One of the most uplifting stories over the last fifty years is how humanity has evolved in handling its fragile. We can learn from this success and try to do even better during the next fifty years.
Let us be clear, we are all fragile to some degree. Remember the last time you were sick. Last summer I was sick for a few weeks and it made me weaker in every way. Everything that could go wrong seemed to do so, I had to take extra care even with simple actions, and I craved love while being unable to offer much in return. I had a whole year of fragility in 2009, when much change happened in my life, change that I was not really prepared for and made me vulnerable.
Yet I count myself as among the least fragile people I come across. I have many natural advantages and blessings, few of which I have done much to earn. If something as common as a sickness can knock me over so comprehensively, many others seem much closer to breaking point.
It is a healthy thing to remember ones own fragility, and also to observe the fragile around us. Hollywood and TV do poor jobs at reminding us that the world is full of fragile people. To the extent that fragility is made obvious in common culture, it comes through in stories from the developing world and of less fortunate groups in the developed world. It is too easy to see those people as not like us, sometimes beyond our scope of help, and at our worst moments even somewhat deserving of their plight.
I enjoy travelling by bus. It is not fast but still convenient and a great window into society. I observe a lot of kindness on buses. Just in the last week, a guy was chatting away to the driver in a way that betrayed some mental weakness, and some need for connection that the driver was happy to indulge. Another lady struck up a conversation with me that had a similar vibe. Many people on the bus struggle with physical disability and display social vulnerabilities, sometimes burdened with elderly or babies, and usually most of the folk around them tolerate and take time to show simple kindness, even in busy New York.
When I shop at Trader Joe’s, I notice that they have a wonderful staffing policy, leading to a great atmosphere in the store. One aspect is a willingness to employ fragile people. One young lady in particular has some mental frailty, but she is trusted with real work and respected, while the rest of the staff keep a close eye on her. Generally, customers tolerate her and help her as well. My loyalty to the store is greatly enhanced by this humanity.
A more obvious example is volunteering at the home for the very elderly, where many residents are weak and sometimes confused, but the strong support the weak and the nuns and volunteers offer much love. I also see less obvious examples of the same type of humanity each time I go to church.
I guess this type of snapshot happened fifty years ago as well. Some might argue that community was even stronger then, because people moved much less and lived more closely with extended families and tighter communities. But I think we overlook the sacrifices involved in that type of society.
The most important sacrifice was by women staying at home. Two generations ago, frail elderly, children with special needs or disabled adults were often homebound and cared for full time by stay-at-home mums. Such fragile folk were less visible to us in society then, precisely because they were not really a part of society, they were behind the closed doors of a home where a woman sacrificed her own life.
This sacrifice was further embedded by the way society treated the fragile. Lady Mary Warnock died a couple of weeks ago; it was her ground breaking report which finally brought fragile kids into mainstream schools rather than being educated in special institutions. Such places were often cruel, and made it much harder for fragile kids to find a pathway to a full adult life.
And special schools were not the worst part of the cruel system. Disabled adults and anyone with some mental fragility ran the risk of consignment to asylums, while the elderly frail were often housed in places with similar principles. Pathways to recovery were not a major priority of such places.
Indeed good public policy is all about creating such pathways. I sense that this is one more area where Europe is ahead of the US. When we lived in Holland, our kids became friends with two neighbouring kids with behavioural and cognitive challenges. Either or both trod a path that could have led down towards crime or addiction. But I learned this year that both had forged vocational careers, in each case I suspect helped by programs with subsidies and extra support. That support cost taxpayers some euros, but was probably a good financial investment and certainly a great human one. I don’t have the same confidence that a similar situation in the US would have reached such a promising state.
To be fair, New York City does a lot. Access-a-ride is a strong program, and, belatedly, the current state administration is acting to remove cash bail and reduce the chances that fragile humans spiral downwards. I also applaud the scheme of the mayor’s wife to tackle mental health, even if its management appears weak so far. Trader Joe’s is among many employers that help as well, as are churches and other groups relying on volunteers. But I still feel that vulnerable kids from families without means are more likely to be sucked into a whirlpool than launched onto a current of success.
Medical advances have also helped, and progress is especially rapid in understanding mental health. I sense that many of those we see on the fringes of society today would have been sicker a couple of generations ago, perhaps in asylums or even dead. Humanity is working out how to handle its own weak, socially and medically and with more positive paths and fewer sacrifices for carers.
We can view other public policy through this lens. Drugs and criminal justice policies can help or hinder the fragile. Public transport, affordable housing, and caring professions need support. Pathways for fragile kids of 16-20 can be a priority, via vocational courses, apprenticeships and so on.
Less obvious, the fragile are the ones who need protecting from risks or abuses from businesses: the financial industry is a particular culprit, I don’t understand how robocalls are not banned, and I also find the rush to lotteries, casinos and sports betting to be short-sighted, since it is the fragile who most struggle to control their behaviour.
Technology can be a great enabler for the fragile. I guess we have to accept that early applications are more likely to be targeted at the hip than the needy, but eventually I can see a world with apps that support carers replacing those than count steps.
A tricky issue is how to police potential abuse. The fragile benefit from kindness via social contacts, but it is precisely those contacts that can become abusive. Churches do a lot of good, but can also harbour abuse or indoctrination. Carers are most effective when they can develop a deeper relationship, but become vulnerable to challenge if things develop badly. Fragile people often have limited awareness of boundaries. I fear that the current focus on proscribing behaviours, while necessary, can have unfortunate side effects. The warriors of such causes should think outside of their own bubbles occasionally.
I will strive to change my mental model for considering many issues of social behaviour or public policy. Rather than thinking from my own viewpoint or that of some typical healthy person, I will try to think of someone more fragile. After all, I or someone close to me could become that person in a blink of an eye. And even if it doesn’t, surely the cause of the fragile is a worthy one for humanity anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment