P. J. Cushing 2003

 

 

 

4.0 Emerging and Converging Forces in the
History of L’Arche

 

4.1 Introduction

 

            In many of the L’Arche homes, people take time after dinner to be together socially and sometimes in prayer. One night at La Moisson house in Trois Rivières, Colin, a young university graduate and their new head of house, was leading the reflection time by reading from Le Petit Prince. The little Prince was sad and confused when he saw a field of roses that looked just like his own special rose that he had cared for so uniquely. Eventually, the fox helped the little Prince to grasp that it is all of the small daily things that friends do together that distinguishes them, not how they look; “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” (Saint-Exupery 1943:86). [i]

             “This makes me think of all of you and the time we spend just being together, getting to know each other,” Colin said quietly to the group. A couple of people giggled, seemingly at the unexpected show of intimacy, but went silent when they saw that he was serious. Colin’s multiple piercings, tattoos, and alternately aloof and rambunctious ways, make him appear only loosely engaged or implicated in the home life. Inside, however, his understanding of the goals of caregiving were shifting. Later, over a beer, he explained what he sees as the value in what L’Arche offers: “Since living here, I am convinced that spending time together is more important than what we do for people or the skills we can teach them. Most of the folks [people with disabilities] aren’t used to people choosing to be with them, and genuinely liking them. That’s what we [assistants] can really give … share. And, I think that is what they need most.”

            This chapter lays the foundation for my ethnography by historicizing the emergence and development of L’Arche. L’Arche materialized out of the confluence of various environmental, legislative and individual factors, which I outline. The L’Arche philosophy and organization reflect both culturally-normative and counter-cultural, unpredictable elements for their time. A close analysis of these historical factors usefully illuminates the early origins of current issues.

            Colin’s thoughts point to a central principle of L’Arche: the primacy of the heart and affective concerns in human life. Vanier’s conception of the human person as fundamentally oriented through the heart and as being in most direct connection with God there, permeates L’Arche (Downey 1986). From that basic premise, the founders of L'Arche developed a new conception of disability, difference, and vulnerability and how to support people classed as such. The conception and support were, and continue to be, radical and effective. Vanier’s focus on the heart enabled him to imagine the diverse needs and desires of people with intellectual disabilities, beyond basic shelter and food.

            To understand how these ideas emerged and developed into something concrete, it is vital to begin with a close look at the circuitous genealogy of Jean Vanier’s formation. I discuss the socio-cultural and interpersonal roots of Vanier’s beliefs, and how these shaped L’Arche. In section 4.2, I discuss the founding of L’Arche, its quick growth and at times awkward translation into Canada, and how the mission and charism that it claims today were revealed through intense experience over time to the founders. Charism is a common Christian term denoting the spiritual mission given to a leader or organization from God. A charism is formed when a unique insight about the scriptures is revealed and motivates the recipient(s) to act. How it is enacted can change over time.[ii]  Section 4.3 details the elements of the current, clarified mission, and how it continues to change. Next, these elements are compared with other prominent models of caregiving. In section 4.4, current issues related to staff and the mission in Canada are discussed.


4.2 The Roots of L’Arche

 

4.2.1 Setting the scene: L’Arche and Jean Vanier’s pre-L’Arche years

 

            L’Arche is both an intentional faith community and a caregiving organization for people with intellectual disabilities. Assistants and core members live and work together in L’Arche homes and workshops. L’Arche seeks to promote a vision of the value or “gifts” of all humans and especially people with intellectual disability. Rather than seeing what people are unable to do because of their cognitive impairments, Vanier inverts the equation and asks what are they better able or prepared to do precisely because of those impairments. In a supportive environment, these gifts are able to emerge. L’Arche today is a challenge to society and the church, to revalorize difference and to treasure the poor. These ideas can seem odd when stated out of the context, and L’Arche itself was not founded with a clear set of goals and theories initially.

            Various writers have recorded the myriad beliefs out of which L'Arche was formed. Although today it is common to talk about L’Arche as synonymous with Jean Vanier, (one of the two main founders), a historical review makes it clear that Vanier’s vision was nourished by several people during a long and rich developmental period. The actualization of his vision was only possible with the work of his close coterie and a cast of service-oriented people—spiritual seekers, medical professionals, idealistic youth volunteers, clergy/sisters, and supportive bureaucrats. Vanier himself would agree; he maintains that he is more a catalyst than a founder: a catalyst for revealing an existing secret of the church—that the spirit of Jesus resides in the poor (Downey 1986:ix). Vanier claims many sources of insight and aid, and in his famous, inspiring stories, his emphasis is almost always on people with intellectual disabilities, and what he learns from them (Vanier 1995, 1998, Downey 1986:ix). Vanier’s extraordinary gift was his ability to transform inspiration, experience and relationships into a new and visionary spiritual message that motivated others. Before reviewing his influences below, I explain some linguistic particulars of L’Arche and chronicle Jean Vanier’s life.

Particular vocabulary

            A short explanation of some L’Arche words, most of them religious in origin, is necessary. Religion, and in particular, Christianity is essential to L’Arche, but L’Arche is not a church and does not seek converts. One Christian term that may be unfamiliar to a secular reader is “vocation,” which comes from Latin vocare meaning “to call” or a “calling.” For believers, it means to listen or pray for spiritual direction from God that will help you to feel or know what God envisions for you on earth. Prior to forming L’Arche at the age of 37, Vanier spent many difficult years trying to discern his vocation.

            Vanier frequently refers to the gospel, which is not synonymous with the Bible. Gospel means good news about Jesus’ life and thus can refer to the whole New Testament (Vorstermans 2002). Vanier and most L’Arche elders, however, are usually referring to the first four books of the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—in which these disciples record Jesus’ life on earth[iii]. In the Gospels, as well as in the Epistles[iv], especially Corinthians I, words like “the poor, the weak, and the broken” are commonly used to refer to those people who were outcast and marginalized by society at that time, and who lived in both material, social and spiritual poverty. These terms had a broad meaning in Jesus’ time that was compassionate and even deferential, not pejorative.

            To illustrate, Jesus’ life is said to have been characterized by continual movement towards, identification with, and learning from the poor, and in encouraging his followers to as well. Jesus is credited with saying that anyone who welcomes the poor and weak also welcomes Him (Mark 9:37 in Downey 1986:98; also Luke 9:48 in Vanier 1995:106). While poor and weak in our modern parlance denote a lack of value, (even in many Christian settings) Vanier insists on the importance of employing the terms in this way. He knows that this goes “against certain cultural norms that want everyone to be strong and powerful,” but writes that the words point to what we share as humans: “We all have our limits and our handicaps. We all need each other. But some people recognize their poverty; others do not” (Vanier 1995:13).

            It is recognized in L’Arche now, that to the non-Catholic audience, denoting people with disabilities as “the poor” is not up-to-date with current attempts to develop more respectful terms for this condition (Roeher 1996). L’Arche is reflecting on how to shed the negative and anachronistic connotations of this language but does not want to lose the important meaning it has in the context of L’Arche philosophy and Christianity in the process (Card 2001). Vanier wanted to work together with the poor to reduce the stigma associated with their conditions in order to mitigate its destructive power.

Chronology of Jean Vanier’s life

            Jean Vanier was born in Geneva in 1928, the fourth of five children, to a prominent Canadian family of French descent. He was educated in England for years while his father, Georges Vanier, held various military and political posts in Europe (Spink 1990:10). Early in World War II, the family moved to France to be closer to Georges, but dangerous conditions had them retreating around France and in 1940 they returned to Canada where Vanier attended a Jesuit high school in Quebec. In 1942, at 13 years of age, he decided to enlist in a British naval college; he did field service until he was 20 (Spink 1990:16). He achieved the distinction of officer, and learned much about leading people from a service model that would prepare him well for L’Arche (Spink 1990:16-8). Still, he felt that his calling or vocation lay elsewhere.

            At the age of 22, Vanier travelled to Eau Vive in France, an innovative, spiritual “community of the heart” which was in loose affiliation with the nearby Dominican monastery (Downey 1986:22). It was founded by Père Thomas Phillippe, a friend of Jean’s mother (Spink 1990:23). Père Thomas invited an eclectic mix of international people to learn about the progressive but controversial ideas fomenting among the Dominicans at the time, “much of which would lead to, or be fed into the Second Vatican Council” (Spink 1990:23). When Père Thomas was unexpectedly recalled to Rome in 1952, he asked Vanier to lead the little community, which he did for four years, while also studying for seminary (Spink 1990:27-8).

            Vanier eventually sought new settings in which to continue his spiritual and philosophical reflections. He spent six years, (1956 to 1962), in rigorous discernment and ministry in various places around Europe (Downey 1986:21-3; Spink 1990:29). He lived simply in prayer, reflection, service and study, earning his PhD in the philosophy of Aristotle from L’Institut Catholic à Paris in 1962[v] (Vanier 2001:xiii, xv). He visited Père Thomas in the winter of 1963 in Trosly, France, and joined him in ministering to the nearby institution for people with intellectual and physical disabilities. In early 1964, he taught moral philosophy at St. Michael’s (Catholic) College at the University of Toronto during which time he was struck by the difference in how his students related to him and how the handicapped men at the institution had (Vanier 1995:15; Spink 1990:34-5). Sue Mosteller relays his reflections: “Jean was deeply marked by the way the handicapped people came up to him seeking connection and relationship. He realized that they didn’t care what he knew, did or had. Where the students had been interested in his head, Vanier was touched that they were interested in his heart.” (Mosteller 2001)[vi] Beneath their “noisy and often violent” behaviours (Spink 1990:32-4), Vanier sensed a deep yearning for personal relationships in the men and this soon drew him back to Trosly.

            Père Thomas invited Vanier back to Trosly (where Thomas was chaplain for a residential institution) to listen to him, work with him, and pray for direction (Spink 1990:18-19). Père Thomas urged Vanier to experience the mystical, spiritual feeling of closeness with the poor in the institution. As Henri Nouwen would later suggest, “It was somewhat secondary that they were developmentally handicapped: [Jean’s] primary concern was that he was looking for some way of binding himself to the poor in a complete and irreversible way.” (Dwyer 1990:50). After several visits in local institutions, asylums, and poorhouses, Vanier decided to buy an old, local home in which he could welcome some of these men to leave the institution and share life with him (Vanier 1995:15-18; Spink 1990:39-44). In this irrevocable commitment to relationship, L’Arche was born, although Vanier himself did not know it then. He often says that he would have been quite content if it had remained like that—one house where they could all fit in one car and travel occasionally. But part of him also hoped that they could support others to leave institutions and, as it turned out, they did open many more homes and communities.

            At this point, I want to historicize the tale that has unfolded so far, by elaborating on the forces which shaped Vanier’s life and L’Arche. As Ortner notes, solid ethnography must interrogate the relationship between a local village or organization and the “larger context in which it operates,” but also, critically, the organization’s own particular “structure and history,” (1984:143, see also Ortner 1995:179).[vii]

4.2.2 Influential people’s worldviews

 

            In this section, I discuss three people who were formative influences in Jean Vanier’s life. It is important to emphasize his humanness to avoid the sense of mythos that can surround him, and only serves to create the same relational distance that he strives to break down. His life path has been uncertain and unpredictable and this should inspire new assistants who sometimes report feeling unable to live up to his example.

Georges Vanier, Jean’s father

            While Georges Vanier’s duties as a top military and political official for Canada kept him away from his family for long periods, Georges Vanier lived his life in a way that made a strong impression on his son. After Georges’ death, Jean wrote a biography about his father’s spiritual life entitled In Weakness Strength (1969). This phrase encapsulated his father’s core spiritual beliefs and has come to be central to Jean’s beliefs and to L’Arche. Georges served as a military advisor and Lieutenant General in Europe during World War II, and was later Governor-General of Canada (Downey 1986:32-4; Spink 1990:10). Although Jean and Georges Vanier are very different men, biographer Michael Downey convincingly traces roots of some of Jean’s key ideas to his father, even though they were developed and actualized by Jean in different ways.

            Downey outlined several themes that were important to both men: a spiritual emphasis on simplicity, the value of poverty and weakness, the centrality of love, and unity/ecumenism; and interpersonally, his qualities of welcome, attentiveness, and valuing the family (Downey 1986:32-39). Socially, Georges was known as a great listener who had the gift of helping others to see their own worth, akin to Jean’s later emphasis on seeking out people’s gifts (Downey 1986:36-8). The Vaniers’ welcomed many people into their home for lively gatherings (Downey 1986:36-8) and L’Arche homes are characterized by their emphasis on welcome, and belief that change happens within relationships.

            Georges had a spiritual conversion later in life, in 1938, when, at his wife’s urging, he was exposed to the heart-based view of God through the Jesuits and Carmelites, and became deeply committed to the notion of a loving God as reflected in the life of Mary (ibid:32-3). For Georges, love was the “central aspect of human faith and God” (ibid:36-8). This idea has also been Jean’s overarching theological and philosophical framework (ibid:48). Georges preferred a simple faith, based on love, over complicated theological discussions, and Jean felt guided by this simplicity in relations with people with intellectual disability (ibid:39). As Governor General, Georges sought unity amidst diversity in general and in particular among Christians (ibid:36-8). Jean also faced such questions when L’Arche grew beyond Roman Catholic France.

            Finally, Georges suffered greatly from an amputated leg resulting from a war injury and in Georges’ biography, Jean wrote that this pain was at the foundation of Georges’ spiritual life. He believed that pain and weakness were the clearest routes to communion with God, and in 1960 he wrote, “I feel that only in weakness can I glorify God” (Downey 1986:32-3). In a similar sentiment, Downey wrote of Jean that he has articulated the truth about the ultimate or spiritual meaning that we all feel in the presence of pain:

In weakness we are born ... This truth ... can only be grasped in the face of suffering. Often we spend much of life fleeing from this truth. Only when brought up short do we accept the truth of the radical dependency and fragility of all existence, especially our own” (Downey 1986:70).

 

            This idea that our commonality and humanness is found in our ultimate weakness, not strength, is the basis for Jean Vanier’s insight about our radical equality with the poor.

Père Thomas Philippe, Dominican priest

“Deus Caritas Est. God is love.

(Spink 1990:27)

 

            Vanier’s faith is widely understood to have been shaped by another man of his father’s generation, Père Thomas Philippe, a French Dominican priest with a radical, prescient approach to theology for his time. Vanier became acquainted with the priest through his mother while he was still in the Navy and seeking spiritual guidance. When Vanier went to the Eau Vive community that Père Thomas had founded after the war, it was to learn from him. He was drawn to the priest’s spiritual teachings and his erudition in science, philosophy and theology. Vanier was drawn to Père Thomas’ emphasis on the gospel, the heart, and the value of the poor.

            Père Thomas was a scholar and priest and believed that no other system of meaning in the sciences was as good at encompassing and synthesizing the whole of life as the gospels (Spink 1990:34). Echoing the Jesuit, Teillard de Chardin, he believed that the vital lessons of Jesus’ life were about compassion for the importance of “the little people,” (Dillard 1999:102). Still it was only through ministry with people with intellectual disability that the ideas set in and pushed Père Thomas to “rediscover all my theology under the sign of the heart” (Spink 1990:34). This focus on the heart is also reflected in Vanier’s writings and is used in its biblical sense. The heart is not “mere sentiment or emotion,” nor is it in conflict with reason or intellect: the heart is “the source of all physical, emotional, and moral life as well as the energies of the will,” and “The central, unifying source of all personal life. It is the place where God resides” (Downey 1986:48, 58-60) [viii]. These notions square well with the use of the term “soul” or “human spirit” in many contemporary works on spirituality (O’Murchu 1997, O’Donohue 1997, Moore 1992).

            Père Thomas and Vanier both believe that because God only meets us directly in the heart, people with intellectual disabilities and others who live “so much from their hearts are [capable of being] open to a privileged relationship with God,” (Downey 1986:42-44). This is not intended to idealize disability or portray people as holy innocents: they both know that people operating directly from the heart can be as angry and violent as they are kind. It is the less mediated quality of their spiritual yearnings that makes them seem more authentic to others. L’Arche assistants often talk about their struggle to pray well, or to feel a spiritual presence beyond their thoughts. They are often impressed by the spiritual capacity of the core members in this regard. One of the most prominent scholars and practitioners in the field of disability, Wolf Wolfensberger, noted in an article after his first exposures to L’Arche that he was surprised and impressed by the core members’ facility and potential for spirituality (Wolfensberger 1988).

            Thomas was a Dominican. The Dominicans, the Jesuits and the Sisters of St. Joseph are all apostolic orders, which means that their faith life is bound up in, and nurtured by, active service to others (ministry) (Keaney 2001; Ryan 2001). This contrasts with contemplative orders such as the Benedictines and Trappists whose members are called to concentrate their faith life on prayer and reflection (Keaney 2001). This apostolic orientation is evident in the formation and charism, or mission of L’Arche. These orders have been influential in forming Vanier’s visions and supporting him by sharing people and other resources with L’Arche (Vanier 1995; Spink 1990; Downey 1986).

            There are three aspects of the gospel that are key for Père Thomas (Downey 1986:42-44, 103). First, he was deeply moved by the role of Mary (Jesus’ mother) who “humbly and quietly” attended to Jesus’ needs throughout his challenges. Second, Jesus’ example of choosing to live through human suffering and rejection teaches us to attend to the lessons of our own suffering. Finally, he believed that the Beatitudes, with their “evangelical values of poverty, simplicity, lowliness and meekness,” epitomized Jesus’ message. The Beatitudes[ix] (see Appendix 4.1), are found in a short passage in the New Testament, that valorizes the role of the poor as spiritual teachers precisely because of their experience of suffering (Book of Matthew). These values are at the centre of the L’Arche mission. It must be said in conclusion that while Vanier was influenced by Père Thomas, he never adopted his mentor’s metaphysical inclinations. As Joe Egan, a former international director put it, “Jean is a very practical, action-oriented man. He has always been rooted in his day-to-day reality, and he attends closely to that, and prayer, for inspiration.”

Aristotle, moral philosopher

            Another person who influenced Vanier’s formation prior to entering into relations with people with disability was Aristotle, about whom Vanier wrote his PhD thesis (Spink 1990:29). Vanier liked Aristotle’s realism and how his intuition seemed to come from outer experience (touch, sound, conversation) as opposed to Plato’s inner-orientation (Spink 1990:29). Père Thomas, a professor in Paris, and another priest helped Vanier to choose Aristotle’s Ethics for his thesis (Spink 1990:29; Vanier 1962 & 1966). Vanier appreciated Aristotle’s view that justice, friendship and contemplation are the highest (moral) activities of the human person, but Vanier believed that love (including love of God, or faith) transcended these and was our primary moral responsibility (Downey 1986:44-5).

            Pottie has argued that Vanier drew from Aristotle’s contemplation on the value and nature of friendships and community (2001). Aristotle felt that there were three types of friendships: those based on mutual exchange of pleasure and on utility or his preferred type, “character friendship that is based on intrinsic values in the character of the other [person] such as goodness and virtue” (Pottie 2001:31). Aristotle also thought that “fostering friendships was inseparable from building the community and doing justice” (Pottie 2001:31). This idea that good relationships could have this sort of social, moral and political meaning and effect is evident in the whole conception and practice of L’Arche[x].

4.2.3 Environmental conditions

            There were also broad social trends around the time of L’Arche’s formation which, I argue, played a role in making L’Arche viable and attractive. By establishing what elements came together to make L’Arche possible in the 1960’s, we can better understand what is different today, and how that might change or affect who joins. I introduce  three broad, enabling elements. The first two enabling environmental conditions are the religious and social changes that were prominent from 1960 to 1975. Together, they exerted a great impact on the values, spirituality and lifestyle interests of people coming of age at that time. The third enabling element was the fundamental shift in the field of disability care at that time as outlined in Chapter 3.

Religious changes

            A radical restlessness was emerging in parts of the Roman Catholic Church through the 1960’s. From 1962 to 1964, Pope John XXIII led a series of meetings with the international bishops—meetings which came to be known as the Second Vatican Council or Vatican II (Abbott 1966). The pope and the bishops wanted to understand and address the rising desire for change in the church that emanated from various sources including leading priests from the orders like Père Thomas’ Dominicans. People were challenging the distant relationship between the church (clergy), and the laity (non-ordained people) (Ryan 2001). Ryan, a seminarian, explained that the pivotal concerns were to rethink how the church could “live in the modern world” and how to bring clergy and laity closer through recognizing their common ‘priestly vocation’ to live a prayerful life, rather than it being seen as the exclusive domain of the clergy (2001). These ideas played out in various ways, such as opening up the contemplative orders and cloisters of nuns and welcoming lay people into the monasteries for prayer and retreats. They also moved the ordained outwards, allowing monks vacation and encouraging them to have friendships and connections outside of their orders and monasteries (Ryan 2001). Sister Sue Mosteller, C.S.J., confirms that this opening up transformed the work and lives of many ordained (2001).

            These ideas were percolating in France, and among the Dominicans, while Vanier studied for the seminary at Eau Vive, and for his doctorate (Spink 1990). Vanier’s alignment with such progressive thinking was evident in his emergent heart-based theology and his commitment to practice a radical closeness to “God’s people” or “the poor,” not just in ministry, but in life. L’Arche was born in the midst of these religious changes, in 1964. Vanier notes with characteristic subtlety, that L’Arche was partly the fruit of post-Vatican II era changes and questioning (1995:48). The first two decades of L’Arche coincide closely with a period of openness in the church, during which Vanier’s message was highly relevant. Mosteller explains the power of Vanier’s retreat message in 1968: “It touched many of our longings to be living something that was relevant and close to God and to the poor. This all felt very new and salient at the time” (2001; see also Spink 1990:74). Through their example, L’Arche and its members send a challenging message to the church about the thirst for theology that speaks to lay people’s diverse experiences and needs.

Social changes—Intentional communities

            Significant secular social change was also moving through the West during the time that L’Arche was founded in the 1960’s. Broad dissatisfaction with socio-political norms and values manifest in widespread experimentation with clothes, drugs, poetry and lifestyle. A full review of these times is beyond my aims, but one offshoot of this period is particularly relevant to L’Arche. “Intentional communities” were not invented in the 1960’s, but this mode of living and working mushroomed in popularity during this time (Fellowship for Intentional Communities 1994). Renewed interest amidst the “counter-culturalists” resulted in thousands of intentional communities starting between 1965 and 1975 (Zicklin 1983). Many L’Arche communities began then[xi], and are in the intentional communities directory. Vanier was exposed to similar experiments in Eau Vive, a Trappist monastery, Camphill[xii] and others (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:8; Vanier 1995). Vanier has noted that intentional communities were one of the three models that L’Arche drew on, along with religious communities and the professional group home model (1995:54-5). This movement provides a larger context for the L’Arche model and practices and shares similar recruiting concerns today[xiii].

            One definition of intentional community (and there are many) is: “A group of persons associated together [voluntarily] for the purpose of establishing a whole way of life. As such, it shall display to some degree, each of the following characteristics: common geographical location; economic interdependence; social, cultural, educational, and spiritual inter-exchange of uplift and development,” (Zablocki 1980:19; see also Fellowship for Intentional communities). Many are formed as an alternative to “social ills” that concern them from a spiritual, moral or environmental perspective (Bazinet 1995:8-9), but few communal ventures in North America last longer than a few years (Bazinet 1995:11). Rieff differentiated between movements or sects of militancy and withdrawal; both stem from malcontent with regular society or “the culture system”, but one seeks to change society directly, while the latter seeks to do so by becoming a living example of the value of its beliefs (Rieff 1966:248-9). Intentional communities like L’Arche reflect withdrawal traits by offering a social and religious alternative. Still, the term withdrawal is only partially accurate since, as Rieff notes, such groups ultimately aim to “preach a prescriptive, remedial lesson to the society external to it” (1966:248).

            Here again, we confront the tension inherent in the L'Arche mission that I mentioned earlier. While the term militancy sounds quite harsh, it essentially points to that outward-oriented part of the L'Arche mission which speaks of being a sign of hope for change in our world. While L'Arche is not interested in evangelizing/conversion, there is a growing contingent of assistants in leadership who feel that L'Arche has something valuable to offer to people in our society who have a thirst for greater meaning and spiritual depth in their lives, and are not satisfied with traditional religious messages. This contingent feels that the L'Arche message about the spiritual meaning in daily life and relationships, and the power of marginalized people to teach us about these lessons, could be promoted more actively than at the present time.

            In likening them to the utopian communities of the 19th century, Kanter writes that most communities “attempted to substitute cooperation for competition, mutual support for hostility, meaningful solidarity [and] relations, for fragmented, non-expressive relations, and involvement for isolation”(1973:5; Kanter 1970:60). Kanter differentiated between “retreat” and “service” communities. Retreat communities are primarily formed around friendship, living together and rejection of mainstream values and are usually short-lived (1972 in Bazinet 1995:10-14).

            Service communities “have a strong sense of common purpose, create well-developed structures, impose direction and discipline to their members, and most importantly, see their main goal as that of serving a specific population” (Kanter 1972 in Bazinet 1995:10-14). They tend to last longer partly by creating mechanisms and practices which are designed both to increase commitment of members and to work towards greater harmony between their individual needs and those of the community (Bazinet 1995:11-12). L’Arche fits these definitions strikingly well in intent, concerns, and also in its moral and “small p” political aims to resist or avoid the encroachment of the values of the dominant political economy by creating a safe place in which to create, nurture and live something quite different[xiv].

            Perhaps as important was the influence the movement had on the pool of people who were potential L’Arche assistants. One major longitudinal American study of various intentional communities determined that recruitment success was highly dependent on “historical and socio-cultural circumstances of 1965-75,” and that 80% of people joined between the ages of 20 and 30 (Bazinet 1995:9). The popularity of experimenting with alternative lifestyles within the youth sub-culture, then, likely made it easier (more culturally-appropriate) for early assistants to decide to live somewhere like L’Arche[xv]. Having this large pool of willing and idealistic assistants was likely an important catalyst for the early growth of L’Arche. Without discounting the radicalism of what they did, they were also primed by the counter-culture with values of communal living in a way that today’s new assistants are not.

Changes in the field of disability care

            The third enabling factor for L’Arche was the current of change in the field of disability care that changed the availability of financial and policy support for people with disabilities to live outside institutions as discussed at length in Chapter 3. L'Arche was one of many alternative approaches to providing care for people with disabilities during the deinstitutionalization movement. Vanier and other leaders at L'Arche learned from the other movements, but also offered the field a radically different vision of care and intellectual disability.

            The deinstitutionalization and normalization movements opened up the old system so that L’Arche and other new approaches could form. Western governments began to designate some funding outside the institutions, which was how Vanier was able to secure a small French government “family placement allowance” for each person who came to L’Arche (Spink 1990:39). By 1971, Wolfensberger was collaborating with the Canadian Institute for Mental Retardation[xvi] on normalization issues, and interacting with L’Arche and Vanier through Steve Newroth, director of the first Canadian L'Arche community (Vanier 1995:58). Despite their different approaches, Wolfensberger and Vanier found several areas of commonality and learned from each other. Vanier spoke affirmatively of the overall principles of normalization (Vanier 1995:32, 58; Spink 1990:76). While most L’Arche homes held eight to 12 people, including assistants and people with disabilities, Vanier learned from experience and from Wolfensberger that it was important to create different sizes and kinds of housing and living options for the people in L’Arche (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:16). Wolfensberger also challenged L’Arche to review their approach with a critical eye to whether they had gone too far in “spiritualizing” the suffering of the people with disabilities rather than working on giving them the support they needed to “transform and grow into maturity” (Spink 1990:76; Vanier 1995:58-9). Wolfensberger further persuaded Vanier that meaningful work (rather than just activities), and working outside the home, were valuable developmental goals for people with disabilities (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:9).

            Wolfensberger wrote about the quality of relationships he saw at L’Arche: “fancying myself something of an expert in mental retardation [sic] I was stunned by the magnitude of what it was that I had missed all these years” (1973:10 in Sumarah 1987:168). He also commented on the depth and value of spirituality in the lives of people with disabilities, and the positive effect the L’Arche philosophy of equality and mutuality had on them; “a movement of qualitatively vast importance for the future” (Wolfensberger 1973:10-14). Wolfensberger was a leader in group home layouts, but he wrote that he only realized how vital the communal space in the homes was for facilitating social interaction after visiting L’Arche (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:27).


4.3 The founding of L’Arche

 

“L’Arche was founded to offer a home to people who, because of an intellectual disability, were wounded and unable to find it [home] or manage it for themselves.... We have been surprised to discover that the body [of community], broken by human weakness and blessed by many diverse gifts, offers more than a home, and to more people than the disabled.” (Mosteller 1996:7)

 

            L’Arche has evolved to offer opportunities to people that none of the early members imagined at the outset, as Mosteller indicates above. The early assistants[xvii] began with small hopes and aims coupled with large doses of faith that the volunteer and professional supports they needed would be provided or found. While the original aims were bold, it was only after living together with people with intellectual disabilities that the most radical insights to emerge in L’Arche were born. Those radical insights which now form the charism, or spiritual mission of L’Arche, are perhaps best seen as the product of the collective experience of many assistants and core members, guided, nurtured and articulated by Père Thomas and especially through the spiritual vision and leadership of Jean Vanier. Placing a full section on the founding or “origin myth” of L’Arche here was strategic, not accidental. As I discuss further in section 4.4 of this chapter, L’Arche in Canada today is struggling with some fundamental issues around assistants that could be mitigated if new and long-term assistants were more aware of the whole origin story, not just the essentialized mythos. In this section then, I present my interpretation of the origin story, and the charism of L'Arche.

            If the founders did not know what to expect, then what did they imagine? The principles of L’Arche today are so well articulated in community literature that they can seem self-evident or natural to new people as if the whole vision or charism was given to Vanier in a divine dream. Vanier dissuades such notions by admitting the confusion and spiritual loneliness that brought him to Trosly-Breuil in lieu of pursuing his many other opportunities, friendships, and achievements (Downey 1986:27-8). As discussed above, he held a deep reverence for Jesus’ life, the gospel, and the centrality of the poor and the heart. At the local asylum, he was struck by the simplicity of their desire –he believed it was friendship that they yearned for:

Each one [of the men] had so much life, had suffered so profoundly and thirsted so deeply for friendship. Within each gesture and word was the question: ‘Will you come back?’ ‘Do you love me?’ Their cry of pain and their thirst for love touched me deeply.” (Vanier 1995:15)

 

            Vanier bought a small home and invited some of those institutionalized men to share it with him if they wished (Spink 1990:38-40) on permission of the facility director (Vanier 1995:16-17). He opened the home for dinner on August 4th, 1964 (Vanier 1995:22). Three men, Raphael, Philippe, and Dany came, and the first two stayed. Dany’s particular impairments and deep emotional pain led him to be quite violent, and the unstructured environment of the small home exacerbated this. Without proper resources to support Dany, Vanier realized that Dany had to return to the asylum (Vanier 1995:18). Others who have come to L’Arche have also been asked to leave when their way of being in the world jeopardized the emotional or physical safety of others. Vanier explains that difficult experiences, decisions and failures were vital in clarifying his thoughts about the charism of L’Arche (Vanier 1995:30). Even today, L’Arche communities struggle with how much the charism can encompass (e.g. aging core members and assistants).

            With the help of a friend from Eau Vive, Vanier chose the name L'Arche, as in Noah’s Ark, which saved humanity from the flood and symbolizes the first covenant between God and humanity (Vanier 1997:ix). “The community of L’Arche wants to provide a refuge for people with mental handicaps, who can so quickly be drowned in the waters of our competitive society” (Vanier 1997:ix). L’Arche also symbolizes “diversity, refuge and hope” (Downey 1986:9). It also links to Jesus’ mother, Mary who was named “the ark of the covenant” (Vanier 1995:2). These days, some assistants also suggest there is symbolic value in another meaning of the term as “an arch” or bridge between people with intellectual disabilities and the broader community.

            In the early days, Vanier learned to relate to people differently and realized that “the seeds of the divine in the human heart are found in weakness, not in strength” (Downey 1986:27-8). Joe Egan, a former director feels it is philosophically important to remember that L’Arche was founded around loneliness and suffering in both the institution, and in Vanier’s heart (Egan 2001). While Vanier (understandably) prefers his privacy on this matter, he often portrays himself as equal parts wounded and prophet (Vanier 1998:7). He wrote that he always felt that he was simply responding to the cry of the poor, but that later he also recognized that cry in himself as well, in his desire to be accepted and belong (Vanier 1989:96-9). Therein lies the seed of what has become one of the most important insights of L’Arche: that we all experience pain or weakness in some form, and that it is our most meaningful common denominator as humans. This inverts traditional humanist positions that try to name commonality by emphasizing the strengths and abilities that the weak share with the strong.

 

4.3.1 Fragments of the charism

I did not realize the full meaning of L’Arche when, inspired by Père Thomas, I started living with Raphael and Philippe. I discovered what L’Arche was called to be as I lived each day, trying to be faithful to the needs of those who had come to create community with me. ... When I began, I was far from imagining the various facets of life and all the power contained in the message of life with the poor. Today in 1995 I am still discovering what L’Arche is ... We are a people on a journey, walking in insecurity but certain that God is watching over us.  (Vanier 1995:13)

 

            Vanier has clearly stated that, initially, he was not sure what L’Arche would become, and had not grasped some of the insights for which he is now famous. In this section, I would like to discuss the formation of those insights, using analytical language for clarity, and to represent what I see as their central ideological contribution to the literature on difference, disability and caregiving. I have discerned roughly four stages in which the charism seems to have been revealed to Vanier and other members. I use the term stage for these analytical categories to indicate changes that seem to represent a progression or maturation of thought, but I do not mean to imply thereby that Vanier experienced them as distinct stages. At the time there was surely much confusion, disagreement, and uncertainty about which directions of thought were fruitful.[xviii]

            The first stage was to want to help disadvantaged people. This stage resembles traditional Christian charitable impulses which have been called both social justice and cultural hegemony since this “help” was often imposed on people and was attached to religious expectations and/or attitudes of condescension (Steinhoffsmith 1999). Vanier and Père Thomas challenged that historical norm by insisting that people with intellectual disabilities are fully human and deserve to be treated as such, based on the logic of universal divine love. This respect for diversity reflected the radical spirit of the times, but was by no means commonly applied to people with intellectual disabilities.

            In stage two, two things propelled their conceptual state far ahead of mainstream thinking about disability at that time. Vanier and Père Thomas’ devotion to the Beatitudes prepared them spiritually to expect and seek the special gifts of the poor. Second, Vanier decided to live with people, deepening his familiarity with their lives through sharing daily routines and practices over time. The anthropological significance of what Vanier and Thomas did, was to show the contingency of culturally-constructed devaluations of difference and disability, and to revalorize difference through their particular religious worldview. The dominant deficit model of disability focused on the burden disability created, based on assumptions that privileged economic productivity, intelligence and physical beauty over other traits (Pottie 2001:25; Taylor and Bogdan 1989).

            Vanier and Père Thomas began from different cultural assumptions about value, asking, ‘What does God find of beauty in this person?’ This simple but profound inversion and revalorization of difference seems to have changed everything for them, including how to think about care, as I show later. Their constructive model of disability and difference shifted their perception to ways in which the social fabric could be enriched through the full inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities.[xix] This in turn produced the idea of talking about the social benefits of improved caregiving, rather than just the costs.

            Sharing life together was to reveal more insights in the third stage, which flowed from the second. Vanier says that it evolved imperceptibly, not intentionally. He and other assistants had quickly recognized how loving and interesting people with intellectual disabilities were, but soon they realized that they were also learning from them. He began to understand that people with intellectual disabilities had gifts that people of normal intelligence generally did not, perhaps because our reasoning gets in the way of, or clouds our access to, those capacities. Vanier and Wolfensberger have both written about such qualities, assets or gifts, some of which include being honest, straightforward, spontaneous, loving, welcoming, and having fewer barriers, and an ability to call forth gentleness and kindness in others (Vanier 1998; Wolfensberger 1988). As Vanier expresses below, the idea of the poor as the teachers was not something that any of them predicted or aimed for, but rather it emerged out of the experience and reflection on daily life within the gospel framework:

When I first began in L’Arche, I never would have said as clearly as I say today that people with mental handicaps are prophetic. We discovered this gradually over the years, as we searched for our way, our structures and our identity. People with handicaps have helped me to discover what community is. (Vanier 1995:114)

 

From the start, we wanted to live with the poor, but “when the idea of the poor educating us came, I don’t know exactly. The words of St. Vincent de Paul, ‘the poor are our masters’ were always there [for us] but when they became a reality I’m uncertain. (Vanier in Spink 1990:41)

 

            The fourth and final stage of the insights relates to the caregivers. The same intensity and intimacy of sharing life that galvanized insights about disability for those living in L’Arche also eventually took its toll on many of the caregivers, including Vanier and Thomas. Many assistants (caregivers) began to feel burned out and depleted of energy after giving so much of themselves to these unusual and challenging relationships. This was how L’Arche learned early on that this holistic, relationship-based caregiving lifestyle is only sustainable if the caregivers are physically and emotionally healthy. This requires a special system of supports for them. They realized that their mission to support people to have full lives needed to include both the core members and the assistants. This led to implementation of supports like extended vacation periods away from community, spiritual guidance, and medical resources as I discuss in chapters 6 and 7. Caring for the caregivers thus became an important final element in their basic principles.

4.3.2 Start-up and identity formation

 

“Faith communities and professional centres for people with handicaps: this reveals the deepest ambiguity of our communities. They must be competent and well-administered, because we are responsible for the people who have been entrusted to us. We need the right medical and psychiatric support to help them grow towards greater autonomy and wholeness. At the same time, L’Arche wants to be a faith community.”

(Vanier 1995:104)

 

            This is a clear statement of a complicated situation at L’Arche. The fire or charism of their mission is about both their faith in God and the actions in the world that He is calling them to. They are not separable or reducible to one that is more important (Keaney 2001). “I am convinced communal life can flourish only if it exists for an aim outside itself. Community is viable if it is the outgrowth of a deep involvement in a purpose which is other than, or above, that of being in a community.” (Bettelheim 1974 in Vanier 1989:90) Since part of the mission is about ministry, or service to, people with disabilities, it falls into a realm of professional and bureaucratic standards that pull the community in the direction of an agency (Spink 1990:128). While the often competing demands of agency-community need not pull them apart, it can be hard to live in the tension that this creates[xx]. My impression was that people in L’Arche struggle for balance both at the level of macro policy and structures, but also, importantly, in their daily activities. At each moment, assistants face choices related to this tension as the ethnography shows. Balance is a daily negotiation in practice.

            The long-term assistants in L’Arche now know that they need certain structural supports in place to anchor them in the fundamental community dimension since the practical, legal demands of direct care and its administration are always pulling them to an agency focus. One support that has been there right from the beginning, through Père Thomas, was the presence of priests and spiritual guides who were there to listen and try to help make their struggles meaningful through the connection with the spirit of the Gospels and the charism (Vanier 1995:104). Assistants are encouraged to reassess their calling yearly through solitary reflection or prayer, or with the support of accompaniers (long-term assistants or counsellors). Sometimes assistants and core members seek outside accompaniment of a more particular sort regarding their emotional or psychological health. Again, from the start, Vanier was open to the expertise of various medical, psychiatric and social work professionals for both agency-related issues and for nurturing community members (Downey 1986:17; Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:13).

            L’Arche learned from the experience of other groups engaged in this same balancing act. Vanier has written that in the beginning of L’Arche, he held a few models of community life in his mind where “lay people lived poorly with poor street people,” which reflects the charism of L’Arche (Vanier 1995:22). Those role models included Montreal’s Benedict Labré house, New York’s The Catholic Worker, and Friendship House. Montreal’s Foyer de Charité, founded by Cardinal Leger, also made an impression on Vanier. It began as a prayer community that welcomed people with severe mental handicaps (Vanier 1995:22-3). There was also a spiritual bond with the Little Sisters and Little Brothers of Jesus Order:

[A] common spirituality of humility and presence, close to the poor and the weak; a common call to live with them, not to change them, but to welcome them and share their gifts and their beauty; to discover in them the presence of Jesus—Jesus, humble and gentle, Jesus, poor and rejected. It is the spirituality of Nazareth: to live daily life simply and humbly, with love: to be present to the poor. (Vanier 1995:58)

 

            In the broader field of caregiving, what set L’Arche apart early on, was the emphasis on being open to two-way relationships between assistants and core members, not just a one-way service model. Other researchers who have studied L’Arche have also emphasized the contribution L’Arche made in facilitating these “gift relationships” (Shearer 1976, Sumarah 1987, Pottie 2001). One family therapist studying L’Arche wrote:

It is this focus on the natural growth that can occur via relationships in all its aspects, including cognitive, affective, physical, and spiritual, that frequently obliterates distinctions between a care giver and care-receiver and [which] sets L’Arche apart as a larger system. (Coppersmith 1984:152 in Bazinet 1995:18)

 

 

Vanier continues:

 

The secret of L’Arche is relationship: meeting people, not through filters of certitudes, ideologies, idealism or judgements but heart to heart; listening to people with their pain, their joy, their hope, their history; listening to their heart beats. (Vanier 1999)

 

4.3.3 The early steps of growth

 

            The early steps of growth for L’Arche in France were rapid, partly due to its emergence at the confluence of several changes in society, religion and the disability field. Vanier calls it a time of grace, when many people were generous and supportive of L’Arche, in spite of his admitted naiveté about caregiving and community. In addition to government financial support, local women cooked for them, architects and carpenters assisted them with renovations, and psychiatrists and nurses offered wisdom and practical skills (Spink 1990:47-50). He must have been doing something right since after opening his first home in August 1964, Vanier was asked within months by Dr. Préaut and the board of the local institution, Val Fleuri, to take over as director, where all staff had just resigned (Spink 1990:47). He reluctantly took this position by himself in spring 1965, moving in with the 32 men and initiating several major changes in their lives, akin to what he was living in L’Arche (Vanier 1995:22-3). He divided his time between there and his original L’Arche home. Vanier saw this external request as an important turning point for his vision of L’Arche. He felt that this was a sign that L’Arche was called to be more than the prophetic, but marginalized community it started out as: they were being called forth into integration with state standards, social workers, labour ministry officials, and medical professionals (Vanier 1995:25, 35).

            During the 1960s, more people were attracted to the project of L’Arche in Trosly as assistants, professionals and core members, and so there was a fairly rapid process of expansion in the village of Trosly. This process is well documented in books by Vanier (1995), Spink (1990) and Clarke (1974). Two salient points need to be noted here: first, their rapid growth in size caused resentment in the small village, helping the founders realize that L’Arche needs to be integrated into a diverse, broad community, rather than becoming a town unto themselves (Vanier 1995:36). Second, part of the constancy of the L’Arche vision amidst all of that expansion, seems to have come from the “triple authority” leadership structure that Vanier constructed (Spink 1990:56-7, 125). This included the community leader who had to bear in mind the practical, daily needs and joys of the people, and the priest or pastor who could act as a “brother to the poor,” hold the original gospel values in his heart and remind the community of that charism. Third is the role of professionals like doctors, psychiatrists and lawyers to be a check on the first two roles regarding established standards of care (Spink 1990:125).

4.3.4 Translation to Canada and beyond

 

            My fieldwork was conducted in nine Canadian L’Arche communities, and as such it is important to outline briefly how L’Arche came to Canada and how it shifted somewhat from the original French version through this cultural translation. The philosophy of care that had begun in France was translated largely intact on Canadian soil, but there were two unique elements that meant L’Arche evolved slightly differently here. The key differences were a heterogeneous religious environment, and the North American bias towards pragmatism over mysticism.

            The vision was disseminated in Canada, the USA and elsewhere through Vanier’s lectures and spiritual retreats for special educators, social workers, theologians and religious people (Vanier 1995:30-31). The words and reflections Vanier shared at these retreats and lectures galvanized great interest among people who were searching for new interpretations of their faith in relation to dramatic social change. Egan, an early member recalls: “People were very moved by the new spiritual message that Vanier was announcing. His uncommon insights and interpretations of the gospel were fresh and they really shook people into a different way of seeing the world. And these ideas became the foundations of the L’Arche charism.” (Egan 2002). The interest Vanier generated was central to attracting new assistants, credibility and donors. Bill Clarke, S.J., and Steve Newroth, who were at one of Vanier’s early Canadian lectures in 1965, went to Trosly as assistants soon after and later became important figures in founding and nurturing L’Arche in Canada (Egan 2002:31, 70). Vanier’s first large retreat was at Mary Lake, Ontario in 1968, and attracted two Sisters of St. Joseph—Sue Mosteller and Marie Paradis—who were also both instrumental in founding and strengthening L’Arche in Canada (Spink 1990:74). Sister Donovan of Our Lady’s Missionaries was also there and, moved by Vanier’s vision, she donated the order’s former novitiate house and property in Richmond Hill, Ontario; in 1969 this became Daybreak’s “Big House,” the first building for L’Arche in Canada (Vanier 1995:31).

            The couple who founded Daybreak, Steve and Ann Newroth, were Anglican, and the people with disabilities and assistants who came there had been raised in various denominations or none at all (Spink 1990:106-10). While this is not the place for a full comparison of the way Anglicans and Protestants differ from Catholics, the point is that there are differences and that these created a heterogeneous religious scenario that was distinct from the homogeneous religious and ethnic environment in France. Even today, France remains 88% Roman Catholic and 90% ethnically French (Goldstone 2000:253). Canada on the other hand, is 47% Roman Catholic, 41% Protestant/Anglican, and ethnically diverse (Goldstone 2000:171)[xxi].

            From the start, there were disagreements and painful schisms in the Canadian communities as people of different faiths attempted to chart a path on which they could walk together in the spirit of L’Arche in France, while respecting ecumenical and interfaith differences (Porter 1998; Spink 1990:106-10). An important turning point in this struggle came in 1986 through the presence and beliefs of Father Henri Nouwen, a Dutch, world-renowned theologian and priest from Harvard who came to live in Daybreak as pastor for a decade[xxii]. Sister Mosteller recollects that Henri (as everyone called him) brought hope for resolution into their situation of ecumenical angst (2001). Henri was Catholic but he was unusually open, and his years of teaching in secular universities and in the Third World left him convinced that diverse spiritual beliefs were a treasure: worth celebrating, exploring and being proud of (Mosteller 2001).

            Challenges for the L’Arche model in Canada were not just due to denominational differences, but also a different sense of spirituality overall: the North American L’Arche communities realized early that the “spiritual intensity and resources” were less concentrated, and more varied here than in France (Spink 1990:77-8). The dominance of Protestantism lent itself to a pragmatism and professionalism that often felt like it was going to overcome the idealistic spiritual foundation of L’Arche (Spink 1990:77-8). Joe Egan, a former international director, suggests that in its fledgling years, L’Arche in Canada also contended with finding its way alongside the dominant secular movements of group homes and normalization which were much stronger here than in France at the time. The strength of those movements threatened to overwhelm L’Arche and suppress precisely those elements of its approach that were most important, such as spirituality and mutual relationships. This made for awkward working relationships for early L’Arche leaders with the mainstream agencies and disability associations.

            The gift in all of these challenges was that they pushed Vanier to greater clarity on the spiritual priority of the L'Arche charism (Spink 1990:77-8). L’Arche therefore chose to run spiritual retreats and workshops regularly to give their assistants and core members an opportunity to deepen their spirituality if they wished, and to understand better the gospel values that L’Arche was founded upon, which made their perspective special. 

            Religious belief was not, and is not, obligatory to being in L’Arche however. They welcome people of diverse religious backgrounds or no religion, as long as the person respects the liberal Christian values the community was founded on, and supports the people with disabilities to access and practice their faith (Vanier 1989 in Bazinet 1995:21; Porter 1998, 2001). Neither conversion nor a new denomination are on their agenda, and that seems to make many different people feel comfortable being there (Bazinet 1995:21; Vorstermans 2001). Roughly half of the communities are predominantly Catholic and half are ecumenical or inter-faith (Bazinet 1995:23). The decision to remain open to people’s different beliefs had been made early on when Raphael, one of the first core members, told Vanier that he did not want to go to Catholic mass. Through his relationship with Raphael, and his consultations with Père Thomas and with local medical professionals, Vanier came to grasp that what people with intellectual disabilities needed most, and first, was to experience friendship, trust, personal authority and choice, not necessarily religion (Spink 1990:60). Vanier later called this a “pedagogy of freedom, not force,” in religion and other spheres (Spink 1990:102). This fundamentally positive view of religious diversity guided the Canadian organization in its movement towards unity.

            While there was, and still is, a strong, externally imposed pressure to move towards the values and structures associated with mainstream professional agencies in Canada, L’Arche has remained true to most of the original elements of the mission. One element which was particularly hard for L’Arche to promote and sustain within the Canadian and American cultures was to insist that independent living, is not the only, or even usually the best, way to ensure people’s well-being. Mainstream policy and agencies rank maximizing personal independence as a key priority in rehabilitation for people with intellectual disabilities. This belief has many virtues, but it has also contributed to the existence of many people who live independently but are also very lonely, as I discuss in Chapter 7 (Amado 1988a:294, 1993a; Lutfyia 1991; O’Brien and O’Brien 1993; Brown 1997). While L’Arche agrees with supporting people to achieve autonomy and normal living conditions, these goals need to be achieved in tandem with helping them to grow in love and confidence through supportive relationships and meaningful activities (Spink 1990:77-8). They believe that autonomy is possible in an interdependent or community setting.

4.4     L’Arche in Canada today: mandate and issues

 

4.4.1        L’Arche today

 

            Today L’Arche has over 100 communities in 30 countries, (25 in Canada) and is more in a period of deepening and strengthening what they are, than expansion. The size of the network pushed the leadership to think about writing up their mission and priorities for clarity and guidance. They developed various statements which articulate different aspects of the community such as its charter, mission, identity, aims, principles and key elements, both at the international and zone levels[xxiii]. These documents were created by diverse international teams of long- and short-term assistants, core members and board members. The emphasis in these statements is on what the community is and wants to be, and does not explicitly address how they differ from mainstream caregiving approaches. I present those core documents, but I also discuss a chart developed in one community that addresses their difference from agencies directly.

            Though each community continues to maintain a significant degree of autonomy of operations and community life, there is now a system of governance that attempts to create unity, consistency, efficiency and co-operation at various levels. Communities each have a community leader that reports into the director of a “region,” such as the Atlantic region (Maritime provinces), the regions are part of a “zone,” such as Canada, and the eight world zone co-ordinators report to an International Director and Board. This system has facilitated sharing information and documents. The intention is to identify best practices in areas like recruiting across L’Arche to share with all the communities.

Aims and strategies documents

            Two factors complicate these inceptive attempts to harmonize policies within L’Arche. The first is that some adjustments have been required in most cultures to adapt the representation of the basic values of L’Arche to the local context. This facilitates adaptation and survival, but frustrates attempts to find a singular expression of those values globally. Where France may want a deeply Catholic representation of what they live, Canada needs to be cognizant of the diverse spiritual environment it is rooted in, and India or Ivory Coast have more people of non-Christian religions to accommodate. The second complicating factor is the inherent complexity of its triad of goals—to be a faith community, to care for people with disabilities, and care for its caregivers.

            There are thus different elements and documents created for different settings, but all borrow from each other and attempt to express what L’Arche “really is” for them. Copies of the primary documents are included in the appendices, but I focus on the basic document for Canada here. In Appendix 4.2 is the International Charter of the Communities of L’Arche, which serves as the blueprint for all communities. The conclusion of the charter touches on the political nature of the organization by aligning themselves with the poor and those who “take part in the struggle for justice” (L'Arche 1993b:3). This document contains aims and principal beliefs that have been agreed on by all international L’Arche communities. It names L’Arche as a faith community and calls all communities to unity, growth, and integration in society.

            The L’Arche Canada zone felt that they wanted to adapt the international charter to a format that was more appropriate for our poly-religious and multi-ethnic society. They also tried to update the language used around people with disability, which differs from Europe. In 1993, a committee of various members of the Canadian communities came together and created what is called the Mission and Identity of L’Arche in Canada (L’Arche 1993a) (Appendix 4.3). This document closely reflects the values and aims outlined in the original charter, but uses language which is perhaps more spiritual than religious and somewhat less theosophical and political than the charter is. It uses “developmental disability,” as opposed to the charter’s “mental handicap.” The Canadian document lists four aspects of identity and three elements to the mission, which overlap somewhat thematically with each other and with the charter. The core elements shared in the document seem to be: naming the intrinsic value of people with developmental disabilities, their instrumental ability to transform people with their gifts, creating home together, mutual relationships, living a spiritual life according to the gospels, and helping to change society by being a sign of hope[xxiv].

            Another key document that has served the aim of harmonizing the Canadian zone is the Key Elements of a L’Arche Community guideline (L’Arche 1999) (Appendix 4.4). The zone wanted to have a tool that named more clearly the elements of a successful L’Arche community both to help the communities grow well, and to create the basis for accountability to the regional and zone leadership (L’Arche 1999:2). This document uses the same ideas as the others but presents them in a new, applied format. Each of the six sections begins with a sub-title and a summary statement to encapsulate the beliefs and aims of the Canadian zone. The document also lists the specific principles that underpin those beliefs. The last part of each section is a prescriptive list of the specific practices which ought to be part of putting those beliefs, aims, and principles into practice. As one can see from the document, the sections range from how to ensure that people with disabilities are valued and nurtured well, how to create a home in the spirit of L’Arche, to leadership, management and integration standards. The effort to specify practices in this key document is symbolic of the importance of the everyday practice of care for L’Arche.

            L’Arche in Canada today follows a model very similar to that born in France years ago. Three key differences are in locale, gender and finances. Most communities are now located in cities, not villages, and men and women now share homes together and are not segregated. In addition to government funding, all communities must actively fundraise to supplement the basic revenue in order to provide the enriching activities that they seek to. Both public and private funding require accountability and carry stipulations and sometimes standards which restrict how L'Arche can use the money.  For example, although the L’Arche communities are not wealthy, they have less freedom to choose a lifestyle of simplicity, as was the original vision, given government standards such as having dishwashers in all homes. Funding is allocated to each community to cover costs directly related to the “care” of the people who live locally. That funding can therefore not be used to fund the spiritual dimension of L'Arche, or other L'Arche communities internationally.

Even their alternative compensation system is being challenged in some regions as the government insists on higher basic wages for assistants rather than their communal funds approach.

            The L’Arche homes are located amidst urban and suburban neighbourhoods as with group homes, and look like the homes around them[xxv]. The homes are typically designed for five to ten people (including assistants and core members). A recent L'Arche Canada survey found that their average community size is 4 homes, (range: from 1 to 8 homes), and 18 core members in a community, (range: 4 to 34 core members), which means an overall average of 4.5 core members per home (Lukeman 2001). Unlike in most group homes, the caregivers and people with developmental disabilities live together in L’Arche homes sharing common space, meals, activities and prayer, (although each person has a private bedroom). L’Arche homes are closely connected with each other within the city for activities and holidays, as well as joint skill and spiritual development for assistants. The aim is to provide “an environment that fosters personal growth” through relationship and shared living for all community members (L’Arche 1993).

Community or agency

            The dual mission means that L’Arche is more than simply a caregiving agency, although it shares many of the same responsibilities, funding sources, and techniques. Two long-term assistants at Daybreak developed a comparative list for training and advocacy work that helps to clarify the differences between how things work at L’Arche and how they are done in an agency (McMillan 2001). I adapted their ideas into this chart. Note that the lists highlight their different priorities but both aspects are generally dealt with to some degree in both approaches.

            While the chart highlights differences, there are many similarities today between L’Arche and other models of care in agencies, particularly in the group home model. Both enact and support normalization theory and its program manifestations, although to varying degrees. Caregivers in both models ideally hope that rehabilitation will result in the growth and fulfillment of people with disabilities, and they share many techniques in this regard as well. Both models are committed to work with medical and psychiatric assistance and expertise when needed. Both are committed to the importance of meaningful work for people with intellectual disabilities, either in the community or in sheltered workshops, and of engaging people with more profound impairments in activities. Both also advocate for community integration for people with disabilities on principle, although it can play out differently for each, since most ACL facilities are aiming for independent living.

Table 4.1 Comparing L’Arche and Regular Care Agencies

 

Service Community

Care Agency

1.      Commitment

To a way of life; Member

To a Job; Employee

2.      Theory

Spiritual and moral Vision of a community of belonging

Normalization & Community Integration

3.      Anticipated result

Interdependence & autonomy

Independent living & autonomy

4.      Relations

Potential for Mutuality

(2-way)

Staff provides service to client

(1-way)

5.       Spatio-temporal Set-up

Caregivers live-in full-time

& life-sharing

Caregivers work shifts,

live at home

6.      Accountability

L'Arche structures & Government

Agency structures & Government

7.      Compensation

Alternative system           (some communal components)

 

 

 

 

Moral-Political Dimensions

Wages 

(market-based)

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Political Aims

Critical or Radical

A-political

B. Politics of Care

 

Fruitfulness

Efficiency & Economy

C. View of Person in Care

Subject

Object or Consumer

 

            I added the moral-political factors to the original list to highlight the distinct positions which underlie the L’Arche vision of care. While there are many good caregivers and administrators in both models, the agency model is designed to be an apolitical tool of the existing health care system to take care of people who cannot otherwise care for themselves. In this model, the people with disabilities are most often constructed as objects of care in a system that sees care as a one-way delivery process. In L’Arche, they are also cared for, but the process and structures attempt to construct them as subjects of care who are the central decision-makers in their own lives to whatever extent possible.

            The politics of care at an agency are guided by efficiency and economy while at L’Arche, they are guided primarily by the notion of fruitfulness, and only secondarily by efficiency and economy. L’Arche itself is a grassroots political-moral statement against the marginalizing and poor treatment of vulnerable people in our society. As such L'Arche offers an indirect critique of status quo public attitudes and aspects of the care systems, while also being a part of the systems.

4.4.2        Staff today: role, importance and issues

 

            In all direct care organizations, including L’Arche, staff or assistants are central to every aspect of operations from the budget to the quality of care, and will thus also often be the source or subject of many major issues they face (Jacobson et al: 1992:198, 220). Below, I outline some research on common human resource issues and attempts to explain them. Following that, I introduce key human resource-related issues at L’Arche today.

            Many studies have indicated that in social service organizations providing direct care, staffing problems are their central operational issue (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:8-9). One survey of 2000 care facilities for people with intellectual disabilities found that 85% listed staff-related issues (recruitment, retention, and development) as the most important operating problems they face (Bruiniks et al. 1980 in Braddock et al. 1992:9). Researchers found in a literature review that direct care workers’ wages are well below the national average even for “women’s work,” and that turnover is higher than average and rising (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:41, 79). Not surprisingly, they found that turnover is highly inversely related to wages (ibid:21, 41) and that higher wages were essential to stabilizing the workforce in direct care facilities (ibid:87).[xxvi]

            Stability is important because turnover[xxvii] adds significantly to the cost of operations for the care provider, and also has a negative impact on quality of care, (although measuring this is an inexact process) (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:14-16, 41, 85-7; see also Jacobson et al. 1992:220). This impact is not surprising given that direct care workers form the bulk of the client’s interpersonal contact in human service facilities (from 75-90%) (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:14-15). The quality and consistency of caregiver contact is considered especially important for people with intellectual disabilities who usually have limited social networks (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:14-15; Bercovici 1983; Amado 1993a; Lutfiya 1991; Pottie 2001).

            L’Arche strives to be a place where “caring is both a practice and a disposition” (Tronto 1993:104), and is both about the labour of caring for others, and the interpersonal dynamic of caring about them (Kittay 1999:155-7). But this kind of care entails a higher degree of interaction and interdependence between caregivers and the cared for than traditional models of care, and requires a new kind of caregiver; one who is willing and able to engage in it. This ethnography explores what it means to people to become assistants, and how L'Arche harnesses their initial willingness to serve and enculturates them so that they are also able to do it well.

Recruiting

            One of the main issues L’Arche has identified is recruiting. This means figuring out what kind of person can do this work well, and then creating tools to attract and invite them to join. In Chapter 5 I discuss why people go there, and why recruiting has become an issue for L’Arche. Inviting people to L’Arche today is a very different proposition than it was in the first two decades of L’Arche. The community needs to find more and different ways to reach a smaller pool of likely candidates. They will have to work harder to invite those they do find, because the step out to this lifestyle feels more radical today for young people. Finally, these people need to be trained in a different way than assistants 20 years ago, beginning with a stronger phase of unlearning and consciousness-raising since they enter L’Arche with varied understandings of its radical nature. Wolfensberger suggested early on that direct care workers had to be idealists, prepared to make big sacrifices, bear burdens, and share in others’ suffering (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:37). While quite one-sided, this statement suggests why it is hard to find good people to live and work in L’Arche, and in the field in general. The result is a chronic shortage in many L’Arche communities—further straining the assistants they do have and usually inhibiting the quality of care and lifestyle that they can produce for the core members.

Formation and foyer lifestyle

            For the assistants that are in the community, two key and inter-related issues are lifestyle and formation. Lifestyle questions tend to centre around how the charism is executed, and constraints on doing this well. Many assistants seek to continue to live the L'Arche philosophy but outside the home, or as a married person and these requests are difficult to accommodate given their current ideology, policy and compensation rules. Formation challenges are tied to how to train people in the alternative moral culture of L’Arche in a way that supports them to live it well and to stay. Together, these issues mean that most assistants do not stay as long as L’Arche would like, and not enough of the new assistants seem willing or able to take on leadership roles; both of which cripple the community’s organizational capability.

            In Canada, the chronic shortage of assistants and increasing bureaucratization in the disability field have meant more time spent on the bodily physics of care and less time available for the affective and spiritual dimensions of care that drew them to L’Arche initially (Davis 1995; Lukeman 2001). This scenario has led a few people in leadership to question the viability of the foyer model of homes with live-in assistants. Discussions are ongoing. Since a central distinction of L’Arche is its expansive conception of caregiving, and in-depth formation, it needs to ensure that there is time for those affective, spiritual dimensions, if the mission is to be achieved. Making time for that is difficult in the increasingly regulated political economy of care and disability where the government and insurance companies who pay for care continue to impose homogeneous standards that privilege time spent on rehabilitation, and skills development for independence (Albrecht 1992:135, 169) to the exclusion of less measurable or profitable goals like social relations or spiritual health. In Chapter 6, I elaborate on L'Arche’s non-traditional conception of what counts as productive labour and why it is difficult to defend within existing health care frameworks.     

Paradox of care

            Another area that can create confusion and stress for assistants in L’Arche is what I call the “paradox of care”. The paradox is that this model of care asks assistants to accept core members as they are, but also to encourage growth in skills and autonomy[xxviii].  Having these two priorities is what makes L’Arche distinct, but holding them in constant tension is difficult for assistants to do. It is especially hard when a core member does not want to grow or develop in a way that the team of assistants and/or doctors feel would be in his or her best interest, such as exercising, dieting, or pursuing social opportunities or hobbies outside L'Arche. Vanier insists that L’Arche is not intended to be a womb to hide in, and thus stasis, or decline is not on the agenda for either core members or assistants. He believes that humans need a balance between the comfort of acceptance and the challenge of growth (Vanier 1998:11), and that someone who refuses to adapt or grow, in maturity and capacity, unfairly increases stress in the home for others (Wolf and Vanier 1974:11).

            This paradox of care is linked to a broader concern in the field of direct care, and that is the effect on caregivers of the shift in emphasis towards independence and residential care through fee-for-service models (Braddock et al. 1992:86-7; Ungerson 1999). While such de-reification of the role and authority of caregivers can be positive in many ways for clients (Zola 1989; Ungerson 1999; Albrecht 1992), it can, and has caused substantial role confusion and a feeling of devaluation for many staff (Jacobson et al. 1992:206, 214-16; Ungerson 1999; Ryan & Thomas 1980). From a staff perspective, this shift is at least partly about their potential, eventual professional obsolescence, which is not exactly motivating and makes it difficult for caregivers to value their role positively, or deliver high-quality care (Albrecht 1992:185-210). These feelings are not conducive to promoting better staff-client relations. The L'Arche approach seeks to support caregivers and help them see the value of their role in a different framework. Their experience of working within this ambiguity may be instructive for other agencies.

Mental health

            The final issue is how to ensure the psychological and emotional well-being of the assistants in the intense cultural environment of L’Arche. Vanier was aware early on of the unhealthy patterns or burnout that some people can form in this service culture, and advocated for supports like accompaniment and therapy (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:13). Many have written of the need to support caregivers with retreat or respite time to prevent them being overwhelmed by the emotional and moral demands of direct care (Wolfensberger and Vanier 1974:40-3; Kittay 1999; Tronto 1993). But some assistants have still lost themselves in the group, or overexerted themselves (Spink 1990:69). While such problems are partly a result of pre-existing personal issues, they are not exclusively an individual issue.

            While mental health is not a central topic in this thesis, the prevalence of burnout and stress as idioms of illness in L’Arche is problematized in relation to their organizational ideals. High levels of caregiver stress and burnout are common in direct care (Albrecht 1992:185, 191; Braddock et al. 1992), but organizations should bear some responsibility for prevention (Kittay 1999). These issues are a serious concern for long-term assistants in particular but also for new assistants who are being shaped tacitly, as much as formally, about how to live in L’Arche.

4.5     Conclusion

 

            This chapter was intended to accomplish three goals. The first goal was to augment the historical foundation for the ethnography started in Chapter 3, by providing a clear sense of what L'Arche is like ideologically, theologically, and structurally and how it got that way. Later, I evoke what the daily experience is like for assistants, and this background will help to make sense of some contemporary issues in L'Arche. Second, I wanted to clearly situate L'Arche in relation to the other modes and philosophies of care and disability that were discussed in Chapter 3, so that the reader understands both the similarities and differences between L'Arche and mainstream care approaches. Finally, I aimed to demystify the emergence of L'Arche, and to some extent what it takes to be a good assistant there, by presenting a more complete, contextualized history of L'Arche than most assistants are exposed to. My goal in so doing was to suggest to new assistants, some of whom I hope will read this, that being uncertain about what it means to be an assistant, and whether they are called to it, is a natural feeling and not something that signals a lack of fit. In the next chapter, I examine the primary research of my fieldwork in detail in regards to what it means to people to become a L'Arche assistant.

4.6 Endnotes

 

 



[i] The Prince then turns to the other roses: “you are not at all like my other rose…as yet you are nothing. No one has tamed you (apprivoisé)…[my rose] is more important than all the hundreds of you other roses because it is she that I have watered…it is she that I have listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing.” (Saint-Exupery 1943:86-7)

[ii] Father G. Arbuckle notes: “The Greek word 'charism' means free gift: St Paul introduced it in religious language to mean a gift God bestows for building up the faith community of Christ.” For example, St Ignatius received a message of what the charism of the Jesuit Order was to be. This term is unrelated to charismatic religious movements.

[iii] In the Roman Catholic and Anglican liturgies, the Gospels (the words of Jesus) are considered distinct from the rest of the New Testament, which consists of interpretations of Jesus’ teachings by disciples that were intended to encourage and help the people to become Christians (Vorstermans 2001). The bible begins with the Old Testament, which holds the history of the Jewish people prior to the year AD 0, which Christians consider to be the birth of Jesus and the advent of Christianity.

[iv] The Epistles are letters from disciples, which interpret Jesus’ words. Corinthians I is Paul’s letters to the Corinthians on how to live according to his understanding of Jesus’ teachings. These letters are central to Vanier’s interpretations and theology as well (Vorstermans 2001).

[v] His thesis is listed in the bibliography by its publication date of 1966.

[vi] Vanier was often invited back for guest lectures on his radical theology, and these are legendary in the history of University of Toronto. He recently gave two standing-room only lectures for professors, clergy and students at St. Michael’s College (spring 2001), and at the annual CBC Massey Lectures by national public intellectuals (fall 1998) at U of T Convocation Hall.

[vii] Feit refers to this as attending to the internal micro-politics (1985:60).

[viii]  This perspective was also put forth by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century (Ryan 2001).

[ix] From a Sermon on the Mount where Jesus declared that the poor, the weak, and the persecuted are blessed. Also called the preferential option of the poor; suffering deepens their closeness to the divine.

[x] Note that an important point of divergence between Jean and Aristotle is that Aristotle believed that status imbalance would prevent “genuine” friendship between people in different social or class positions (Aristotle 1976 [1955]:259-93, especially 286).

[xi] In the five countries where L’Arche has the most communities, (France, Canada, UK, US, and India) 34% of communities began before 1975, and 77% before 1985. L’Arche continues to grow, though more slowly, both in these countries and internationally, right up to the present (Vanier 1995:121-24).

[xii] Camphill is also a service community for people with disabilities, but in rural farm settings. It is grounded in anthroposophy.

[xiii] I drew extensively from Bazinet’s MA thesis (1995) for th discussion of intentional communities.

[xiv] In a critique of Habermas’ notion of the neutral democratic public sphere, Fraser has written about the need for off-centre safe discursive places as “subaltern spaces” where a minority group can safely develop their position and strategy before entering into the main “public sphere” of discourse where their voices will have to struggle to be heard because they speak from different assumptions and values (1994).

[xv] Indeed, the Intentional Community Directory website indicates that from 1989 to 1994 only 50 new intentional communities were started! www.ic.org. The website and information manager there told me that most new start-ups are co-housing or co-operative ventures and have a more economic and simple living slant than the classic values-based communities. Age at entry is also rising, likely given the increased cost of entry into these co-housing models.

[xvi] Now called the Roeher Institute at York University.

[xvii] Presumably the original core members also had hopes, since they came by choice, but I have not found any published record of how they felt about things. In those days of course, it would not have crossed many people’s minds to ask them, as it was not the norm.

[xviii] Robert Fulford explains that treating history like a story, “keeps us from understanding that the final result was not preordained.” At the time, the “future for them was a matter of contingency, accident, surprise,” (Fulford 1999:38).

[xix] Contemporary researchers Taylor and Bogdan cal this approach a “sociology of acceptance” (1989).

[xx] In Chapter 5 I discuss a recent L'Arche survey revealing the stress caused by this issue (Lukeman 2001)

[xxi] Canada’s ethnic make-up has just 44% in the largest group of British origin, 25% French origin, 20% other European, 4% Indigenous, and 7% other. For perspective, the USA is 25% Roman Catholic, 61% Protestant (incl. Anglicans), 2% Jewish and 12% other/non religious, and US ethnic make-up is 84% white (includes Hispanic), and 12% Black, 1% Chinese, 1% Indigenous, and 2% other (Goldstone 2000: 600)

[xxii] For more information, contact the Nouwen Foundation, Richmond Hill, ON.

[xxiii]  There have also been particular efforts by individual communities; Ottawa has a special community mandate for which all members pledge responsibility (Amato 1999); Calgary has a document dedicated to clarifying the LTA vocation (Favaro 2000).

[xxiv] This reflects the brevity and clarity endorsed by Sumarah who suggested that the four key dimensions of L’Arche were: the value of people with disabilities, mutuality, community and spirituality (1987:165). 

[xxv] There are a small number of rural communities remaining in Canada, including one in Cape Breton, N.S., which is part of this ethnography.

[xxvi] Turnover was also found to be inversely related to age and tenure, positively related to education, but was surprisingly neutral for gender (Braddock and Mitchell 1992:20-21).

[xxvii] Includes both absolute turnover and turnover variability (i.e. unpredictable degree of turnover).

[xxviii] L’Arche hopes that “the gifts of each person are nurtured and called forth” (Downey 1986:9) (see also Vanier 1998:27).