The intention of this blog, and most of my writing, is to initiate, is to further conversation on the subject of supporting other people who need some support.
In my last post Down but not Disabled (click to read), I talked about the titles of people who need support. How to refer to them.
Gary V had a great response, you can read on the comments section, that brings up a great point.
"No matter what terminology is used to describe the diagnosis, eventually, people will get offended. That, to me, suggests there is a systematic issue that needs to be resolved in our society."
I could not agree more. The language we use is important but it is not the root of the issue. No matter what we call people who need support there is still deeper issues in our society.
Yesterday at work I had the opportunity to talk with a few co-workers about one of the great problems that I know about in support work.
"Why do organizations not work together? Why are they consistently competing and sheltering themselves against each other?"
I am reminded of a quote from David Suzuki "We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone's arguing over where they're going to sit."
Mr Suzuki was referring to climate change and environmental issues but I believe it is a great quote that sums up one of the great dilemmas in support work.
There are many organizations, ideas, ideals, thoughts, perspectives, research, word of mouth, concepts, terms and philosophies in how to support people.
Who are we to decide if one is greater then the other?
What does that solve?
How does arguing support the people who need the support?
Essentially I ask, how can we bring all these ideas together and learn to work together?
How can one organization see other as a network or friend and not a competitor?
How can we build a community of togetherness and inclusiveness in the structures that support people who need support?
I have personally witnessed one organization trying to "beat" the other and believe that what they offer is "better" and needs all the money or attention there is.
"We have the solution" is what I have heard before.
Don't you think that if anyone had "the" solution (as if there was one solution) then wouldn't they want to share it for the benefit of everyone?
I personally think that one of the great systemic issues in support work is the ego of the individuals involved in the organizations that dictate the work being done.
Hierarchy, bosses and top down practices has no place in support work. We can choose to work as a circle, everyone being equal, everyone having a voice.
If we segregate the workers and organizations then how are we supposed to help people who need support to be integrated? We can not even integrate within our own organizations and communities.
What do you think? How can we work together? What are you doing to bridge the gaps in the care of the people we support?
In my last post Down but not Disabled (click to read), I talked about the titles of people who need support. How to refer to them.
Gary V had a great response, you can read on the comments section, that brings up a great point.
"No matter what terminology is used to describe the diagnosis, eventually, people will get offended. That, to me, suggests there is a systematic issue that needs to be resolved in our society."
I could not agree more. The language we use is important but it is not the root of the issue. No matter what we call people who need support there is still deeper issues in our society.
Yesterday at work I had the opportunity to talk with a few co-workers about one of the great problems that I know about in support work.
"Why do organizations not work together? Why are they consistently competing and sheltering themselves against each other?"
I am reminded of a quote from David Suzuki "We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone's arguing over where they're going to sit."
Mr Suzuki was referring to climate change and environmental issues but I believe it is a great quote that sums up one of the great dilemmas in support work.
There are many organizations, ideas, ideals, thoughts, perspectives, research, word of mouth, concepts, terms and philosophies in how to support people.
Who are we to decide if one is greater then the other?
What does that solve?
How does arguing support the people who need the support?
Essentially I ask, how can we bring all these ideas together and learn to work together?
How can one organization see other as a network or friend and not a competitor?
How can we build a community of togetherness and inclusiveness in the structures that support people who need support?
I have personally witnessed one organization trying to "beat" the other and believe that what they offer is "better" and needs all the money or attention there is.
"We have the solution" is what I have heard before.
Don't you think that if anyone had "the" solution (as if there was one solution) then wouldn't they want to share it for the benefit of everyone?
I personally think that one of the great systemic issues in support work is the ego of the individuals involved in the organizations that dictate the work being done.
Hierarchy, bosses and top down practices has no place in support work. We can choose to work as a circle, everyone being equal, everyone having a voice.
If we segregate the workers and organizations then how are we supposed to help people who need support to be integrated? We can not even integrate within our own organizations and communities.
What do you think? How can we work together? What are you doing to bridge the gaps in the care of the people we support?