Agreed understandings

Belonging to one’s community has to be a right to which we are all entitled irrespective of difference. Yet rights are often seen as a reward for some kind of responsibility², this can make people feel worthless or alienated. People’s sense of belonging may be threatened when rights are bestowed in exchange for tangible outcomes, and when what matters to us most is undervalued. The reality is that contribution takes many forms and this diversity adds much to shared experience. Trying to quantify what people give is often futile: how can the quality of relationships or depth of understanding be measured? In a hierarchical society ranking is often equated to quantifiable outcomes and merit is attached to the measurable, irrespective of who makes the most significant contribution. While harmless in itself, classification can lead to the ranking of people according to the wrong measures. From birth onwards, people are frequently marginalised on grounds of perceived or anticipated production value. Merit thus afforded by ‘accident of birth’ can determine both a person’s opportunity to contribute and their share in community prosperity⁴. Maybe it is time to identify new indicators and to find new ways of measuring what really counts. Within institutions, job role can also lead to unfairness. Some people are treated more favourably because their rank influences access to opportunities. This form of systematic discrimination leads to deep and rarely acknowledged prejudice¹⁴. In contrast, people offer much where they feel able to enjoy a shared activity. Beyond institutions (for example in community associations) people are drawn together by mutual interest. Within freely chosen activities, more equal relationships develop because contributing to the shared activity is enough to enable a sense of belonging. Where people join in shared interests and money is less important, ranking is less likely to occur. However, even in more institutionalised associations, where producing goods or services has evolved into a marketable opportunity, profit is often seen as king and deficit is therefore a gap to be filled³. Unfortunately, where hard cash is of crucial importance people’s right to give will be sidelined, and their contribution to the whole is jeopardised⁵. In terms of beginnings, it is the ‘shared and common agreement’ – the essential ground rules of shared activity – that are rarely negotiated before daily tasks begin⁶. To cater for people’s difference and organise shared activity fairly, it is important to agree on how to work together. All too often, decisions are made without sufficient thought about who holds the decision-making power. This is not a simple task and may need to be approached on several levels at once. For example, to ensure people can participate more fairly the following questions need to be asked:

(i) Is the environment accessible for all?

(ii) Have people had a say in the purpose of the shared activity before it takes place?

(iii) How can we best find out from people what they need to participate more fully?

(iv) Are people able to talk about how they want to work together? While context and culture will determine what is acceptable, the individual’s power to contribute from the start needs to underpin all joint activity.