All of life is lived in relationship, there is no 'me' who is not in relationship!
Of course, we relate to our friends and families, work colleagues and the other people and neighbours we know. We even relate to a stranger as we walk down the street, just by a glance as we move aside in order to not bump into each other.
We relate to shop-keepers when we purchase goods, and we relate to the producers of the goods we buy, by contributing to their gainful employment, or to their forced labour in third-world sweatshops.
We relate to 'friends' we have never met via social media, and to internet providers by browsing their material, and to advertisers and marketers by being influenced to buy their wares.
Watching TV, we are in a two-way relationship with those we watch, by giving them market share, so employing them and promoting their work. There is no "me in the privacy of my own home" when we look at pornography on the web, for we perpetrate abuse and provide business to people traffickers.
Even when we are physically alone and just with our thoughts, we are relating to ourselves: observing ourselves, 'talking' to ourselves to criticise, belittle or harm ourselves - or to nurture, encourage and build ourselves up.
When we are asleep, we relate to others in our dreams.
Even considering death, there is no "it's my life and I can die if I want to", for by taking our own life we affect family, friends, medics and officials, and others we have never met by changing the path of the world, even if just a little.
In acknowledging God, we bring joy to his heart when we are in relationship with him, and we grieve him when we ignore him, disobey him, or disbelieve in him who is our sustainer, and who made us to be in relationship with him.
Life is relationship. There is no 'me' who is not in relationship.
Friday, 21 June 2013
Thursday, 13 June 2013
We are one: body, soul and spirit
In my last post I focused on the different world-views underlying spiritual faiths and Western psychology, and questioned whether the latter was imposing its assumptions on the many people of faith. In this blog I pursue this line of thinking further, focusing on the increasing overlap between Western therapeutic thinking and Christianity.
Some think that Christianity and psychology have nothing to do with each other: they are different realms and there is no reason for Christians to be any more interested in psychology than in any other '-ology'. There are others who see Christianity and psychology as so overlapping that they almost merge into one, and use 'pop psychology' in the church context with great relish, and seem to almost equate therapy with sanctification!
One of the very first things I learnt as a therapist was that it is difficult to tell psychological problems apart from spiritual problems. There are mental health issues that may have their roots in spiritual problems, and spiritual problems that may be presented as mental health ones. [I'm not interested here in those who suffer from serious delusions - such as thinking that they are Jesus Christ - but rather in the interplay of our ordinary everyday psychological and spiritual experience in life's ups and downs.]
Physicians and psychotherapists increasingly acknowledge that physical and mental health affect each other greatly. We are, after all, one person - our mind is part of our body! So, when people think about being in 'good health' or a state of 'well-being', they generally mean being in good physical and mental health.
But this is not sufficient. We also need to include the link between the physical and mental with our spiritual being. We are indeed one person - body, mind (or soul) and spirit; they each affect the other. So I do not see how one may truly be in good health without the spirit also being healthy. And how can the spirit be healthy when we ignore it, starve it, even deny its existence? We end up with people who look healthy on the outside but who are empty on the inside, hollow shells - or as Jesus put it more plainly, "whitewashed tombs".
Moreover, I do not think Jesus subscribed to the current ideology which sees spiritual issues alone as being the concern of the church, while we leave physical health to doctors and mental health to counsellors and the like. Jesus dealt with whole people - body, soul and spirit - and his healing was total - physical, mental and spiritual. He gave bread to hungry people, hope to hopeless people, enabled lame people to walk and the blind to see, and forgiveness and new life to those who were spiritually broken.
Counsellors must engage with the spiritual realities of their clients, not with any aim for salvation, but merely to understand their clients properly. And the church needs to follow Jesus' example and deal with whole people. Too often both have fallen for the same deceit: that the spirit can be separated from the body and mind.
Nevertheless, the church and counsellors are aiming at different things. It is not the role of counsellors to pass comment on their clients' spiritual frame of reference, merely to understand and engage with the whole person in front of them. But the church will not be relevant to people if it confines itself just to the spiritual; the 'average person in the street', as well as those in the pew, will see the irrelevance of preaching that doesn't deal with the physical and emotional realities of our lives. The gospel is not just about forgiveness for personal sins and being right with God, but about restoring relationships and the natural world - it's about making all things new.
Some think that Christianity and psychology have nothing to do with each other: they are different realms and there is no reason for Christians to be any more interested in psychology than in any other '-ology'. There are others who see Christianity and psychology as so overlapping that they almost merge into one, and use 'pop psychology' in the church context with great relish, and seem to almost equate therapy with sanctification!
One of the very first things I learnt as a therapist was that it is difficult to tell psychological problems apart from spiritual problems. There are mental health issues that may have their roots in spiritual problems, and spiritual problems that may be presented as mental health ones. [I'm not interested here in those who suffer from serious delusions - such as thinking that they are Jesus Christ - but rather in the interplay of our ordinary everyday psychological and spiritual experience in life's ups and downs.]
Physicians and psychotherapists increasingly acknowledge that physical and mental health affect each other greatly. We are, after all, one person - our mind is part of our body! So, when people think about being in 'good health' or a state of 'well-being', they generally mean being in good physical and mental health.
But this is not sufficient. We also need to include the link between the physical and mental with our spiritual being. We are indeed one person - body, mind (or soul) and spirit; they each affect the other. So I do not see how one may truly be in good health without the spirit also being healthy. And how can the spirit be healthy when we ignore it, starve it, even deny its existence? We end up with people who look healthy on the outside but who are empty on the inside, hollow shells - or as Jesus put it more plainly, "whitewashed tombs".
Moreover, I do not think Jesus subscribed to the current ideology which sees spiritual issues alone as being the concern of the church, while we leave physical health to doctors and mental health to counsellors and the like. Jesus dealt with whole people - body, soul and spirit - and his healing was total - physical, mental and spiritual. He gave bread to hungry people, hope to hopeless people, enabled lame people to walk and the blind to see, and forgiveness and new life to those who were spiritually broken.
Counsellors must engage with the spiritual realities of their clients, not with any aim for salvation, but merely to understand their clients properly. And the church needs to follow Jesus' example and deal with whole people. Too often both have fallen for the same deceit: that the spirit can be separated from the body and mind.
Nevertheless, the church and counsellors are aiming at different things. It is not the role of counsellors to pass comment on their clients' spiritual frame of reference, merely to understand and engage with the whole person in front of them. But the church will not be relevant to people if it confines itself just to the spiritual; the 'average person in the street', as well as those in the pew, will see the irrelevance of preaching that doesn't deal with the physical and emotional realities of our lives. The gospel is not just about forgiveness for personal sins and being right with God, but about restoring relationships and the natural world - it's about making all things new.
Monday, 27 May 2013
Psychological & spiritual world-views
Counselling is increasingly accepted in our society, to the point that choosing to see a counsellor is no longer seen as strange or implying anything particularly negative about ourselves.
As a counsellor myself, I must declare an interest in this growing acceptability and demand for counselling! However, as I'm also a Christian, I want to highlight a significant side effect of this trend which is probably unintended and certainly little considered in our secular society.
In seeking counselling there is an implicit assumption that the roots of many problems - anxiety, depression, relationship problems, to name but a few - reside in the realm of psychology, emotions or identity. Hence, seeking counselling is an appropriate way to address such issues.
So what? Where's the problem?
We are very likely blind to the prevailing Western and secular world-view that sees such issues as psychological rather than spiritual. Another view is that anxiety and depression are very natural responses when we lose touch with God and live in a de-personalising materialistic society.
Counsellors intend to offer a 'safe and neutral space' where people can say what they really feel, whatever is on their heart. However, in reality there are usually strict and unspoken limits to this space: "come here if you accept the world-view that such issues are emotional or psychological in nature; spiritual issues are not invited except as an aside".
A natural retort would be that if you want to talk about spiritual issues, then go and see a chaplain, minister, priest or other religious leader. But this implies that these two realms have little overlap and so can be neatly divided up and allocated to different 'specialists'.
Yet, to the person of faith, we cannot meaningfully talk about identity without focusing on the identity God has given us, or about our purpose or direction without including our God-given purpose, or about our relationships without considering how God has made us relational beings. There is no realm of human experience that does not involve God.
You may consider such statements strange or even extreme. But, if so, that simply tells us something about how these world-views collide. And this is not just a problem for a small minority of clients - the great majority of the inhabitants of planet Earth hold to one set of spiritual beliefs or another!
A spiritual world-view goes further, to questioning whether mental health problems may have not just biological or psychological roots, but may also be symptoms of spiritual dis-ease. If a client talks to their counsellor about being depressed, do we enquire into their prayer-life? If a client talks about body image, do we ask about their understanding of being made in the image of God?
While counsellors do their best to understand the diversity of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, we have barely even considered our own spiritual biases and the impact these have on our clients - often denying their reality and imposing a Western secular psychological world-view.
As a counsellor myself, I must declare an interest in this growing acceptability and demand for counselling! However, as I'm also a Christian, I want to highlight a significant side effect of this trend which is probably unintended and certainly little considered in our secular society.
In seeking counselling there is an implicit assumption that the roots of many problems - anxiety, depression, relationship problems, to name but a few - reside in the realm of psychology, emotions or identity. Hence, seeking counselling is an appropriate way to address such issues.
So what? Where's the problem?
We are very likely blind to the prevailing Western and secular world-view that sees such issues as psychological rather than spiritual. Another view is that anxiety and depression are very natural responses when we lose touch with God and live in a de-personalising materialistic society.
Counsellors intend to offer a 'safe and neutral space' where people can say what they really feel, whatever is on their heart. However, in reality there are usually strict and unspoken limits to this space: "come here if you accept the world-view that such issues are emotional or psychological in nature; spiritual issues are not invited except as an aside".
A natural retort would be that if you want to talk about spiritual issues, then go and see a chaplain, minister, priest or other religious leader. But this implies that these two realms have little overlap and so can be neatly divided up and allocated to different 'specialists'.
Yet, to the person of faith, we cannot meaningfully talk about identity without focusing on the identity God has given us, or about our purpose or direction without including our God-given purpose, or about our relationships without considering how God has made us relational beings. There is no realm of human experience that does not involve God.
You may consider such statements strange or even extreme. But, if so, that simply tells us something about how these world-views collide. And this is not just a problem for a small minority of clients - the great majority of the inhabitants of planet Earth hold to one set of spiritual beliefs or another!
A spiritual world-view goes further, to questioning whether mental health problems may have not just biological or psychological roots, but may also be symptoms of spiritual dis-ease. If a client talks to their counsellor about being depressed, do we enquire into their prayer-life? If a client talks about body image, do we ask about their understanding of being made in the image of God?
While counsellors do their best to understand the diversity of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, we have barely even considered our own spiritual biases and the impact these have on our clients - often denying their reality and imposing a Western secular psychological world-view.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Choosing our identity
In recent decades we have come to think and talk a lot about identity. However, what we mean by identity is rarely defined and often includes a multitude of meanings.
In a general way we think of identity to mean "who I am", with the common implication being that this is a given and not up for discussion or change. Rather, we talk about 'being true to our identity'. In other words, we see our task as aligning ourselves faithfully with our given identity in order to be authentically ourselves. In so doing we tend not to acknowledge any choice over our identity. Hence, it is not surprising that we feel misunderstood, offended, or even outraged, when someone challenges some aspect of our identity. After all, how can I change who I am? How dare they!
On the contrary, I think that our identity is largely a matter of choice; moreover it can and does change with time.
So, what factors influence our identity?
But these are all factors that influence rather than determine our identity. For example, you may be red-headed by birth, but whether you see this as part of your identity depends on what importance you give this; if it is unimportant, it is just an incidental fact about you. The importance or significance we ascribe to a particular fact about us, in turn shapes how we perceive our identity.
The problem occurs when we feel defined - by others or by society - by some attribute or behaviour of ours which we do not take to be particularly important. For example, if you are a mother, a lawyer and campaigner for human rights, but others only see you as 'disabled' because of the wheelchair you use, then this is very likely to be frustrating! For good reasons we are encouraged to see 'a person with a disability', rather than a 'disabled person'.
While that example might be clear, others are not: do we see 'a gay man' or 'a man who is gay' or, indeed, just 'a man'? There is no right answer to this. It depends on what importance that person places on their same-sex attraction and whether they see that as a key part of their identity. [In saying this, I am accepting that a person's identity is defined by their own views, rather than the views of the observer.]
Moreover, although we tend to think that the 'real me', the 'inner me', remains unchanged whatever our age or circumstance, we do change our identity over time. As we move from child to teenager to adult, perhaps to partner, parent, grand-parent - or from student to unemployed person, to employee, to retiree - our priorities, interests, focus and values change. The young 'left-wing-radical' becomes rather more conservative with age.
There was a time when I certainly didn't think of myself as a Christian, but now it is one of the things I hold most dear, a key part of my identity. But what changed? My upbringing and cultural circumstances haven't changed, nor has my genetic make-up. Yet my behaviour, feelings and the values I hold dear have changed in ways I count very important. So my identity has changed. (You might say - excuse the cliché - that I was 'born again'!)
So, when you hear someone talking about his or her identity in ways that imply they have no choice in the matter, I would inject a note of caution, and look to the choices we each make along the way in defining our identity.
In a general way we think of identity to mean "who I am", with the common implication being that this is a given and not up for discussion or change. Rather, we talk about 'being true to our identity'. In other words, we see our task as aligning ourselves faithfully with our given identity in order to be authentically ourselves. In so doing we tend not to acknowledge any choice over our identity. Hence, it is not surprising that we feel misunderstood, offended, or even outraged, when someone challenges some aspect of our identity. After all, how can I change who I am? How dare they!
On the contrary, I think that our identity is largely a matter of choice; moreover it can and does change with time.
So, what factors influence our identity?
- there are attributes we are born with, such as ethnicity, sex, hair colour - i.e. our genetic make-up
- there are cultural aspects to our identity, such as nationality, caste, cultural norms and expectations, which may include religion
- and there are behavioural facets to our identity, such as work roles, interests and preferences.
But these are all factors that influence rather than determine our identity. For example, you may be red-headed by birth, but whether you see this as part of your identity depends on what importance you give this; if it is unimportant, it is just an incidental fact about you. The importance or significance we ascribe to a particular fact about us, in turn shapes how we perceive our identity.
The problem occurs when we feel defined - by others or by society - by some attribute or behaviour of ours which we do not take to be particularly important. For example, if you are a mother, a lawyer and campaigner for human rights, but others only see you as 'disabled' because of the wheelchair you use, then this is very likely to be frustrating! For good reasons we are encouraged to see 'a person with a disability', rather than a 'disabled person'.
While that example might be clear, others are not: do we see 'a gay man' or 'a man who is gay' or, indeed, just 'a man'? There is no right answer to this. It depends on what importance that person places on their same-sex attraction and whether they see that as a key part of their identity. [In saying this, I am accepting that a person's identity is defined by their own views, rather than the views of the observer.]
Moreover, although we tend to think that the 'real me', the 'inner me', remains unchanged whatever our age or circumstance, we do change our identity over time. As we move from child to teenager to adult, perhaps to partner, parent, grand-parent - or from student to unemployed person, to employee, to retiree - our priorities, interests, focus and values change. The young 'left-wing-radical' becomes rather more conservative with age.
There was a time when I certainly didn't think of myself as a Christian, but now it is one of the things I hold most dear, a key part of my identity. But what changed? My upbringing and cultural circumstances haven't changed, nor has my genetic make-up. Yet my behaviour, feelings and the values I hold dear have changed in ways I count very important. So my identity has changed. (You might say - excuse the cliché - that I was 'born again'!)
So, when you hear someone talking about his or her identity in ways that imply they have no choice in the matter, I would inject a note of caution, and look to the choices we each make along the way in defining our identity.
Monday, 29 April 2013
Being true to our feelings?
We talk about 'being true to our feelings' as if to do so is to be 'honest', 'authentic', 'natural', to really 'be ourselves'. There is an implicit but clear notion that this is good and should be encouraged.
Working as a counsellor I am certainly interested in people's feelings; these give information and meaning to bald facts about a person and their behaviour. But the common assumption is that feelings are neither good nor bad, right or wrong - they 'just are'.
For example, if I feel hurt after a confrontation, we tend not to make judgements about whether it was right or wrong to feel hurt; we are more likely to ask what it was that hurt, or to agree that it was quite natural to feel hurt after such a bruising encounter.
But this is to overlook the great degree to which our thinking influences - even begets - our feelings. And our thinking is, in turn, heavily influenced by societal norms and our own worldview.
So, returning to my simple example, it may be that I am hurt because some uncomfortable truth about me is brought to light in the confrontation, and I think, "who do they think they are to pass judgement upon me?". So it is my pride that is hurt.
But from a Christian perspective, my sinful proud nature has been revealed. My feeling of hurt was a further outworking of this sin. A more Godly response would have been to admit my arrogance, humbly take it to God and to praise Him that He loves me nonetheless. So, not hurt, but gratitude to the other person for speaking the truth, and to God for His forgiveness!
So, it turns out that feelings, far from being neutral or 'just being whatever they are', reveal our (usually sinful) nature.
A blunter way of saying this would be: thank God that I am not being really true to my feelings - for otherwise I too would be a thief, a murderer, a tyrant.
What about you?
Working as a counsellor I am certainly interested in people's feelings; these give information and meaning to bald facts about a person and their behaviour. But the common assumption is that feelings are neither good nor bad, right or wrong - they 'just are'.
For example, if I feel hurt after a confrontation, we tend not to make judgements about whether it was right or wrong to feel hurt; we are more likely to ask what it was that hurt, or to agree that it was quite natural to feel hurt after such a bruising encounter.
But this is to overlook the great degree to which our thinking influences - even begets - our feelings. And our thinking is, in turn, heavily influenced by societal norms and our own worldview.
So, returning to my simple example, it may be that I am hurt because some uncomfortable truth about me is brought to light in the confrontation, and I think, "who do they think they are to pass judgement upon me?". So it is my pride that is hurt.
But from a Christian perspective, my sinful proud nature has been revealed. My feeling of hurt was a further outworking of this sin. A more Godly response would have been to admit my arrogance, humbly take it to God and to praise Him that He loves me nonetheless. So, not hurt, but gratitude to the other person for speaking the truth, and to God for His forgiveness!
So, it turns out that feelings, far from being neutral or 'just being whatever they are', reveal our (usually sinful) nature.
A blunter way of saying this would be: thank God that I am not being really true to my feelings - for otherwise I too would be a thief, a murderer, a tyrant.
What about you?
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Doubt: the growing edge of faith
All people of faith are familiar with doubt. Yet we may well feel some sense of shame or guilt for doubting, as if we should not. The very existence of doubts seems to indicate a feeble faith rather than a clear conviction.
I see it differently.
Doubt is not the same as unbelief; it is a time of being unsure whether we believe or not; it is a potential turning point. Although doubt is not a sin, it is important to pay it careful attention, because there can be consequences for all eternity.
Look back at the things you now believe. Wasn’t there a time, maybe long ago, that you doubted them? Praise the Lord that he has brought you through those doubts to greater faith. Every advance in our faith was preceded by doubt, out of which grew conviction. Through doubt, in time, comes greater faith - doubt is the growing edge of faith.
But of course doubt can also be the turning point at which we lose our faith - hence its seriousness and potentially eternal consequences. So what makes the difference? When does doubt turn to faith, and when to unbelief?
I think it depends on what do you do when you doubt.
Do you dwell on your doubts and try to rationally work them out by yourself, probably getting stuck in the process? Do you pretend to have faith, but inwardly harbour doubt? Do you turn away from God, doubting that he will help? Do you stop going to church because you are not sure what you believe? If so, that way lies disbelief, discontent, disillusionment, and ultimately death.
Or do you take your doubts to Jesus?
There are many famous doubters in the Bible. Here are a few:
Why do I still doubt? Because my faith is still growing; because He still has more to do in me!
And if you are really struggling with doubt and wonder whether you can carry on as a Christian, do not suppose that you will resolve your doubts by giving up your faith. Do you really think that non-Christians and atheists don’t have doubts: What if there is a God? Perhaps Christians are right? What am I here for? Surely there is more to life than this?
So the answer to doubt is not atheism, but honestly taking your doubts to God. God can use doubt to grow our faith!
There is nothing that God wants better than to increase your faith, so that you know Him better and to make you more useful to Him. In every case I quoted – Abram, Gideon, John the Baptist, Peter, Thomas – it was through their doubt that God brought about greater faith! If we take our doubts to Him, He can use them to grow our faith.
Doubt is the growing edge of faith - when we take it to Jesus!
I see it differently.
Doubt is not the same as unbelief; it is a time of being unsure whether we believe or not; it is a potential turning point. Although doubt is not a sin, it is important to pay it careful attention, because there can be consequences for all eternity.
Look back at the things you now believe. Wasn’t there a time, maybe long ago, that you doubted them? Praise the Lord that he has brought you through those doubts to greater faith. Every advance in our faith was preceded by doubt, out of which grew conviction. Through doubt, in time, comes greater faith - doubt is the growing edge of faith.
But of course doubt can also be the turning point at which we lose our faith - hence its seriousness and potentially eternal consequences. So what makes the difference? When does doubt turn to faith, and when to unbelief?
I think it depends on what do you do when you doubt.
Do you dwell on your doubts and try to rationally work them out by yourself, probably getting stuck in the process? Do you pretend to have faith, but inwardly harbour doubt? Do you turn away from God, doubting that he will help? Do you stop going to church because you are not sure what you believe? If so, that way lies disbelief, discontent, disillusionment, and ultimately death.
Or do you take your doubts to Jesus?
There are many famous doubters in the Bible. Here are a few:
- Abram, who doubted God would give him the promised land, in Genesis 15v8
- Gideon, who doubted whether he was hearing from God, in Judges 6v17
- John the Baptist, who doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah, in Matthew 11v2
- Peter, who doubted he could walk on water when Jesus told him to, in Matthew 14v29
- and Thomas, who doubted whether Jesus had risen from the dead, in John 20v25.
Why do I still doubt? Because my faith is still growing; because He still has more to do in me!
And if you are really struggling with doubt and wonder whether you can carry on as a Christian, do not suppose that you will resolve your doubts by giving up your faith. Do you really think that non-Christians and atheists don’t have doubts: What if there is a God? Perhaps Christians are right? What am I here for? Surely there is more to life than this?
So the answer to doubt is not atheism, but honestly taking your doubts to God. God can use doubt to grow our faith!
There is nothing that God wants better than to increase your faith, so that you know Him better and to make you more useful to Him. In every case I quoted – Abram, Gideon, John the Baptist, Peter, Thomas – it was through their doubt that God brought about greater faith! If we take our doubts to Him, He can use them to grow our faith.
Doubt is the growing edge of faith - when we take it to Jesus!
Sunday, 10 March 2013
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?
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'
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'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)