|
P. J.
Cushing 2003 5.0 Assistants’ Initial Motives and Expectations
1.1
Introduction
(MacMillan 2001) In this chapter I present my
analysis of why people say that they wanted to live and work in L'Arche, and
what it meant to them to make that choice. It certainly seems worthwhile to
examine these people’s motives for working in L'Arche given that the conditions
of the role, at least on the surface, involve an abdication of individual
freedom and leisure time greater than most occupations, as well as minimal
financial rewards. “We live in an era when all accounts of motives have become
subject to doubt … [and] suspicion,” wrote Wuthnow for his research on altruism
and compassion (1991:62). Any account can conceal even as it reveals so we are
taught that “motives are not always what they seem.” (Ibid:62) Beyond the
hardships, however, being a L'Arche assistant is also a meaningful, rewarding
and potentially transformative experience and candidates are at least partially
aware of this when choosing to work there. Echoing MacMillan’s thoughts above,
one new assistant, Kayley said: “I’ve always been searching for something to do
that is meaningful, satisfying and helping people. It’s very important for me
to help people. To make people feel valued and understood.” Once people have worked as
assistants in L'Arche, they experience and observe in others the growth
potential of the role, as I discuss further in chapters 6 and 7. Before that,
however, they can only have a partial sense of the lifestyle or the growth it
offers. So what did they anticipate beforehand that moved them past
their uncertainties? Does their anticipation affect what kind of caring work is
possible in that organization? While individual combinations of expectations
were varied, common themes included a range of personal interests such as
fulfillment, belonging, personal growth and adventure, as well as pragmatic concerns
like job skills, learning a language, and income. Most assistants also
indicated being motivated by altruistic or socially responsible concerns. These
latter concerns can generally be traced to three sources: a history of
involvement in volunteer and social service activities, experience with people
with intellectual disabilities, or religion. Assistants’ backgrounds affect how
they think of their social and moral responsibility as good citizens and this
effectively weaves their personal and social interests together. The analysis for this chapter is
primarily based on assistants’ self-narratives from interviews, a pre-arrival
questionnaire I ran with twelve new assistants at L'Arche Daybreak, and
participant observation in the communities. It has been argued that
self-narratives can not establish who someone “really is” or their “true
motives” since the narrator can strategically edit and revise the facts in
order to produce certain effects, such as an optimal self-representation (Wikan
1995). What interviewees choose to report is also influenced by the
interviewer’s questions, hypotheses, and personality (See Chapter 2). These
problems notwithstanding, self-narratives are important sources of information
because they are stories we tell about who we are and who we want to be (Sartre
1964). As such, quite aside from their value as objective truths, they contain
symbols reflecting the narrator’s values, beliefs, and aspirations (J. Bruner
1986:15). 5.1.1 Relevance and Outline
There are three reasons to include
an extended discussion of assistants’ motives and expectations of L'Arche in
this thesis. First, a person’s reasons for caring for others affect how he or
she will care for them (i.e. the quality of care). One researcher of caring and
compassion argued that: “The very act of caring may be sabotaged by not having
the right motives.” (Wuthnow 1991:63). Other researchers attest to how motives,
attitude and commitment all affect the quality of care possible (C. Taylor
1994:183, Phillips and Benner 1994, Steinhoffsmith 1999), and I demonstrated in Chapter 3 the deleterious
effect on the quality of caregiving provided when caregivers and professionals
are not driven fundamentally by caring motives (Trent 1994, Day 1981, Enns
1999, Hingsburger 2001a). Second, a motives assessment
establishes a baseline understanding of what people wanted to accomplish or to
receive by becoming an assistant. Knowing what assistants initially perceived
and wanted helps to gauge what effect living at L'Arche eventually has on them[i]. Third, L’Arche requested help to
understand why people go there, why they leave and what might help assistants
stay longer. My analysis suggests that assistants’ initial hopes and
expectations influence their long-term satisfaction with the community
and the work. Below, I show that assistants enter hoping to make a difference
in the world; something that many envision on a macro scale. In the short-term
L’Arche effectively redirects those hopes towards small but important ways to
make a difference on a micro level through the daily practice of caregiving.[ii]
In the long-run, however, many assistants report a resurgence of their desire
to make a difference on a broader scale. When there are no obvious ways to
enact that desire within the community (because of the more urgent daily care
needs), some assistants become unsettled and dissatisfied. I begin with long-term assistants’ common beliefs about what makes a good assistant and thus whom they would like to recruit[iii]. I show how aspects of their backgrounds make them open to service-oriented work as well as influence what they consider to be fulfilling activities. Using examples, I illustrate the moral tension regarding living one’s values that drew many people to L'Arche. Finally, I discuss how these people often incorporate personal and altruistic or social service goals in their sense of meaningful fulfillment. Overall, the choice to undertake the role of assistant was connected with fairly ordinary human desires, concerns, projects, and histories. 5.2
Internal L’Arche perspective 5.2.1 Barriers to
internal analytical clarity on the issues
It
is not uncommon for non-profit organizations to lack the financial resources or
skills to perform effective research on questions such as recruiting and staff
satisfaction. Here however, there are
also L’Arche-specific reasons which have inhibited research and record-keeping.
Referring specifically to organizational structure, while all communities are
connected through the L’Arche mission and regional and national directors, the
communities are still relatively independent in many ways. Recruiting and most
staff-related concerns have been handled locally and there has been little
sharing of information about the composition of assistant bodies, standard role
descriptions, or recruiting criteria and best practices. Co-ordinated efforts
have thus been rarely initiated and difficult to execute since most communities
are too small to afford a professional researcher. Particular L'Arche cultural
beliefs as a faith community have also acted as barriers. Their language, and
ways of thinking about assistants in the past, have tended towards notions of
vocation or calling more than advertising or recruiting. A cultural belief
among some assistants was that those who are meant to be assistants will be
called there. One’s vocation can be discerned through prayer and
practice; for Christians, that means God is calling you to a certain line or
place of work. A person can be called to something in order to give and use his
gifts, or special talents, but can also be called to a place because God wants
that person to receive something of grace: a timely lesson, relationship, or
message for example.[iv] In the past, this cultural belief
in vocational call had two significant impacts relevant to L’Arche’s recruiting
and research of assistants’ motives. First, the corollary to the belief that
the right people will be called to L’Arche is that no recruiting is necessary.
This belief might even risk attracting people who would not flourish in or be
right for the role. The thoughts of Michel, an older LTA, are representative of
this point of view. He shared stories of the sense of grace he discovered in
the work and lifestyle of an assistant when he came to L’Arche in his late
thirties. Asked how he thought that L’Arche could articulate the kind of rich
experience he had to help recruit good assistants, Michel explained in his
characteristically quiet, light-hearted manner, his reticence about recruiting:
A vocation must come from inside of you. Then
you will be able to sit well with the hard times too. I do not think that we
should be out looking for assistants like that—let them come to us when they
are ready! (laughs) Ah, but I suppose I am revealing my idealism. Although Michel’s point about the
sustaining power of feeling called to a vocation is important, the issue of
assistant shortages remains.[v]
The residual effect of the vocational ideal was that for years little formal
effort was directed towards understanding the issue of declining numbers of
applicants. This is changing now, however, for most assistants. The leadership
has recognized that people can not feel called to the vocation of L’Arche
assistant if they have not even heard of the organization (MacMillan 2001). The
second salient effect of the spiritual, vocational ideal is how assistants
describe their reasons for working there, especially once they are already
assistants. I found that when people explained why they went to L'Arche, they
typically began emphasizing spiritual reasons or a sense of call as opposed to
personal interest factors. Two survey responses provide examples: “To follow
God’s path. To live a different lifestyle of simplicity and good morals” and “A
calling in the name of my faith. A desire to love and serve in a community for
the rejected”[vi] (Lukeman
2001). This is not surprising given that they had by that point experienced the
community’s rich spirituality. But with further discussion, most assistants
said that the role was very different from what they had originally imagined,
which implies that the sense of spiritual calling emerged after, not
before, arriving. In addition, as our discussions unfolded, virtually all
interviewees indicated that, in fact, many circumstantial and personal interest
factors contributed to their initial motivation to work in L’Arche or somewhere
similar. Such
biases need to be accounted for in the interpretation of peoples’ responses and
narratives. This has been difficult for internal researchers to do given their
implication in those same beliefs and positions. In most L'Arche studies,
assistants’ answers conflated their reasons for going to L'Arche with the
reasons for staying. In addition, the question formats did not provide a way to
assess the relative importance of their motives. Analysis of motives is further
complicated by the dual roles of caregiver and community member that are
involved. Some assistants focus mainly on just one of these roles in choosing
L'Arche. Francois, a former seminarian, had left his role as assistant the year
before I interviewed him. He liked his experience overall, but was disappointed
that L’Arche was not as spiritually involved or prayerful as he had
anticipated. He had been drawn to L’Arche in order to experience living out the
gospel values of solidarity and relations with “the poor” but admitted
that he had not fully considered the substantial labour of care that
this commitment entails. Others, such as students from social work programs,
who went to L'Arche for the caregiving aspects, were sometimes surprised by the
spirituality and intense interpersonal environment in a faith community. Once
people understand L'Arche, their goals often shift to include new
possibilities. 5.2.2 Whom L’Arche wants,
and whom they get
In this section, I introduce a
basic sense of whom the L’Arche LTAs would ideally like to hire as
assistants based on their experience with what kind of person does well in the
role of caregiver and community member. As noted in Chapter 4, the centrality
of valuing diversity in the L’Arche mission makes some LTAs feel awkward
placing parameters around whom to hire. In addition, history has shown them
that a wide variety of people have become excellent assistants and
community members[vii]. The depth
of what people live in the daily practice of care seems to be strong enough to
incorporate, and temper, many differences. Trevor, a former community leader
noted that most LTAs feel that many kinds of people can flourish in L'Arche:
“We are learning to trust in the power of the experience itself to have a
profound effect on people, and sometimes, to call them to L’Arche for longer.” Although
no criteria for assistants have been formalized across all Canadian
communities, I have developed a vernacular description of the common traits
they seek. As discussed in Chapter 4, the communities ideally want to find
people who can be competent and satisfied in both the roles of caregiver and
community member. The first essential requirement is for the candidate to be
willing to live in a L’Arche home where they are fully engaged in daily life,
caregiving, home maintenance, and developing relations with core members and
assistants. Many people who are volunteers, employees, board members and
friends of L'Arche develop close relationships there and contribute enormously
to the communities without living in one of the homes. Still, most of them
would agree that living in the homes is an experience that confers singular
insights to those who do. While there has been some internal debate regarding how
many years assistants should live in, and many LTAs eventually move into
separate quarters,[viii] it
continues to be a requirement of new assistants for at least their first few
years. The other basic criteria for being
an assistant include: being legally bondable, possessing a work visa, physical
capability of transferring people as needed, competence in the local language,
good mental health, and the maturity and capacity to learn to handle
medications, hygiene routines and basic health care decisions for the people
with disabilities with whom they will live. Other traits that are considered
desirable are having a driver’s license and the energy to handle long days and
a full, diverse, often unpredictable schedule. Particular attention is also now
being paid to people’s past leadership experience and potential to develop as
leaders. There
are several other less tangible traits that the LTAs are looking for in
assistants, some of which are difficult to assess without actually seeing
people in the role. To be clear, these profiles are products of my research and
are not official L’Arche policy. The characteristic I heard most often when I
asked people to describe what makes a good assistant was a general openness
to difference. Among the different sorts of openness that assistants
stipulated, by far the most important was for candidates to be open to people
with intellectual disabilities and to mutual relationships with them. Secondly,
they suggested that new assistants need to be open to the L’Arche model of caregiving
as a mutual and relational practice. Finally, assistants are ideally open to,
and supportive of, the spiritual lives of others in the community even though
they are free to exercise their own personal beliefs. Assistants should also be
compassionate and prepared to make a strong commitment of time and energy to
the community, including the accommodation of others’ needs and beliefs (Vanier
1989:73). As
an assistant and participant observer, I have developed one final theory about
what helps an assistant to do well in L'Arche. Those who thrive seem to
manifest a healthy, sustainable balance between being centred and striving,
or being and becoming. They want to explore, grow, and try new things and this
helps them adapt to the radical approach to difference, disability and
caregiving that L’Arche requires of them. That is often the easy part for the
idealistic young people who are the majority of new assistants. But there are
also many times when not much changes and, on the surface, the house routine
can start to feel repetitive or even boring. At this point assistants need the
capacity to be grounded in the present and content with what is given. An
assistant needs to be able to find the beauty in “the little things,” as they
say in L'Arche, such as a spontaneous smile or a small initiative by a core
member, or simply time spent together. This capacity to be centred, or
“just be,” is less common among young people and yet it is essential to their
ability to stay motivated as an assistant. In Chapter 7 I elaborate on how
L'Arche intentionally cultivates this in assistants as part of the process of
nurturing relationships across difference and disability. Sam, who was 27 and
had been in L’Arche almost three years at the time of our interview, is one example
of this process. He explained that he naturally revelled in both the highs and
lows, or intense predicaments of life as an assistant, but that he found the
in-between times more difficult to appreciate: “It has taken time and
experience … and prayer too, for me to learn to understand the gifts that the
quiet, routine times in L'Arche offer – and to be thankful for them too. I have
tried to watch and listen to LTAs whom I respect, and that’s helped me to learn
how important it is to use those simple times to really centre myself … and I
try to be very present, very open to whatever comes up.” I
asked several interviewees whether they thought there were bad reasons for
coming to L’Arche, or reasons that they were cautious of. As noted, assistants
are reluctant to rule anyone out in general terms, given what they believe
about diversity and the power of the experience to redirect people. Angie, an
insightful, seasoned LTA who has served both in the homes and in various
leadership positions, adds that even those people who come with little
understanding of what L’Arche is, or who just wanted to travel, can contribute
much to the community: “Things can get a little tired with the same old group,
so people who just come for a short while bring a vital fresh energy to the
community; they shake things up and keep us real. It can be very good for
everyone, including the core members, provided their departure is handled
well.” Only one motive was cited as
sometimes undesirable. Some LTAs cautiously allowed that when people come primarily
because they feel lonely, their great need to be loved tends to demand
significant energy from the other members of the house. As Catherine, an LTA
put it, “When their needs are greater than what they are able to give to the
house, then that makes things hard. It is like they are looking for a place to
be cared for, rather than to give care.” Beyond the practical burden this can
create, there are moral conflicts as well. Although our society accepts that
acts of kindness often end up conferring benefit on the giver[ix],
we disapprove morally when someone’s main goal seems to be the benefit, rather
than the service (Wuthnow 1991:55, 96-7). Vanier writes that when giving
comes from a place of poverty, not from love, it is psychologically and
emotionally demanding of others (1989:67). As discussed in Chapter Four,
however, Vanier also acknowledges the universal experience of loneliness, and
urges people to be honest about it. While this seems like a paradox, it is more
a question of degree. Karina, another LTA explains: “While living with a very
needy assistant can be overwhelming, I do question the honesty of assistants
who claim that loneliness is not at least somewhere at the root of compelling
us towards community and relationships.” Whom L'Arche gets
While
there are only minimal records of the composition of the assistant body in
L’Arche, the leadership is beginning to address this paucity as they move
towards national co-ordination of certain policies. In 2001 L’Arche Canada
conducted a lengthy survey, the primary aims of which were to assess and
compare the various financial and benefit arrangements across the country
(zone) and to ask LTAs about their concerns for the future (Lukeman 2001)[x].
Certain demographic data were also gathered and I will outline those aspects
relevant to the discussion of motives and recruiting. The survey included
information on the 327 assistants living in the 20 communities which responded
to the survey (out of 25 in Canada). The average age of new assistants
when they start is 21 and the main age range is from 18-35, although a small
number of older people also join the communities. Excluding summer interns,
fully half of the assistants in Canada are under 30 years of age, 33% are 30-50
years old, and 17% of assistants are over the age of 50. The average length of
time that assistants work in a community is 1.5 years (again, excluding
interns) but this figure does not tell the whole story. While about half of
assistants stay less than two years, the other half make much longer
commitments: they are split equally between those with 3-9 years of service and
those who have worked there for over 10 years. Of note, men are well-represented
in L’Arche in comparison with mainstream direct caregiving organizations
(Braddock et al 1992), constituting almost a third of total assistants (31%).
Among assistants with less than two years of service, roughly one quarter are
men (26%). This is partially due to the communities’ desire to provide same-sex
care for personal hygiene routines as much as possible. No data has been
collected on ethnicity, faith or social class. 5.2.3 L’Arche research on
why people want to live and work there
In
Canada, L’Arche does not have substantial national research findings on
recruiting and retaining staff[xi].
A few questionnaires were done but limited to one community or region. Although
L'Arche conducted two national surveys containing salient recruiting questions,
the data was only partially analyzed due to their time and resource constraints.
Still, it is useful to review this work. The 2001 survey noted above also
had an open-ended question asking LTAs: “What brought you to L’Arche?” This is
the most recent internal research on this question (Lukeman 2001). People
mentioned a number of topics in their answers ranging from how they heard about
L’Arche (book, radio, friend) to their practical expectations and philosophical
hopes; responses averaged three to four motives each. This is consistent with
other research on compassion which found that people usually give many reasons
for why they volunteer or do good for others (Wuthnow 1991:59-62). Wuthnow also
found that most respondents were conscious of how critically we evaluate such
accounts in our society for an “agenda” or self-interest and thus carefully
considered the types and order of reasons they gave (Wuthnow 1991:59-62). The LTAs who analysed the
anonymous survey data grouped the many assorted expressions of motives into ten
themes. The comments which they classed as “community life” were by far the
most popular, capturing almost half of respondents. Other categories that they
created which were mentioned by more than 20% of respondents include “spiritual
journey”, “people with disability”, and “Jean Vanier books” (see appendix 5.1 for
key findings). I have no quarrel with those
findings nor with findings in the other surveys that I review below, aside from
my earlier cautions on how they are interpreted. There are problems with these
internal studies, however. They do not
provide the leadership with a clear sense of how these factors operate in
people’s lives or how they are inter-connected and prioritized for them. Nor do
these surveys really add to the leadership’s existing, intuitive understanding
of the situation and how to improve it. I will attempt to do that with the
ethnographic research below, where I also incorporate some of the raw data from
this survey. I
reviewed two other L’Arche survey reports done in Canada since 1992 (but not
their raw data). The analysts of the 1992 national study indicated their
concern for community life, given that half of STAs did not designate “the
L’Arche emphasis on community” as a motive for working in L’Arche (Davis 1995).
A sense of calling or vocation was reported as a “major factor” for assistants,
as were the spirituality and philosophy of L’Arche. An Ontario questionnaire for STAs
was administered, asking what was interesting about L'Arche, how they heard
about it, and what helped people to come (Zinyk and Egan 2000). Again, many
assistants pointed to multiple reasons with the top four reasons each garnering
20% support: to get experience with people with disabilities, curiosity about
the lifestyle, spirituality, and philosophy. Roughly 10% found community,
self-knowledge/renewal, or life change important. Nevertheless, with no ranking
of factors and broad, polysemous categories like “spirituality,” it is
difficult from this report to generate a better sense of what it means for
people to work in L'Arche (See appendix 5.1). In
section 5.2 I have presented what traits and skills the L’Arche leadership
believe commonly make for good assistants, as well as their latitude in
welcoming people with diverse intentions. The demographic profiles of the
assistant body as a whole provide an initial outline of the group which I build
on with more detailed individual profiles of various assistants in the
following sections. My analysis of the LTAs’ interpretive challenges with
research on motives alerted me to these same ambiguities and contradictions in
my own data. Below, I use my primary research to enhance the present
understanding of motives and how people came to have them. In order to do this
I expand on how those known factors are connected and prioritized in individual
lives. I also situate those motives in other research. 5.3
Background and circumstance
In addition to analyzing
assistants’ narratives for common themes about why they want to work in
L'Arche, it is important to examine how those dimensions work together. In this
section I outline the most common motivations that people discussed, related to
their backgrounds and their circumstances at the time they chose to go to
L'Arche. While simple circumstance may seem trivial, it often provided an
important impetus for people to change the direction of their lives or a
short-term opportunity to do something they perceived as unusual, such as
L'Arche. Shared elements of their backgrounds are important determinants of
what types of activities and work that they consider to be fulfilling. A broader framework is provided in
Wuthnow’s research on the language Americans use to describe their motives for
being compassionate and caring (1991). He discovered four primary traditions
were used: biblical, utilitarian, therapeutic, and fulfillment (Ibid:58). I
found significant commonality between my and Wuthnow’s findings around motives
among L'Arche assistants in Canada, as I outline throughout this chapter;
however, I also want to highlight three distinctions in my ethnography. I
attend more closely to how personal history, and practical needs factor into
assistants’ motives to serve and to work in L'Arche. Second, I found that, even though
assistants to some extent employed all of the reasons Wuthnow identified, two
of the categories dominated. Not surprisingly, biblical or religious reasons
were common, although, as with many of Wuthnow’s interviewees, most of these
assistants avoided traditional Christian charitable language of sacrifice
(1991:105). Assistants felt that it was an anachronistic and unhealthy way to
view altruistic work that was, in fact, often quite rewarding and growthful for
the giver. The other common narrative theme for assistants was a sub-theme of
what Wuthnow called the fulfillment genre. It consisted of people who were not
shy to admit that service, volunteering, or social justice work involves
sacrifice and hardship, and that it could also be very fulfilling for them
(Ibid:106). But the personal fulfillment and growth benefits were inseparable
from the fact that assistants (and Wuthnow’s interviewees) sought them at least
partly in order to support, or further, their service goals. This dual
commitment provides clues to those aspects of morality and fulfillment that I
discuss in sections 5.4 and 5.5 which follow. The
third distinct theme that should be evident in the cases that follow is that in
L'Arche, there is a difference between assistants’ official and unofficial ways
of talking about sacrifice, fulfillment, and their own contribution to L'Arche.
The official discourse, or what Arbuckle calls the public myth about sacrifice
at L'Arche, is best reflected in a phrase that is used regularly there[xii]:
People come here to give, but in the end, they receive more than they give.
The intention of this official maxim, derived from Vanier’s emphasis on the
gifts of the poor, is to name and enhance assistants’ appreciation of core
members’ gifts. It is also intended to downplay the assistants’ sacrifice by
playing up the reciprocity in giving, or the utilitarian benefits. While the
public myth is not untrue, it is not the whole story. The unofficial discourse of daily
life in the homes, however, reveals another version of reality. Informal
sharing of stories acts as an outlet for some of the stress of this lifestyle.
In this discourse, a more common refrain is to describe the work as hard but
good; something assistants use seriously but also often utter jokingly,
tongue in cheek. Among themselves, assistants regularly discuss the strains,
conflicts, time and human resource shortages, lack of sleep, and other
difficulties of their vocation, eliciting empathy and needed support from each
other. In public however, there is a clear reluctance to concede that
sometimes, some parts are simply tough, not growthful. Is it wrong to talk about the
sacrifice or hardships involved in such work? Prominent researchers firmly
state that some use of the language of sacrifice is vital because it reminds us
that the giver must indeed make real sacrifices if the help is to be more than
token[xiii]
(Wuthnow 1991:103-5; Bellah 1985:33, 48, 285). Although assistants acknowledge
some degree of hardship and sacrifice in this work, the L'Arche ideology
encourages them to transform their perspective: rather than maintaining a
negative outlook, hardship can be seen as meaningful by pointing to the lessons
that can emerge from it. 5.3.1 Circumstance:
opportunity and impetus
Assistants’
stories often contain references to a range of ordinary circumstances in their
lives just prior to deciding to work in L'Arche. It seems that sometimes even a
small change in those circumstances can create an opportunity for them to
change directions or take stock of their options. Sometimes the change in
circumstances provided the necessary impetus or catalyst for them to act on a
long-held desire. Initially, I overlooked the significance of these ordinary
circumstances since the interviewees often presented them casually as part of
the landscape, and thus did not spend much time discussing them. Later while
reading the transcripts, however, it became clear to me the essential role that
these ordinary circumstances, such as losing a job or meeting a former
assistant, played in the creation of the space for change. Deon, for example, was a
university student interested in social justice issues, and in search of a
summer job, but not sure what he was going to do. One night he was having
dinner at a friend’s home, and her mother was trying to convince her to go to
L'Arche: “She never did go, but I got convinced [to go] instead!” Wikan insists that chance events
are as important in defining who a person is as those events that one plans.
She argues that we all live in “a world of urgency and necessity,” responding
to things that are outside of our control, more so than a world of intention
and order (1995:266). Below, I outline various examples of elements of chance
or circumstance which create situations of “urgency and necessity” for people,
providing them either with the impetus or opportunity to choose to work in
L'Arche. Before going to L'Arche, Vicky
recalls that she was working happily as a professional in applied science,
doing well and moving up the corporate ladder. She was involved with her church
and happened to get a last-minute spot on a spiritual retreat that Jean Vanier
was leading. What she heard there planted a seed in her heart that eventually
grew into a desire to work in L'Arche: “It was a pivotal moment for me because
Vanier’s retreat was about fruitfulness and [doing] work that was life-giving.
Basically his message was saying [that what was of value was] the opposite of
productivity and in the mid-80’s productivity was the culture in my
profession, so it really hit me as unusual.” Nevertheless, working in L'Arche
can be a big decision for anyone and leaving your job to do it is an even
bigger decision. Although she was intrigued to learn more, it took more than
one catalyst to move Vicky to act. She only chose to go to L'Arche when other
changes at work and needing new living arrangements opened up a space where she
felt that the time was right for her. Changes in circumstances work in
conjunction with other factors, such as moral, spiritual or interpersonal
projects and desires, to become a motivation for changing one’s direction, job,
or lifestyle. In most of the self-narratives that I heard, each individual’s
decision was the product of complex, interwoven desires and circumstances.
Kayley’s story is particularly layered but not unlike many other assistants who
come to L'Arche in their early twenties when they are experiencing many changes
in perspective and responsibility. Kayley, who had only been at L'Arche two
months when I met her, was a soft-spoken, gentle young woman. She had finished
university approximately two years earlier. I found her incisive and reflexive
but her principle self-description was as a good listener: “I like to make
people feel really heard. I didn’t feel too listened to at home, so I guess I
know how much people need that, and like it.” She explained her decision to
work in L'Arche as the unlikely result of a confluence of a number of
simultaneous changes in circumstance, personal developments and desires. She was dissatisfied with her
full-time job in a Christian camp and then was temporarily laid off from it
during the down-season. While considering what to do while temporarily
laid-off, Kayley had an unfamiliar “restless feeling” and desire to try
something “unusual and different.” “But,” she said, “I’m not the type of person
to move away, or do anything too strange - it’s just not me.” She knew of L'Arche
because the camp had hosted a group of people with intellectual disabilities
for a week and among them were people from L'Arche. She enjoyed working with
them and felt drawn to do something more with people with intellectual
disabilities. The spiritual dimension of L'Arche was also appealing to her. Her
friends and family, however, were sceptical of it and strongly discouraged her.
In the end, in spite of their
protests, she decided to do a short internship at L'Arche. In addition to the
aforementioned reasons, she said, “I figured it was a chance to travel and get
rid of my restlessness.” She assured others that she would find “a good job” in
a few months. At the time of our interview she said she continued to be
uncertain about whether she had done the right thing. This is hardly surprising
given the sheer number of issues she was trying to sort through. At other times, people noted
circumstances that were more singular; for example, those people who were
finished university or high school and wanted a chance to travel, learn English
or French, or learn about another culture before pursuing a career. My pre-arrival survey of summer
interns also revealed a variety of practical needs. Mia, a psychology major,
wrote, “This gives me practical experience in the area I want to specialize in,
which is very hard to get into.” Sareena, an undergraduate, indicated, “I
needed a summer job and I wanted to do something where I was useful and
helping.” Leore included a practical, personal benefit as well as a help-oriented
one: “I want counselling experience related to my degree, and to help improve
the quality of life for people with special needs.” Several people, such as
Noel, came to L'Arche for an experience of a less structured faith community
life in order to help them figure out if they were well-suited to a seminary or
a more formal religious order. Matthew’s narrative combines
several of these themes. He had worked for several years in a field that he
loved but a growing feeling of fatigue led him to consider taking a year off to
work on a farming property, something he had always wanted to do. A rugby
injury set-back the plan and then “out of the blue,” a friend suggested that
they travel to L'Arche in Canada, which also had a farm. He had never heard of
L'Arche, and had no experience with people with intellectual disabilities. He
quickly shifted, however, to feeling that L'Arche could fit with his other
desires, such as working outdoors, and exploring the possibility of a vocation
in the priesthood. There were other
important factors in his decision too, as I discuss below. 5.3.2 Personal history
and predispositions
The assistants came from a variety
of backgrounds but they shared some formative experiences that contributed to
their choice to work in L'Arche. From their self-narratives, I ascertained
three common themes related to their backgrounds: religious family upbringing
or a developing spirituality, a helping orientation developed in family or
school, and experience with, or interest in, people with intellectual
disabilities through jobs, school, or their extended families. Many assistants
spoke of all three elements being present in their lives, although others
shared just one or two. In addition, the degree of importance of the elements
varied for each person. These background factors contributed to their
pre-disposed choice of an experience such as L’Arche. Humanitarian, helping orientation
Most assistants included some form
of humanitarian or helping ideals as part of their reasons for working in
L'Arche; for several people it was the only one of the three aforementioned
themes that they brought up. This motive needs to be highlighted and elaborated
on because it was culturally underplayed in L'Arche where there is an aim to
create a greater recognition of the balance and reciprocal benefits in the
caregiving, or helping, relationship. Roughly half of the assistants
discuss, in their self-narratives, having been involved in service or helping
activities as a given; it is “just what I do,” they say, because it seems
right. Several assistants explained in interviews that their choice of
livelihood was between a set of possibilities which all fell within a social
responsibility or helping framework. When I asked Sam, a three-year assistant
with a university physics degree why he was an assistant instead of working in
a lab, he explained, “I guess this is just what I do. I like to be part of
things that are good for people. When I think about my choices … sure, some of
those jobs are attractive too, but I have this desire to be accountable to
myself which means I don’t feel as good when my life is just for me somehow.” This theme of social
responsibility was a natural, or intrinsic, part of who they were, and was also
present with most board members and administrative staff whom I interviewed as
well. Camilla, for example, vividly recalls her father’s generosity when they
grew up. He would give away the family clothes to poor neighbours and regularly
overlook the overdue accounts of local people with his store when he knew they
were broke. When asked to articulate why she has been involved in so many
volunteer roles (including being on the L’Arche board for years) in addition to
her career as a professor, she seemed uncomfortable with thinking about it in
terms of reasons or motives: “I guess it just rubbed off on me somehow.” When I
asked her to comment on why her siblings did not have the same interest or
track record of giving their time, she simply ascribed that to personality
differences: “That’s just how I am!” Sara, who initially lived as an assistant
and now works in one community’s office as an administrative employee, told me,
“I have one purpose in my life and that is to make a difference in the world.”
During our interview, she explained that she accepted the lower salary and
fewer formal training opportunities at L'Arche because she felt good about the
meaning and purpose of her work there. Most board members whom I interviewed
also seemed deeply committed to social responsibility and service. Most of them
are professionals in fields that have little to do with disability or even
social service. Despite this, their narratives are full of other types of
volunteering or social justice activities that are described as part of their
normal flow of life and civic responsibility. Wuthnow suggested a theory
regarding explanations like those offered by Sam, Kayley, Camilla, and Sara
which suggest that doing good is “just who I am” or something that “I just
believe is good to do.” Wuthnow argues that these are narrative techniques
which people employ in order to “naturalize” or “subjectivize” their motives
(1991:76, 70-2). Naturalizing is a technique used to downplay one’s free will
and thus avoid the stigma of appearing to be seeking credit for being
altruistic (Ibid:76). Subjectivizing is another strategy through which people
try to avoid judgement or suspicion for their good acts by constructing their
motives as simply personal taste, and thus beyond criticism (Ibid:70-6). In
order to explain why people would want to deflect attention from any altruistic
involvement, Wuthnow returns to his assertion that because “caring is in some
ways deviant” it “makes us feel compelled to give an account of ourselves.”
(1991:72). In addition, he suggests, “The issue arises, I suspect, because we
want to take some credit for our actions, but there is also a stigma against
taking too much credit for them.” (Ibid:76). It is of course also possible,
that people simply find it hard to put words around their complex motives and
so to say “it is who I am” is just plain easier. Among newer assistants, there are
many who are motivated almost exclusively by the helping or social justice
theme. As an example, a number of young Germans come to work at L'Arche in
Canada each year with an official program for conscientious resistors, in lieu
of Germany’s compulsory military duty. They tend to have strong social justice
values and experience with voluntarism but often have neither experience with
people with intellectual disabilities nor a prominent theme of faith in their
self-narratives. L'Arche also welcomes a number of summer students and
university co-op students for four month placements. Many of these students are
broadly interested in social inequality and injustice and health issues. They
are thus enrolled in social work, special education or other therapeutic
programmes but have no prior experience with people with intellectual
disabilities. Religion
Religion, in some form, was a part
of most assistants’ formative years, although the degree of involvement with
their faith varied both in their families and as they began to make their own
choices about religion. For many, their experiences with religion were
formative in predisposing them to the possible value of life in a spiritual community.
One survey respondent explained how her desire to serve in L'Arche was
connected with her faith: “My desire was to live community with the poor; those
people who do not have a voice in our society. The simplicity and spirit of the
Beatitudes attracted me. I also wanted to discover the gifts of the core
members.” (Lukeman 2001). In many cases however, it was a struggle with
religion, or aspects of it, which led people to L'Arche in order to explore its
alternative version of faith. Theo was raised in “a very
Catholic family” with several relatives living as religious people.[xiv]
Nevertheless, he remembered himself in his teens in school as rebellious on all
counts, including how he related to religion. Below, I have selected parts from
a much longer segment of our interview to give a flavour of his experience with
religion. Although he struggled with Christianity and experimented with
different faiths, he remained drawn to faith in some form. Theo: “I was taking all kinds of
different courses at university but I became very disillusioned with it…. I
felt like it should have been more intense. Eventually I took religious
studies, philosophy, sociology and stuff and really liked them…. I became
vegetarian and very philosophical - actually I was probably a pain in the ass –
I was quite argumentative. I upset my mom all the time, and I was very
idealistic. My uncle was a Jesuit… we
talked a lot about my questions, and he encouraged me to look around if I
wasn’t happy with Catholicism…. It wasn’t that I had a problem with religion
per se; I just didn’t see how it could be fair to say that being Catholic was
any more ‘right’ than any other choice. So I was looking for the commonality in
many faith traditions to see what I could hold onto and believe in.” Pamela: Why do you think the question of
faith and beliefs was so important for you to sort out? Theo: “I don’t know…. I thought about
things a lot. Well, I had some close friends who didn’t have any faith, but I
could see that they were plainly good people and that challenged me. How could
I think there was something wrong with them?” Adrienne’s self-narrative was also
replete with struggles with Catholicism but for different reasons, and she
worked them out in a different way. For her, it was a part of her identity and,
as such, she felt drawn to it and comfortable with it; yet there were aspects
of religion that continually frustrated her. As she explained though, religion
clearly shaped her views on social responsibility and the kind of vocation to
which she felt called. Although she was raised as a Catholic, it was “mainly a
Sundays thing,” until her high school Religious Studies teacher presented the
class with a radically different perspective on religion. He was
“anti-establishment and unconventional but still very passionate about
Christianity” and taught them about issues the church was facing in Central
America, with missionaries, with native people, and women. “It was a very social justice perspective. He
talked to us a lot about living with integrity- linking our beliefs and
lifestyle – like, how I live affects people around me. And I started feeling
like I wanted to choose a life that is somehow in harmony with other people in
the world. This all got me involved in lots of activism stuff,” and it gave me
“purpose and meaning. But it was also … it was rebellious, it fit in I guess
with where I was at developmentally as an adolescent to be against
things.” Adrienne continued with these
interests at university, pursuing philosophy, peace and religious studies and
becoming an activist. She struggled with finding a place in the Catholic church
as a woman, however, and eventually gave it up altogether for a period.
Subsequently, she decided to try again; living in L'Arche was part of that
effort to find her way spiritually. When I asked Adrienne why she kept
returning to the church, considering her concerns with it, she explained: “I guess I still wanted a place to belong, to be connected with,
and for me that had been the church so I guess I just didn’t want to drop it….
I felt that I couldn’t run away from being Catholic; for me, being Catholic was
like being Italian. Like it was part of my identity, part of what formed me.
It’s familiar to me, it’s a culture, its’ a story. I think I was drawn to the
familiarity and frustrated by it at the same time. But that’s the same as being
Italian for me – but you can’t shake it- it’s part of who I am. So I thought
I’d choose to work within it. I thought about changing churches but others have
their issues and inconsistencies too.” Struggles with faith were,
however, not ubiquitous among assistants. Seth’s family, for example, were
strong Catholics and he was “plunged into a sense of the value of a life of
Christian service… [and the] values of sharing, and respecting others.” In his
youth, along with many of his friends, he was involved in a myriad of community
service-oriented activities either through the Boy Scouts, his church or
school. He explained that he never felt a need to question his faith, that it
was connected with many positive experiences and friendships for him. He had
even considered being involved in some sort of vocation directly related to the
church. Maria is a friendly,
straightforward woman in her late twenties. She was raised in a small, Canadian
coastal village with her parents, both teachers, and a vibrant extended family.
Of religion she explained casually that Catholicism was “never something very
deliberate for me, it was just sort of there…. I didn’t really question it
much. We had a simple faith.” She participated in various clubs and volunteer
activities that were faith-oriented. Kayley was not raised in a formal
religious tradition but developed an interest in it through friends during high
school. One reason she was interested in L'Arche, as noted above, was its
particular spirituality, a contrast to her denomination: “I picked up on
something in the L’Arche message that sounded interesting. The whole idea of suffering
in Christianity had been bugging me: Why do I have this crummy job, God? Why
did you [God] put me here?” L'Arche, she said, seemed to offer some helpful
explanation for the meaning or role of suffering. Desire to work with people with intellectual disabilities
Given
the nature of the actual labour of caregiving required of an assistant, it is
not surprising that many people who went there had either experience or a
desire to work and live with people with intellectual disabilities. A small
number of assistants had someone disabled in their immediate or extended
family. More often, however, their exposure, if any, had been in other
circumstances. Seth, for example, first became interested when he was asked to
welcome and assist a disabled boy who joined his Scouts troop. Seth found it
fun and rewarding to support the boy and get to know him and was struck by how
different the boy’s opportunities were from his peers’. This experience
eventually led Seth to a degree in psychology and special education; he
eventually became a professor in the field. In his L'Arche community, Seth is a
dynamic, sociable figure and clearly delights in his joking, good-humoured
relationships with core members. Maria’s enduring interest from
high school onwards was directed toward people with learning and intellectual
disabilities. Although she had a disabled cousin, she says that her interest
developed by chance after she had read a novel about a disabled person. She had
read much more on the subject through her teen years, hoping to work in special
education: “I was struck by that idea of being able to…just in very, very
simple ways, to help let what [good] was inside of a person come out.” In high
school, she worked during the summers as a daily accompanier with an autistic
boy and his family. She was intrigued about what made him happy or scared and
she enjoyed growing comfortable with him, and having fun. Maria discovered that
she had something good to give and connected with his parents, who appreciated
her energy and ease with their son. She worked in other mainstream agencies
later, but felt uncomfortable with the social distance they prescribed between
client and staff. Maria explained that L'Arche was attractive because its
philosophy resonated with her own emerging sense of how to relate to people
with intellectual disabilities. Several survey respondents also
noted an interest in people with intellectual disabilities, in assisting them,
and getting to know them. Two examples are insightful: “I worked in an
institution and did not agree with some ways people were treated. Drawn to
people with intellectual disabilities. Vanier’s words resonated with something
inside me,” and “Desiring a better life for people in institutions; enjoyment
and delight in people with intellectual disabilities; desire for community;
personal spiritual journey; reading Vanier book” (Lukeman 2001). Benjamin
worked from age 15 to 18 as a counsellor and director in a summer camp. Each
year for a week or two, the camp would host several children with intellectual
disabilities and integrate them into the activities of the other children. He
recalls feeling very comfortable with them, unlike several of the other
counsellors. He enjoyed their spontaneity and joy and was moved by how much
they seemed to appreciate the opportunity to be supported in outdoor
activities. Benjamin had a deep sense of well-being and enjoyment when working
with people with disabilities. This contrasted with his later work throughout
university with juvenile delinquents which did not leave him energized or
motivated. In section 5.3, I have shown how particular aspects of assistant’s backgrounds commonly played a formative role in choosing to work in L'Arche. Background is only part of the answer, however, and in the following section I discuss the question of authenticity as a motive for working in L'Arche. 5.4 Authenticity
and resolving moral tension “All the beautiful sentiments in
the world weigh less than a single lovely action.” (James Russell Lowell) The
theme of authenticity emerged regularly in assistants’ stories about why they
went to L'Arche. Although they had some difficulty in articulating it, what
came through was that at a certain point they experienced a sense of moral
tension over what they were living; they wanted to resolve this tension by
undertaking some kind of significant action. The degree of tension ranged from
a creeping but quiet realization, to a rapid, heightened feeling of
inauthenticity. Various assistants described an unsettled feeling that arose
after reflecting on what they wanted from life and finding that the answers did
not align with what they were actually doing. That feeling of moral
misalignment sometimes continued for years before it was strong enough to push
the person to make actual changes. While modernism now privileges moral
subjectivism and relativism (C. Taylor 1989:16), authenticity and morality were
originally connected with reason, which allowed them to be compared and
evaluated (Ibid:19). In what novelist T.S. Eliot (1950)
referred to as “the endless struggle to think well of ourselves,” and to have
others affirm us in that effort, we can employ discursive strategies but
sometimes actions are necessary to
convincingly achieve the desired effect (Wikan 1995:266). As novelist Timothy
Findley put it in the context of soldiers’ ethics in The Wars (1977): “We
are known only in what we do.” If one’s identity includes being a caring person
but one’s life does not include much actual caring, this eventually creates a
drive to correct that paucity through action. Theo’s story is representative of
this moral dilemma or crossroads. After three years of studying philosophy at
university, Theo reached a point where “just talking” about issues of justice,
right livelihood, and spirituality was not
enough. “[I wanted] to live something real. To do it and not just read or talk
about it,” he said. Survey respondents expressed similar feelings: “I was at a
place in my life that I wanted the gospel to be lived out, as opposed to talked
about, in my life.” “L'Arche was a place to live what I believed” (Lukeman
2001). It appeared to me that, in
choosing to become part of the work that they had been merely talking about,
they were also acting to maintain the integrity of their self-image. The action
was and is an essential embodiment of their values. Their actions helped
to craft and construct the parameters of who they are (to themselves) and also
who they can claim to be (to others). Michel, now in his late forties,
described coming to a point of tension connected to religion. He was a civil
servant before becoming an assistant at L’Arche. He grew up in the country,
loved being outdoors and physical work but he eventually pursued a practical
finance career in the city. Michel worked well for years, but felt increasingly
discontent: “I was stagnating at work and didn’t feel fulfilled; papers and
more papers don’t make you happy.” He tried many ways to alleviate the
discontent, including therapy, moving out of the family home, exercise,
volunteering, and new relationships. While these changes helped, spiritual and
moral questions continued to pull at him. Eventually Michel met a therapist who
introduced him to an alternative to the rules-oriented religion of his youth.
To his surprise, he found these conversations peaceful and a relief from his
daily routine. Michel grew certain that he wanted to find work that was more
closely aligned with his spiritual yearnings. That was how he began to
volunteer for L'Arche. The desire for change seems to emerge from a feeling of
inauthenticity. He felt that his work and lifestyle did not reflect his beliefs
or nurture him to grow as a person. “One must live the way one thinks,
or end up thinking the way one has lived.” (P. Bourget) The stories of two talented women
who faced similar situations are instructive although because they were at
different stages of moral-spiritual tension, they responded differently. Karina
and Judi both had a religious upbringing in closely-knit families and spent
high school and university involved in various social-service activities. They
are both self-described over-achievers with boundless energy. Both also found
themselves accepted for graduate studies at prestigious American universities.
Karina had spent almost two years in a European L’Arche community. While
graduate school had been a long-held desire, Karina could not shake the feeling
that she was being called back to L'Arche; she felt that further formation in
L'Arche would strengthen her values. This would help her later to stay her path
and resist what she perceived as the competition and materialism in law school
culture. As such, she resolved to work in a domestic L'Arche community for
another year. Judi faced a similar decision
after her exploratory month working in a L’Arche home. Judi and I met at a
L'Arche retreat house where we were both staying one night. After someone else
mentioned that I was in graduate school, she shared her dilemma with us, asking
for our perspectives. She was plainly torn about whether to engage now
in her long-held desire to live a more deeply Christian lifestyle or to push
that personal project off again and begin her Master’s degree first. She was
excited about being accepted to a prestigious programme and also felt pressure
from her parents to follow the academic path. As she said, “My parents are
telling me that I can always do L'Arche later, once I am done my education.” Unlike Theo or Karina, it seemed
that Judi was not experiencing enough moral tension in the decision-making
process to push her to make the more unconventional choice of L'Arche. Her
desire for spiritual development was genuine but less of an immediate priority
than professional development. Judi chose school but is apparently planning to
return to L'Arche later. Another sort of moral tension
experienced was a feeling of having lost one’s moral compass. Several
assistants described feeling instinctively that they needed to be in a place
like L'Arche so that they would be shaped well. Being in L’Arche was an
intentional surrender for them in some ways. Nina, now an LTA, explained that
she decided to leave her risky, fast-moving street lifestyle because she
realized, “I felt right out of control and I needed some reining in, but there
was no one in my life who could do that. As much as it was fun out there, I
started realizing that it was an escape for me too. I didn’t want to deal with
stuff like family issues and questions about my sexuality.” She had heard of
L'Arche years before through a family friend and felt intuitively that the
structure of home-life, the bigger purpose, and responsibility for serving
others would get her on track, personally and spiritually. Audrey’s experience reflects a
similar sense of losing one’s moral compass. She had always been socially
active but while working in the years following high school, she began to feel
disillusioned and lonely with her life and friends: “Partying together gave us
some sense of community but really there was no commitment. I started to see
that it was so false. If I talked to my friends about it though, they thought I
was too intense…. After awhile, I just felt more and more outside the circle.”
Eventually a bad relationship and an unwanted pregnancy scared Audrey into
realizing “something has to change.” She made lifestyle changes on her own,
such as less partying and trying to pray for the first time; this helped to
some degree but she still felt relatively lost. She decided to live and work in
L'Arche because she believed, as did Nina, that being in a structured community
environment would help her to change those habits she had developed that she
considered unhealthy. Although Vanier often cautions
that people should not choose L’Arche as a way to hide from the world, Daniel,
a community leader, believes that even when people come to “lose themselves in
the community,” their presence in the homes can be turned into something
fruitful with proper guidance: “Good religious communities try to work with
people to name those fears, and challenge them to get beyond the fears. We
want our communities to be places of growth so that people can be out in the
world and radically committed to service and people, not staying in and losing
their personality in the group.” 5.5 The twin
dimensions of meaningful fulfillment
“Ta pathemata, mathemata ~ The
suffered, is the learned.” (Burke 1962 [1945]:40-1) In
making a decision about whether or not to come to L’Arche, people considered
what could come of the experience that was beneficial. All assistants expressed
having been motivated by personal self-interest and collective or
altruistic goals. They described the outcome of such interwoven goals in terms
of what I will call meaningful fulfillment; fulfillment with a
socially responsible dimension. I present the dual goals as interwoven here as
was the case in their narratives. For example, while some people sought a sense
of belonging in L'Arche because this would be personally enjoyable, it was also
noted as something that would allow them to continue to give care (See also
Wuthnow 1991:106). Working in L'Arche offered a chance to do good and make a
difference in the world, and in turn felt rewarding for them. As deToqueville
pointed out over a century ago, the experience of being involved in public
service can transform egocentric motives into “reasons transcending private
self-interest” (Bellah 1985:168). 5.5.1 Work-related
concerns
About half of the assistants named
work-related factors as a motive to work in L'Arche. Younger assistants were
especially likely to mention the benefit of work experience; 80% of respondents
to my pre-arrival survey volunteering “work-related experience” as relevant.
This makes sense given that they are at an early stage in their careers.
Younger assistants seemed to feel pressure to justify their chosen experiences
by assigning them an instrumental value related to career development. Leore,
for example, was considering doing a Master’s degree in Social Work. She
explained her motives: “I hope to gain an understanding of how people with
disabilities live each day, and to build relationships with them and other
assistants. I hope to have a broadened view of life and find out what exactly
my career goal is – if social work is really for me or not.” Mia, another respondent to my
survey, wrote that she hoped for, “A break in my life as a student. Time to
reflect on my personality and how to have a better attitude. To be patient, to
help if I can, and to have some good relationships. To learn a lot about people
with disabilities who I would like to keep working with later.” In interviews,
assistants indicated that at the outset, the possibility of these intrinsic
benefits, (e.g. personal growth, direction, relations) made up for the lack of
extrinsic job benefits in L'Arche (e.g. money or prestige). They also helped
encourage the assistants to continue on as caregivers. When LTAs mentioned work, it was
usually related to their desire to do meaningful and fulfilling work. Betty
explained to me that after four years in full-time church ministry through
music, she knew it was not right. She felt the work was meaningful, but
something about it did not feel fruitful for her. She went to L'Arche
originally for a transition year to consider her future vocation and direction.
Peter had enjoyed working and studying in the field of disability advocacy for
several years before he decided to go to L'Arche. While both meaningful and
fulfilling professionally, advocacy work did not nourish his soul. At a
spiritual retreat, an acquaintance gave him a book by Jean Vanier, suggesting
that the ideas might resonate with Peter’s own ideas. While he did not actually
read it for a year, once he did, he was indeed moved by the message. A final example is Calvin. Now a
seasoned community leader, Calvin is a passionate, energetic man, the son of an
immigrant family. He worked extensively in various large care organizations but
once he attained a certain level of authority in them, he realized that the
work was demanding much more of him than it was giving back. The structure
there did not allow him time to nourish other important things in his life such
as religion and family. He believed that he would be able to balance these
elements better in a L'Arche setting. 5.5.2 Adventure, becoming
and growth
Having a special, out of the
ordinary experience was an important theme in at least half of the assistants’
narratives. They saw L'Arche as a chance to explore new terrain. I had not
anticipated the prevalence of this element of adventure. My original conception
of what assistants did fell within the more serious frameworks of caregiving
and social activism. One survey respondent explained her multiple curiosities
succinctly: I knew I liked people with
intellectual disabilities, and I wanted the chance to travel. I read Vanier’s
writing and looked on coming to L’Arche as a bit of an adventure! I was also
interested in community – creating community (Lukeman 2001). This motivating factor is
important to discuss because I believe it is underplayed in L'Arche. The
axiomatic belief in L'Arche that people go there seeking belonging makes
it easy to overlook the fact that going to L'Arche was also an act of separation,
an uprooting, and a movement away from their previous community or home.
Anthropologist Michael Jackson notes that humans have twin, conflicting
longings to feel rooted at home and also to reach out and explore the frontiers
of “otherness” (1995:3). Jackson argues that while philosopher Simone Weil
extolled the soul’s fundamental longing to be rooted (Weil 1952:43), we “have
an equally strong need to uproot ourselves,” to avoid stagnation, and continue
to seek inspiration (Jackson 1995:3). Most people found it hard to
explain their attraction to exploring difference, but it was nevertheless
compelling for them. As Sam explained, “I just thought it would be really neat
to be able to get to know a few people with disabilities better – to just look
at someone who is so different from me, and try to understand what is going on
inside of them.” Rivers, who was studying for his Master’s of Divinity, hoped
that in his summer term at L'Arche he would “develop my compassion for those
who are different from myself” because he felt that this was fundamental to a
life of ministry. Their hopes reflect a “yearning to open oneself up to the
world at large” and a desire to reach out across differences and connect with
people (Jackson 1995:4). For others, it was not specifically the difference of disability that attracted them but the whole package of alternative living that L'Arche offered with its intense, |