An Interview with Dr. Pamela Cushing

This issue explores the theme of altruism with particular
reference to L’Arche as a kind of laboratory for what we might
learn about it. L’Arche is built on the altruism or generosity of
the many young volunteers who come as assistants to share life
with people with developmental disabilities in its homes and
programs. These young people accept a lifestyle that is radically
different from their peers who are not in L’Arche. They come
for a year, or two, and some stay much longer. What motivates
and sustains this kind of generosity?

Beth Porter – For your PhD research you interviewed over
100 L’Arche assistants across Canada. What did you learn
about altruism from them?...

Pamela Cushing – I anticipated that many assistants
would name altruistic motives as the reason they came to
L’Arche. In fact, most of them
were uncomfortable with the
term “altruism” and even strenuously
corrected me, saying in
various ways, ‘actually, for me
this is not about sacrifice. It’s
about living a full life.’ I was
struck by their thinking that if
they got something positive out
of the experience, this cancelled
the altruism in their initial motive. A massive American
study done by sociologist Robert Wuthnow suggests this pattern may be true of our culture in general.
He found even people who gave significant time to volunteering
were highly reticent about making altruistic claims,
preferring to attribute their actions to personal satisfaction
or happenstance. I think there’s danger in negating altruism
as part of their motives. Pure altruism is rather rare.
I discovered a blend of motivating elements in each assistant’s
story: 1) an altruistic impulse; 2) self-interest – an expectation
of growing and learning by giving of themselves, or an
expectation of adventure through living in a different country
and with new people; and 3) a pragmatic element – coming to
L’Arche made sense at the time. These motives didn’t usually
function as discreet variables but worked in concert.
One assistant said he saw L’Arche as a practical setting in
which he could embody what he believed from his faith and his
studies but had not been able to live out in a university setting.
He saw ‘doing good’ – being altruistic – as part of his identity,
and being a L’Arche assistant gave him a context to live this
identity. Another assistant had been involved in community
service but then went through a period of what she called
“chaotic, destructive self-indulgence.” She said, “I felt L’Arche
could be the moral compass I needed.” It could help her return
to the person that she wanted to be, which included serving
others. In both these stories self-interest and altruism are in a
productive tension, the fruit of which can be healthy service in a
context where the caregiver’s awareness of what is being
received enhances the dignity of the service.
What discourages altruism among young people?
Indifference, and cynicism. When young people are recognized
and rewarded in an interpersonal, social way, not just by
adults but by their peers, for other knowledge and other experiences,
that dampens their desire to be part of social change. If
everyone in your Facebook network is discussing the best songs,
latest parties, and blogs, you are not going to get much recognition
for trying to talk about your latest volunteer venture.
Cynicism is a seductive attitude because it
allows us to be passive. It feeds hopelessness by making problems
seem so big and systems so impervious to our resistance
that we allow ourselves to do nothing at all.
How can these negative influences be countered and altruism
nourished?
There are some encouraging attempts to address these attitudes,
either through giving young people opportunities for
practical action that is valorized, or through research that
relates, for instance, to character education. In the latter area,
the Templeton Foundation funds a number of studies that
examine, for example, how goodness and personal and social
responsibility are nurtured in young people, and how competence
in ethical and moral reasoning is developed.
Part of the magic I observed at L’Arche is that it gives assistants
the needed relational context in which their compassion
or generosity are recognized. Assistants talked a lot about the
importance of being part of a community of support that
includes the people with developmental disabilities. There are
those little moments where you can decide to do the bare minimum
or you can decide to do more. Part of us wants not to do
more. If your co-workers feel frustrated and don’t share the
desire that you have, it can be hard. Most individuals have a
very difficult time continuing to give unless they have a supportive
community around them that helps them feel nourished
and stay true to their ideals. This is especially important in
face of indifference from the broader society.
The ability to get behind the label and to come to know
the person – an ability children have – usually needs to be
relearned in adulthood. Knowing people is key. There’s no ‘the
disabled’ in a L’Arche experience. It’s Peter, it’s Roy. And then
you see they are just like you. L’Arche assistants acquire this
new learning within a powerful counter-cultural setting and
they often have a sense of having grown. This can be a strong
source of motivation. L’Arche regards such relations as normal,
and it needs to be careful in so doing, that it does not dampen
the assistant’s initial sense of radicalism and heightened awareness
of the social injustice to which people with disabilities are
subject in so many little ways.
Anthropologists are increasingly recognizing the importance
and complex diversity of the particulars within a culture, rather
than trying to find cultural universals that tend to gloss over
their internal differences. Sherry Ortner, for instance, says the
danger for social scientists is to see the ‘other’ as a category.
You have to see the other person as having the same mixed,
complicated motives and desires as you have, whatever their
ethnicity, class, education, ability, religion. One-on-one
exposure to others is a way to see people as human beings,
not bundled together and labelled.
In my own youth I had exposure to a lot of different people
through travel and volunteer work that my parents did. This
kind of experience helps counter stereotyping. Jay and I ask
ourselves as parents, are we doing enough to model service, to
introduce our child to those who are different, and to nourish
the roots of empathy.

► Develop a language of belonging to inform the emerging dialogue on belonging
► Celebrate diversity in meaningful ways to foster a culture of intentional understanding
► Nurture leadership capacity among youth with disabilities who are eager to be ‘Ambassadors of Belonging’
► Create opportunities for belonging at the local level through community networks
► Cultivate strong, resilient and diverse relationships at all stages of life
► Organize team games and group activities to foster relationships based on a common goal
► Develop inclusive and accessible online technologies that reinforce face-to-face interaction without replacing it
► Encourage story telling as an effective way to develop understanding, acceptance and trust
► Focus on schools as a primary site for promoting a culture of inclusion and understanding
► Emphasize a spirit of commonality and integration rather than difference and segregation among community centres and Independent Living Resource Centres
► Invite family members to contribute and share in initiatives that celebrate youths’ abilities
► Commit to a dialogue on belonging that is proactive, intentional and long-term
► Recognize youth with disabilities as vital companions and guides on the road to understanding belonging

by Jean Vanier

Insecurity is, I think, at the heart of one of the great human dichotomies: the need for belonging and the need to be oneself, a real person, fully alive. In the fulfillment of the need for belonging, is a certain surrender of the self to the group, the community, the culture that provide a set of received truths. But to go further in the search human fulfillment and inner freedom we need to reflect on the certitudes of the group, even to question them and take the risk of going against the grain.

It is when we act as individuals, allowing our deepest selves to arise, that what I call the principle of insecurity is most evident: we choose to live a certain insecurity and question things held to be true. However, to be insecure in this way is also, I believe, an important quality for the group or community; the things the group holds dear can be a looked at, reflected on, questioned, and deepened, the better to find the truths contained therein. Let us look at this in more detail...

In many countries of the world, the family, the village, and the tribe still remain strong; people feel bonded to one another. This bonding gives security; people know what to do and what to believe. Elders or leaders have a real power and authority. If someone falls sick, they are looked after. But there are disadvantages to such strong bonding. Members of the community sacrifice their individual consciousness and freedom at the altar of security and unity, the altar of bonding. For some, this submission can cause pain, particularly for those who are young and ambitious, who do not want to be enslaved in ancient traditions and in the collective poverty that is embraced by many such communities. The human urge is to liberate ourselves from what we perceive to be oppressive belonging. We want to find freedom but we want to find it within some kind of structure.

Among humankind, the family represents the basic social unit. However, everywhere we look, this basic place of belonging is breaking down. Let me take the country where I live, France, as an example. In Paris, one out of every two marriages ends in divorce and in the rest of France, one out of three goes the same way. Statistics show that everywhere, more and more people are frightened of commitment.

And why is this happening? I believe it is because our Western societies have place the power, rights, and needs of the individual above those of the group. We have developed societies based on the principle of competition; people must work hard in order to succeed. Now, in a certain context, this can be healthy, particularly since a group can stifle both personal consciousness and freedom, as well as the development of one’s gifts and capacities. Competition stretches our capacities but a focus on individual values and rights can push us into a terrible loneliness.

This is a loneliness that can bring some people, especially those who feel ill-equipped to live in the competitive world or who have never truly belonged in a family, to the depths of despair, where they lose their sense of self and of meaning. This is a place of insecurity at its most profound, insecurity in its most negative aspect.

But this loneliness can also cause us to seek out new ways of belonging, in places where we are helped to find a meaning of our lives, places where we may live out an idea, where we may experience a true bonding with others. In the same way, this loneliness can cause us to search for new ways of bringing greater peace and justice to our society, to struggle with and for those who have been downtrodden, so that they may find an equitable place in society. This is a loneliness that will push some to seek new ways of healing the broken and those who cry out in pain; it will push others to seek truth and a new relationship with God.

A society based on the Darwinian "survival of the fittest," where we all fend for ourselves, has serious disadvantages. It promotes a strong, aggressive attitude and the need to win. It can paralyze the development of the heart, prevent healthy cooperation among people, and promote rivalry and enmity. It tends to marginalize those who are weak and even those who reject individualistic principles and want to live in and for a society based on truth and justice for all. In a society that encourages an ethics of economy, of winning, and of power, it is important to be admired. In such a society, an ethics of justice, solidarity, and cooperation, and ethics of the common good, can quickly fade into the background. Individual success is all that matters. How can Western societies encourage the development of personal consciousness, freedom, and creativity and, at the same time, help us to not fall into self-centered attitudes and motivations? How can we orient the development of the individual towards works of justice, the struggle for peace, and helping others to develop their gifts and find their place in society?