and privileged academics.
Efforts by community psychologists to work in partnership with disadvantaged
members of society are not typical of social policy formation (Nelson,
Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001). Quite the contrary, most social
policies are conceived in the absence of meaningful input from those most
affected by them (Taylor, 1996; Wharf & McKenzie, 1998). Hence, a framework
of values should be attentive to differing voices and in particular to those
who are often rendered invisible by the political process. Unequal power and
unequal representation must be considered in proposing values. Values that are
based on the voice of the powerful will usually perpetuate the status quo,
whereas values that are based on the voice of the powerless have a better
chance of promoting change (Jaggar, 1994; Sánchez Vidal, 1999).
VALUES FOR COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
Based
on the sources and criteria presented above, we are now in a position to
suggest some core values for community psychology. We classify core values into
three groups: (a) values for personal well-being, (b) values for
relational well-being, and (c) values for collective well-being.
Well-being is a positive state of affairs, brought about by the satisfaction of
personal, relational, and collective needs (Prilleltensky, Nelson, &
Peirson, 2001). As a vision, well-being is an ideal state of affairs for
individuals and communities. To achieve it, we have to know the context, the
needs of persons and groups, and the best available strategies. Well-being
consists of individual components (personal, relational, and collective needs)
and of the synergy created by all of them together. In the absence of any one
component, well-being cannot really be achieved. To make this dictum an
integral part of our values we invoke the meta-value of holism. As Cowen (1996)
observed, “optimal development of well-being. . . requires integrated sets of
operations involving individuals, families, settings, community contexts, and
macro-level societal structures and policies” (p. 246). Table 3.2 shows the
diverse needs and values required to achieve well-being at different levels. We
examine next each category of values on its own. Later we consider the holistic
synergy created by combining them.
[Insert table 3.2 about here]
Values for Personal Well-Being
These are values that serve the needs of
the person. Self-determination, caring and compassion and personal health
advance the well-being of individual community members. Self-determination or
autonomy refer to the ability of the individual to pursue chosen goals in life
without excessive frustration. This is akin to the concept of empowerment,
according to which individuals and groups strive to gain control over their
lives (Zimmerman, 2000). Personal health, in turn, is a state of physical and
emotional well-being that is intrinsically beneficial and extrinsically
instrumental in pursuing self-determination. The values of caring and
compassion meet the need for empathy, understanding and solidarity. When people
are the beneficiaries of these values their personal well-being is enhanced.
But for them to enjoy these values, they have to engage in relationships that support
them, and they have to live in communities that care about these values
(Ornish, 1997). Caring and compassion is based on sensitive relationships, and
self-determination is based on resources and opportunities. Without caring
relationships there is no mutual understanding, and without public resources
there is little chance of fulfilling personal goals, especially for the poor
and disadvantaged (Narayan, Chambers, Kaul, Shah, & Petesch, 2000;
Narayan, Patel, Schafft, Rademacher, & Kocht-Schulte, 2000).
Values for Relational Well-Being
Neither
philosophers nor social scientists can tell community members what they need.
They can offer ideas, but they cannot replace the voice of the people
themselves. People have to participate in decisions affecting their lives and
they need to collaborate with others in achieving their goals (Montero, 2000;
Sánchez, 1999). When conflicts between individuals or groups arise, it is
crucial to have collaborative processes to resolve them. Otherwise, it is just
a matter of the powerful imposing their will on others. Relational values
remind us that self-determination must have limits. My wishes and desires have
to take into account your wishes and desires. If they conflict, we have to have
a process to resolve our differences. We have to be able to appreciate
diversity and to respect it and we should not romanticize communities and
expect everyone to show caring and compassion for others (Edgar, 2001).
Respect
for a person’s identity is, according to Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor
(1992), “not just a courtesy we owe people. It is a vital human need” (p. 26).
When we affirm people’s identities, we help them affirm themselves. When we
respect their defining human qualities, we help them respect themselves.
Conversely, “a person or group of people can suffer real damage” Taylor says,
“if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or
demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or
misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression” (p. 25).
From
a mental health perspective, studies have shown the beneficial effects of
granting children and adults an opportunity to define their own personal
identity, without fearing oppression or discrimination. On the other hand, when
people’s identities are disparaged or diminished, there are negative effects on
their self-esteem and overall mental health (for reviews of research see
Dudgeon, Garvey, & Pickett, 2000; Gardner & Esses, 1996; Moane, 1999;
Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996; Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994).
Appreciation for diverse social identities serves as a protective factor,
whereas lack of respect constitutes a definite risk factor. In Canada and
Australia, where Isaac and Geoff live, aboriginal peoples have been subjected to demeaning and racist treatment that have
led to serious emotional and community problems (Dudgeon, Garvey, & Pickett, 2000).
Values for Collective Well-Being
Collective
values complement individual aims, for the attainment of personal objectives
requires the presence of social resources. Distributive justice, or the fair
and equitable allocation of bargaining powers, resources, and obligations in
society, is a prime example of a collective
value. Support for societal structures and for the environment is
another key value. Both of these values enable the achievement of personal and
communal well-being.
Community
psychologists have long recognized that people need resources to enjoy good
health, to reach their potential, and to nurture their identity (Dalton, Elias,
& Wandersman, 2001). This is why the pursuit of social justice is so
decisive. Without it, the prospects of personal and relational well-being
remain elusive. To place social justice at the forefront of our priorities, we
link it to the meta-value of accountability. Together, social justice and
accountability to the oppressed mark the top priority for community psychology.
The
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognizes the
need for strong community structures in the development of children around the
world (United Nations, 1991). “States Parties recognize the right of every
child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental,
spiritual, moral and social development” (UNCRC, Article 27.1, emphasis added).
The same Article insists that countries “shall take appropriate measures to
assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and
shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes,
particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing, and housing” (Article 29.3).
How
could we pursue well-being in the absence of institutions like public health or
schools or transportation systems? Can you think of healthy development in a
toxic environment? What about poor children and single parents without
government supports? Societal structures that look after people and the
environment are essential for the promotion of health and well-being. Research
on social determinants of health provides convincing evidence that
environmental factors, broadly defined, influence our level of well-being in
multiple ways. Physical, cultural, political, economic and psychological
factors combine to promote or decrease personal and collective health. There is
a great deal of research showing that inequality and lack of control are
conducive to poor outcomes, not only for the poor, but also for people in the
middle class (Keating & Hertzman, 1999; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999;
Wilkinson, 1996). This is why we need to uphold the values of social justice
and support for public institutions.
Publicly
funded institutions perform a critical role in preventing disempowering chain
reactions for people at-risk. But their virtue goes beyond supporting the
needy, for these organizations enhance the health and welfare of the population
at large. Strong community structures afford us clean water, sewage systems,
child-care (in countries where it is publicly funded), recreational
opportunities, libraries, unemployment insurance, pension plans, free primary
and secondary education, access to health care, and many other social goods
(Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001).
The Synergy of Values
Well-being
comes about in the combination of personal, relational, and collective
values. The net effect of all the
values combined is called synergy. This is reflected in our meta-value of
holism. What is unique about community psychology is that it seeks to integrate
the three sets of values (Kagan & Burton, 2001). As we can see in Figure
3.1, well-being is at the intersection of the three domains. Traditional approaches to psychology
have concentrated on the personal and relational domains, to the exclusion of
the collective. As a result, psychologists neglected to consider the powerful
impact of the psycho-social environment; not only on physical, but also on
emotional health.
[insert Figure 3.1 about here]
Consider
for example the impact of inequality. Societies with higher levels of
inequality have poorer
outcomes for the entire population,
not just for the poor and disadvantaged.
Differences
in equity of income distribution is one of the principal determinants of
differing health status among wealthy societies. Countries with highly unequal
income distributions have poorer health status than those with more equitable
income distributions. . . . This pattern suggests that health status (as a
measure of human well-being) may be embedded in collective factors in society,
not just in individual factors. . .. These findings led us to the conclusion
that the underlying factors that determine health and well-being must be deeply
embedded in social circumstances (Keating & Hertzman, 1999; pp. 6-7).
Given this evidence, we cannot
accept definitions of well-being that are based exclusively on individual
factors. The problem is that these definitions are psycho-centric -- they
concentrate on the cognitive and emotional sources and consequences of
suffering and well-being, to the exclusion of the political roots of power and
well-being. While beliefs and perceptions are important, they cannot be treated
in isolation from the cultural, political, and economic environment (Eckersley,
2000; in press).
We require “well-enough” social
and political conditions, free of economic exploitation and human rights
abuses, to experience quality of life (Kagan & Burton, 2001). Similarly, we
need nurturing and respectful relationships to experience well-being. Eckersley
(2000) has shown that subjective experiences of well-being are heavily dictated
by cultural trends such as individualism and consumerism; whereas Narayan and
colleagues have claimed that the psychological experience of poverty is
directly related to political structures of oppression (Narayan, Chambers, et
al., 2000; Narayan, Patel, et al., 2000).
Amartya Sen, the Nobel Laureate
economist, describes well-being in terms of capabilities and entitlements
(1999a, b). Without the latter the former cannot thrive. Entitlements such as
preventive health care and educational opportunities are not only means to
human development but also ends on their own right. Well-being at the
collective level is not measured only by the health and educational outcomes of
a group of individuals, but also by the presence of enabling institutions and
societal infrastructures. Hence, we define well-being in broad terms that
encompass social progress and human development. We cannot talk about psychological well-being
in the absence of interpersonal and collective well-being. The three kinds are
mutually reinforcing and interdependent.
Sen
(1999a, b) articulates the complementarity or holism of diverse social
structures in fostering what we call well-being and what he calls human
development. Sen invokes the interaction of five types of freedoms in the
pursuit of human development: (a) political freedoms, (b) economic facilities,
(c) social opportunities, (d) transparency and honesty, and (e) protective
security.
Each of these distinct types of
rights and opportunities helps to advance the general capability of a person.
They may also serve to complement each other....Freedoms are not only the
primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means. In
addition to acknowledging, foundationally, the evaluative importance of
freedom, we also have to understand the remarkable empirical connection that
links freedoms of different kinds with one another. Political freedoms (in the
form of free speeches and elections) help to promote economic security. Social
opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities) facilitate
economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities for
participation in trade and production) can help to generate personal abundance
as well as public resources for social facilities. Freedoms of different kinds
can strengthen one another. (Sen, 1999b, pp. 10-11)
The
presence or absence of health-promoting factors at all levels can have positive
or negative synergistic effects. When collective factors such as social justice
and access to valued resources combine with a sense of community and personal
empowerment, chances are that psychological and political well-being will
ensue. When, on the other hand, injustice and exploitation reign, the result is
suffering and oppression (Moane, 1999).
PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION
We
reviewed so far the sources and criteria for choosing values. Based on that we
selected a set of values (see Table 3.2). The challenge now is to actualize
them; to put them into practice. The meta-value that reminds us to put values
into action is the value of accountability. In an earlier publication
(Prilleltensky & Nelson, 1997) we suggested a few principles to guide the
implementation of community psychology’s values. The following is an updated
and expanded list of key principles:
Principle
1. Advancing the well‑being of disadvantaged communities requires
actualizing all values in a balanced and holistic way.
Table
3.3 shows our assessment of the current prominence of community psychology
values. As can be seen, not all values are equally prominent. Some are given
more attention than others. According to our assessment, collective values are
somewhat neglected, if not in theory, certainly in practice (Ahmed &
Pretorius-Heuchert, 2001; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 1997).
[Insert Table 3.3 about here]
As
each value by itself is insufficient, problems arise when we adhere too closely
to one principle but neglect another equally important one. A typical case is
the extolment of autonomy and self‑determination at the expense of
distributive justice or sense of community (Riger, 1993). There cannot be
justice in the absence of care, and there cannot be care without justice.
Principle
2. Within a given social ecology, some values appear at the foreground of
our consciousness while others remain in the background. We must move the
neglected values to the foreground to attain the necessary balance.
The
social ecology influences the particular configuration of values at a certain
time and place. As a result, some values are more prominent than others. In
Western societies, for example, the values of social justice, support for
community structures and environmental protection are currently in the
background. In contrast, caring, compassion, and health are in the forefront.
In this type of context it is necessary to accentuate the background values. In
another place or in another historical moment, the values might be configured
differently. This may occur under regimes that want to advance social ideals,
however just in the end, without caring and concern for the individuality of
its members. If that were the case, we would have to restore the suppressed
values of compassion and health to ensure that citizens enjoy the full range of
values.
The
saliency and effects of values vary not only across time and place, but also
across communities of peoples. Different groups may share a temporal and
geographical location, but their needs may be vastly distinct. Women and people
of colour may need more self‑determination, participation and human
diversity; while people who experience sudden illness may have a greater need
for health and compassion (Trickett et al., 1994).
Principle
3. Within the present social context, the value of social justice remains in
the background. By neglecting this value, we reinforce the same unjust state of
affairs that disadvantaged many communities in the first place.
Neglecting
social justice reinforces an unjust state of affairs (Prilleltensky, 1994). But
our historical analysis suggests that most of our work as community
psychologists tries to ameliorate -- not transform -- living conditions within
the existing distribution of resources. Herein lies the main barrier for the
fulfilment of our mission (see Table 3.2). For as long as we try to address
only the consequences of uneven allocation of resources, without looking at the
problem’s root cause, we confront only the surface of the issues. Most of the
issues we deal with in our preventive and community interventions are symptoms
of profound social injustice (Martín-Baró, 1994).
Principle
4. We must distinguish between ameliorating living conditions within the
present social structure and transforming the conditions that create
disadvantage.
We
need to ask ourselves whether our persistent efforts to organize communities
are directed at amelioration or transformation. Amelioration means
change within a system, or what has been termed “first‑order change,”
while transformation means changing the basic premises of a system or
“second‑order change” (Rappaport, 1977). To be sure, ameliorative work is
important and needed. However, without larger transformative efforts these
gains may be undermined in the long‑term.
The
irony is that social justice, one of the neglected values in the practice of
community psychology, holds the most promise to deliver long and lasting social
change (see Table 3.2). Once structures of inequality are changed, it is likely
that many of the current social ills will be alleviated (Marmot & Wilkinson,
1999; Wilkinson, 1996).
Principle
5. We must expand the implementation of values from micro and meso contexts
to macro social ecologies. This is part of our accountability.
Applied
psychologists usually implement values at the micro level (e.g., family and
interpersonal relationships) or, at best, at the meso or middle level (e.g.,
workplace, schools). Many psychologists try to enhance the self‑determination
of clients or small groups. Furthermore, they show empathy and concern for
people suffering from life stressors. But these micro and meso interventions
are embedded within a larger social context of inequality, oppression, and
discrimination. Hence, efforts to promote collaboration and respect for
diversity at the micro level are undermined at the macro level by social
structures of inequality. Principle
6. Vested interests and social power interfere with the promotion of values.
We need to monitor how subjective, interpersonal, and political processes
facilitate or inhibit the enactment of values for well-being.
The promotion of values is
threatened by personal interests. Values exist in a context of wishes, desires,
insecurities, domination, and power dynamics (Prilleltensky, 2000; 2001). As
such, we have to take into account how these factors may jeopardize our ability
to foster value-based practice. These threatening dynamics operate within
ourselves and within the people and groups we work with. There is no point in
pronouncing all kind of wonderful values if private interests and power inequalities
are really against justice or fairness. Unless we pay attention to the
objective and subjective dynamics of power, our chances of enacting value-based
practice is greatly diminished.
Principle
7. We should strive to create a state of affairs in which personal power and
self-interests do not undermine the well-being or interest of others.
We
should develop an awareness of how personal power and vested interests suffuse
all aspects of organizational and community work (Boonstra, Bennebroek
Gravenhorst, 1998). This is an awareness that should be spread throughout the
organization, project, or community. Workers and leaders need to reflect how
their personal lives and subjective experiences influence what they deem
ethical or valuable for themselves, the organization, the project, and the
community (Sánchez Vidal, 1999). Awareness, however, is only the first step in
keeping vested interests in check. The satisfaction of personal needs is
another important requisite. Citizens are more likely to abide by collective
values and norms when they feel that their personal needs are met.
[insert Box 3.2 about here]
The
process of balancing interests with values, however, can be subverted in
various ways (see Box 3.2). One possible subversion is the development of a
discourse on values that legitimizes self-interests. For example, the notion of
a “self-made person,” which is quite prevalent in North America, can justify
privilege on the basis of merit (Prilleltensky, 1994). The value of personal
merit can be distorted into a pretext for not sharing power or resources.
Another
potential subversion is the creation of a safe space for discussion of values
that doesn’t challenge participants to change, but, rather, appeases their
conscience. A final subversion is sharing token power to prevent sharing of
actual power. There are many ways to protect power structures, and, ironically,
sharing power is one of them. Giving a little power can prevent the demand for
a lot of power (Bradshaw, 1998).
Principle
8. We should strive to enhance value-congruence within ourselves and between
groups and communities.
First,
we should try to establish concordance among our own personal values,
interests, and power. Then, we should try to spread this process throughout
organizations and communities. The next step is to enhance the zone of
congruence among citizens, workers and leaders. Community psychologists should
try to create partnerships among the different stakeholder groups to achieve
concordance of values and objectives. The primary task in the creation of
partnerships is the establishment of trust. This is achieved by meaningful and
collaborative participation of workers and communities in decision-making
processes. There are many examples and guidelines for the successful and
meaningful engagement of communities in organizations (Nelson, Prilleltensky,
& MacGillivary, 2001).
Token
consultative processes subvert the intent of true partnerships. When consumers
realize that their voice is only minimally respected but maximally exploited
for public relations purposes, a great deal of damage can ensue. Worst of all,
we allow the value of accountability to be violated.
Principle 9. There is a need to
confront people and groups subverting values, abusing power, or allowing
self-interests to undermine the well-being of others in the organization or in
the community.
Efforts
to promote value-based practice notwithstanding, chances are some people will
behave in ways that contradict the vision and values of a project or
organization. This is when we need to engage in conflict resolution with the
person or group undermining organizational values. This is part of the value of
accountability. A culture of openness and critique facilitates the resolution
of conflict. In a climate of respectful debate the opposing parties can come to
an agreement that is in line with the vision of the organization. But there are
times when such healthy climate cannot prevent serious conflict. If the
conflict is about ideas and differing interpretations of values, chances are a
resolution may be easily reached. But if the conflict is about personal
interests or power, chances are differences may be irreconcilable.
Confrontation
may be used for the good of the organization and the public, but it may also be
used to suppress legitimate voices of discontent. In the latter case, leaders
can exercise their power to silence opposing views. This is an example of how
conflict resolution can be subverted in the interest of enhancing the power of
leaders. But confrontations can also be used by workers and community members
to undermine legitimate leadership.
Principle
10. Community psychologists and community leaders need to be accountable to
the stakeholder groups.
Community
workers need to be accountable to stakeholder groups about their efforts to
promote value congruence and to confront people abusing power. In an effort to avoid
conflict, some people sweep under the carpet the unacceptable behaviour of
colleagues. In an effort to find conflict, others seek fault in their
peers. Community psychologists need to be wary of these hyper or
hypo-confrontational styles. Whereas the former may be just an expression of
anger and aggression, the latter may be a manifestation of fear.
SUMMARY
Values
are guidelines for promoting a better state of affairs for ourselves and others
(Kekes, 1993). Table 3.4 provides a checklist to ensure that we strive to
achieve all values in our practice, programs, and policies. This table can be
used as a template in devising value-based interventions in multiple settings
(e.g., schools, workplace, hospitals, communities) and with a variety of foci
(e.g., health promotion, drug-abuse prevention, teen pregnancy, formal and
informal support, minority rights, child abuse).
Community
psychologists are interested in values that promote the well-being of
disadvantaged people. However, given that people’s needs vary according to
their particular circumstances, it is nearly impossible to formulate a
universal list of values (Giddens, 1994; Kane, 1994, 1998; Kekes, 1993). Hence,
we must remember that any proposed set of values contains contextual
limitations. We should also recognize that some groups may require certain
values more than others. Keeping in mind that the context determines the best
set of values is an antidote against dogmatism -- the rigid application of
beliefs regardless of the context. Asking people themselves what they need goes
a long way to ensure that we do not impose on them inappropriate values.
We
emphasized the need to distinguish between ameliorating living conditions and
transforming the conditions that create and perpetuate oppression. Alleviating
suffering is commendable, but there comes a point where amelioration by itself
works against the eradication of oppressive conditions. This is because
amelioration allows the system to keep working smoothly (Prilleltensky, 1994).
The
challenge of harmonizing personal and collective interests is not trivial. How
do we promote the unique identity and rights of a certain group without
sacrificing solidarity with other oppressed groups? At which point do we turn
our attention to other groups suffering from discrimination? How do we balance
attention to processes of dialogue with outcomes of social justice? At which
point do we say that we have discussed our differences long enough and that it
is now time for action? (Benhabib, 1996; Jaggar, 1994). All these questions
involve values and cannot be answered in the abstract, for each unique
constellation of factors requires a unique solution. The framework presented in
this chapter is a place to start because it identifies three complementary sets
of values. Giddens promotes these values because they imply a “recognition of
the sanctity of human life and the universal right to happiness and
self-actualization -- coupled to the obligation to promote cosmopolitan
solidarity and an attitude of respect” (1994, p. 253).
Class Exercise
1. Individually
or in a small group, choose a social issue that requires the attention of a
community psychologist. Examples of such issues are drug addiction, community
violence, discrimination against people with disabilities, or the promotion of
healthy relationships. Try to choose an issue that is relevant to your
community.
2. Using
the template provided in Table 3.5, devise value-based actions that address the
issue of your choice. For example, you may wish to promote self-determination
by making sure that community members are consulted about appropriate
interventions.
[insert Table 3.5 about here]
3. Once
you have completed the table, discuss and compare your suggestions with actions
generated by other students and groups.
Resources for Understanding and
Acting on Values
1.
The World Bank conducted an extensive study of the experiences of poor
people around the world. The various reports found in describe what poor
people value, what they need, and what actions they recommend. An excellent
synthesis of the studies may be found in
2.
The following website offers guidelines for ensuring participation and
collaboration of community members in research projects. It offers suggestions
for inviting community members to express their views on issues affecting their
lives. Visit
3.
The Communitarian Network publishes materials and discussions related to
values in contemporary society. They have an interesting website where you can
view interviews with Amitai Etzioni and articles published in their newsletters
and journals. Visit
References
Ahmed,
R., & Pretorius-Heuchert, J. (2001). Notions of social change in community psychology: Issues and
challenges. In M. Seedat (Editor), N. Duncan, & S. Lazarus (Consulting
Editors), Community psychology: Theory, method and practice - South African
and other perspectives (pp. 67-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristide,
J. B. (2000). Eyes of the heart: Seeking a path for the poor in the age of
globalization. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Benhabib,
S. (1996). From identity politics to social feminism: A plea for the nineties.
In D. Trend (Ed.), Radical democracy: Identity, citizenship, and the state
(pp. 27-41). New York: Routledge.
Boonstra,
J. J., & Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M. (1998). Power dynamics and
organizational change: A comparison of perspectives. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 97-120.
Bradshaw,
P. (1998). Power as dynamic tension and its implications for radical
organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 7(2), 121-143.
Cowen, E. L. (1996). The
ontogenesis of primary prevention: Lengthy strides and stubbed toes. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 235-249.
Dalton,
J. H., Elias, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Community psychology:
Linking individuals and communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Damon, W. (1995). Greater
expectations: Overcoming the culture of indulgence in America’s homes and
schools. New York: The Free Press.
Dudgeon, P., Garvey, D., &
Pickett, H. (Eds.). (2000). Working with Indigenous Australians: A handbook
for psychologists. Perth, Western Australia: Gunada Press.
Eckersley,
R., (2000). The mixed blessing of material progress: Diminishing returns in the
pursuit of progress. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 267-292.
Eckersley,
R. (in press). Culture, health and well-being. In R. Eckersley, J. Dixon, &
B. Douglas (Eds.), The social origins of health and well-being. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Edgar, D. (2001). The
patchwork nation: Re-thinking government – re-building community. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Etzioni,
A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York: Touchstone.
Etzioni,
A. (1996). The new golden rule. New York: Basic Books.
Fals
Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and
challenges. In P.
Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice (pp. 27-37). London: Sage.
Flyvbjerg,
B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it
can succeed again. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, R. C., & Esses, V.
M. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnic relations in a multicultural society [Special issue].
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 145-251.
Giddens,
A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gustavsen,
B. (2001). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and
practice (pp. 17-26). London: Sage.
Haste,
H. (1996). Communitarianism and the social construction of morality. Journal
of Moral Education, 25, 47-55.
Hill
Collins, P. (1993). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. In C.
Lemert (Ed.), Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (pp.
615-626). San Francisco: Westview.
Jaggar,
A. L. (1994). Introduction: Living with contradictions. In A. L. Jaggar (Ed.), Living
with contradictions: Controversies in feminist and social ethics. (pp.
1-12). San Francisco: Westview Press.
Kagan,
C., & Burton, M. (2001, March). Critical community psychology praxis for
the 21st Century. Paper presented at the meeting of the British
Psychological Society, Glasgow.
Kane,
R. (1994). Through the moral maze: Searching for absolute values in a
pluralistic world. New York: Paragon.
Kane,
R. (1998). Dimensions of value and the aims of social inquiry. American
Behavioral Scientist, 41, 578-597.
Keating D., & Hertzman, C.
(1999). Modernity’s paradox. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental
health and the wealth of nations (pp. 1-17). Guilford: New York.
Kekes,
J. (1993). The morality of pluralism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kim,
J. K., Millen, J. V., Irwin, A., & Gersham, J. (Eds.). (2000). Dying for
growth: Global inequality and the health of the poor. Monroe, ME: Common
Courage Press.
Korten,
D. (1995). When corporations rule the world. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler/Kumarian Press.
Leonard,
P. (1997). Postmodern welfare: Reconstructing an emancipatory project.
London: Sage
Lerner,
M. (1996). The politics of meaning. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Marmot,
M., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (1999). Social determinants of health.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Martín‑Baró, I. (1994). Writings
for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayton,
D. M., Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Loges, W. E. (1994). Human values and social
issues: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 1-8.
Melnyk,
G. (1985). The search for community: From utopia to a co-operative society.
New York: Black Rose Books.
Moane,
G. (1999). Gender and colonialism: A psychological analysis of oppression
and liberation. London: Macmillan.
Montero,
M. (2000). Participation in participatory action research. Annual Review of
Critical Psychology, 2, 131-143.
Montero,
M. (Ed.). (1994). Psicología social comunitaria [Social‑community
psychology]. Universidad de Guadalajara.
Mulhall,
S., & Swift, A. (1996). Liberals and communitarians (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Narayan,
D., Chambers, R., Shah, M., & Petesch, P. (2000). Voices of the poor:
Crying out for change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Narayan,
D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices
of the poor: Can anyone hear us? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I.,
& MacGillivary, H. (2001). Building value-based partnerships: Toward solidarity with oppressed
groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 649-677.
O’Neill, J. (1994). The
missing child in liberal theory. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto
Press.
Ornish,
D. (1997). Love and survival: The scientific basis for the healing power of
intimacy. New York, NY: Harper and Collins.
Prilleltensky,
I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social
justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29,
747-778.
Prilleltensky,
I. (2000). Value-based leadership in organizations: Balancing values,
interests, and power among citizens, workers, and leaders. Ethics and
Behavior, 10, 139-158.
Prilleltensky,
I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse
and the status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Polities change, oppression remains: On the psychology
and politics of oppression. Political Psychology, 17, 127-147.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Nelson, G. (1997). Community psychology: Reclaiming social justice.
In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An
introduction (pp. 166-184). London: Sage.
Prilleltensky,
I. Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (2001). Promoting family wellness and
preventing child maltreatment: Fundamentals for thinking and action.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Putnam,
R. (2000). Bowling
alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community
psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Riger,
S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21, 279‑292.
Sánchez,
E. (1999). Todos para todos: La continuidad de participación comunitaria
[Everybody for everybody: The continuity of community participation]. Psykhe,
8, 135-144.
Sánchez
Vidal, A (1999). Ética de la intervención social [Ethics of social
intervention]. Barcelona: Paidos.
Sandel,
M. (1996). Democracy’s discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schorr, L. (1997). Common purpose:
Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York:
Doubleday.
Schwartz,
S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-46.
Sen,
A. (1999a). Beyond the crisis: Development strategies in Asia. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Sen,
A. (1999b). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism
and “the politics of recognition”. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Taylor,
D. (Ed.). (1996). Critical social policy. London: Sage.
Trickett,
E. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the
diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24,
209-229.
Trickett, E.J., Watts, R.J.,
& Birman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives on
people in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
United Nations. (1991). United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Minister of Supply
and Services Canada, Catalogue No. S2-210/1991E). Hull, Québec: Communications
Branch, Human Rights Directorate, Department of Canadian Heritage.
Wharf,
B., & McKenzie, B. (1998). Connecting policy to practice in the human
services. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, R. (1996). Unhealthy
societies: The afflictions of inequality. London: Routledge.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory:
Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J.
Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology
(pp. 43-63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Table
3.1
Sources of Values for Holistic and
Accountable Practice in Community Psychology
|
Sources
|
Key Question
|
Situation Explored
|
Tools for Developing Values
|
Contribution to Community Psychology
|
|
Vision
|
What
should be?
|
Ideal
vision
|
Moral and
political thinking
|
Vision of
well-being and liberation
|
|
Context
|
What is?
|
Actual
state
|
Social
science studies of individuals and
communities
|
Understanding
of social conditions
|
|
Needs
|
What is
missing?
|
Desirable
state
|
Experiences
of community members
|
Identification
of human needs
|
|
Action
|
What can
be done?
|
Feasible
change
|
Theories
of change
|
Strategies
for change
|
