Playing victim with the poor - pt2

(This blog will make more sense if you read pt1 first)

The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level. Please consider the following two examples with me.

The UK welfare benefits system

In stereotypical terms, the UK Labour Party leans towards being Rescuers, wanting to support the poor people (in both senses of that word!), while the Conservative Party leans towards being Persecutors of those 'idle scroungers'. Those on benefits may choose to play the Victim role (or not).

But both main political parties are both playing the same P-V-R game. After we have played one way for a while with Labour riding to Rescue the poor Victims on benefits, we flip over to the opposing pole for a change and elect the Conservatives to Persecute them instead for a season.

Those on benefits, if playing the Victim role, use their power to extract benefits from the government, but in the process become dependent. So, whichever party is in power, nothing actually changes and no real help is provided to the poor Victims to enable them to gain independence.

To make real change we need to move to the Helper - Challenger - Vulnerable roles, with Governments taking the Helper and/or Challenger positions. This is not the same as either Rescuer or Persecutor roles, and looks for actual change, not the maintenance of some long-standing power game. From the Government's point of view, this would involve releasing some power, so those in poverty can take more control of their destiny. From the point of view of those in poverty, this would involve taking more responsibility for what they can achieve for themselves if given needed help.

Governments are keen on telling the poor to take more responsibility, but less keen on letting go of control. And those who are playing the Victim role are keen to ask for money, but are sometimes less keen to take on real responsibility. And so, the whole merry-go-round turns again, as we keep playing P-V-R instead.

When a person with real need asks for help (i.e. being Vulnerable - not playing Victim), is instead dealt with as a Victim by the state, this is a travesty and does untold long-term harm, creating dependency where none was sought!

How can you tell which set of relationships is being enacted?

• the Vulnerable person asks for help, but also takes responsibility for what they can do themselves
• the Helper offers relevant help when asked, but doesn't exert control or take away responsibility
• the Challenger is fair and doesn't 'put people down'.

International aid

The same applies to international aid. For too long we have played P-V-R with aid, where developing countries exert their power as Victims to extract aid, but are left dependent. The Western world either rides to the Rescue in order to retain control (with the price being aid money) or else Persecutes by exploiting the developing world unfairly while blaming them for mismanagement.

Are Western nations willing to accord the developing nations equal rights with themselves, or do we really want to retain the moral high ground and the control, with the price being international aid?

On the other hand, we often we criticise developing nations for 'playing victim', but will not let go of the control we demand as Rescuers or Persecutors. If we really want to help, we need to acknowledge and accept the loss of power for the Western world if we are able to help developing nations gain independence and autonomy.

So the question is: are we just wanting to endlessly play the P-V-R game, or do we actually want to respond when asked for help in order to effect real change?


I've written on a similar theme before in: 'Doing more than half the work'

Making a difference

Most people have some desire to do something 'worthwhile' with their lives. The nature and scale of what is seen as worthwhile varies greatly, but some of the following motivations are likely to be included:

• to do some good
• to make a difference for others
• to give our children a better life than we have had
• to leave something behind, so that we will be remembered
• to make a mark on the world (even if just on one small corner)
• to make life worth living, and not just to live purely for ourselves.

This sounds noble and good, and it may well be so.

But it's worth stopping to consider whether the recipients of our 'good deeds' really want that done to them!

Maybe

• we can listen to what others are saying, before we rush in to help?
• we can deal with people as equals, rather than 'needy people who should be grateful for our help'?
• the worker in the developing-world would rather that we paid a fair price for their labour, than that we sent aid?
• we could believe that (even needy) people have wisdom and know their circumstances and needs better than we do?
• acknowledging our own weaknesses and failings enables others to help us, and so empowers them?
• the best ways of helping involve building relationships, not money and stuff?
• people who have few possessions have something to teach us?

Do we overlook the recipients in our desire to make a difference? And if so, what kind of difference are we making?

Doing more than half the work

Here are three suggested guidelines related to helping.

They can be applied in just about any setting – practical help, offering guidance, third-world development work, Christian mission…

1. When we do for someone what they can do for themselves, we diminish them and rob them of their dignity.

• How often we demonstrate our ‘helpfulness’ by doing for others what they can do for themselves! But usually we are just demonstrating our pride and our lack of respect.
• And all we are really showing is our own neediness – our need to be ‘top dog’, our need to be needed, our need to be seen as helpful…
• We also show our lack of listening or discernment, our lack of understanding of the other person’s knowledge, skills and capabilities. And so we miss the opportunity to learn from the other and so grow ourselves.

2. Where a task is heavy and some assistance might be appreciated, we may offer to help but we shouldn’t take control; our role is to serve under their leadership; it is their task.

• Where we think we can help, there usually comes an assumption that actually we could do it better than they can. And so we say we are offering to help, but actually are offering to take over!
• But when it comes to knowing what needs to be done, who knows better – the outside ‘expert’ or the person who lives within the situation and brings a lifetime of experience to their situation?
• Just occasionally – though much less frequently that assumed – the outsider may know something that is genuinely useful. But this should be offered very tentatively and humbly, with the decision over whether to take it forward left firmly with the person whose task it is. If it is imposed it will not be adopted or owned, merely tolerated for a while.

3. Even where a person really cannot do something for themselves, don't do more than half the work, as this creates dependence and robs them of learning.

• How much easier it is to do the task for the other, rather than go through the lengthy process of working alongside someone who does not understand!
• But this merely feeds our ego, until we become bored and tire of helping and depart, leaving the other worse off than when we began.
• Rather, work together, offering your skills or understanding, but also listening and learning from the other, so that together you create something which is better than either of you could do alone.

Helping is a difficult task, and not often encountered.