CIRCLE ONE:
CIRCLE TWO:
Outside of and surrounding the central mainstream circle are the people that Society regards as “marginalized”. These are people who don’t fit with Mainstream values and behaviours. Despite the significant difference between those in the central “Mainstream” circle and those in this circle of the “Marginalized”, there is a Rational aspect to this circle. Either the folk in this socio-economic space are themselves rational (can be reasoned with and comply with what the “Mainstream” regard as logical thinking) or their challenges can be described and understood rationally (have scientific reasonable explanations, such as being caused by mental or physical illness).
People in the central “Mainstream” circle typically adopt one of two approaches to the outer “Marginalized” circle. One common approach is to ignore and/or avoid marginalized people. The other typical approach is to engage by “fixing” or “containing” the individuals who are in that group. In this latter “fix or contain” approach, the efforts are aimed at restoring “marginalized” individuals to being able to fit with and function comfortably within the “mainstream” circle. For those who cannot be helped back into mainstream functioning the approach is to provide them with demarcated facilities and communities of their own distinct and separated from the “Mainstream”: for example mental hospitals, prisons, supportive housing, ghetto neighbourhoods etc. The effort at containment is particularly evident when a “marginalized” group are seen to pose a threat to the wellbeing and/or safety of the “Mainstream”.
CIRCLE THREE:
Beyond the “Marginalized” group and often hidden within it, there is a third generally unacknowledged group. It includes the individuals who we can neither “fix” nor “contain”. It is the socio-economic group where the constructs are not rational. People seem to behave irrationally and there is no rational (scientific or logical) explanation for their decisions or behaviour. These individuals do not meet the criteria for being apprehended under the Mental Health Act yet their decisions and actions seem to be ridiculous, destructive and disruptive. They are usually not criminals but often end up breaking the law because of the inner challenges with which they are dealing. This group includes those who inevitably end up not being able to fit with or be accommodated by even the supportive housing geared for the “hard to house”. It includes those who for myriad other reasons are chronically homeless. For those in this group there are no simple rational explanations or labels, just behaviours that “Mainstream” society find disturbing and/or threatening – but which they can neither fix not contain.
In North American society we do not seem to have clear strategies for or informed approaches to those within this third circle. Such individuals are either cycling in and out of prisons and other institutions or are in the shadows of the streets and lanes.
SHELTERS VS REFUGES:
Our collective response as a Society has been to provide Shelters for individuals who might be described as being within Circles Two or Three. These Shelters are interim places of accommodation, warmth and care in which the wellbeing of the majority in the facility is ensured by excluding the few who are a threat to safety and wellbeing. As such Shelters are therefore essentially about the “marginalized” in Circle Two. The “few” who are excluded as a potential threat are from the “irrational” Circle Three.
WE URGENTLY NEED:
a) clearly articulated and comprehensive strategies that are integrated across disciplines and departments to address the needs and realities of these “few” who do not fit even amongst the “marginalized”. This includes going beyond the present practices of temporary detainment and/or prison to leverage those practices towards ensuring actual assessment and effective treatment.
b) places of Refuge (as distinct from Shelters) where those who have nowhere else to go (“the few” excluded from the Shelters) can find accommodation, care and support that actually address the real issues with which they are struggling – and where we can create the critical first steps in engaging with folk who may be deeply distrustful of and disconnected from mainstream society.
c) inclusive communities in which there are no margins, rather than more communities of the marginalized. Our collective need is to connect the three circles and to relate across the socio-economic divides. Despite the need for Shelters and separate Refuges, we need to find ways to build inclusive communities in which all individuals feel they belong, and are not simply being tolerated.
d) a National Housing Strategy and sufficient appropriate housing across the complete housing continuum: from Refuge, through Shelter, through Supportive Housing, through Affordable Social Housing, through Market Housing
FINAL ANALYSIS: In the end, we instinctively know three core truths.
1) Deep within our beings we know we are interdependent across the divides of social circumstance and despite the differences between us. Desmond Tutu’s frequent references to “ubuntu” remind us that “I am only fully human, when you are fully human – what happens to you, directly affects me”. We belong to one another across the socio-economic divides.
2) Very few people are permanently located in one of the three circles, but instead move across, into and out of the circles over time. Some cycle back and forth. In that sense many of us have personal experience of someone we love who has been in Circle Three. Those in Circle Two and in Circle Three are not a ” them” but an “us”.
3) Some of the most effective healing is best achieved when integrated with and not separated from everyday mainstream life. This has been powerfully reflected in the work of the “anti-psychiatry” movement of the 1960′s and the immense contribution of Jean Vanier’s L’Arche communities. The deeply troubled individual and the rest of us are all more whole when we can find healing in a shared space within which we are are all fully present. The three circles need to live in creative dynamic relationship with each other.
To build off the recent mantra of the housing strategy of the City of Vancouver, we need to ensure “a home for everyone”, – and a community in which everyone feels at home.
A MODEL of the SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE
No comments:
Post a Comment