Published in Inroads, the newsletter of Citizen Advocacy Eastern Suburbs, Issue 2 (January - March, 1996)
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
Advocacy is essentially the very ordinary process of standing up for the rights of people who are being treated unfairly. Ordinary people do it in all walks of life, quite often without giving the matter a second thought. -- Ian Parsons, Oliver Twist Has Asked for More
Have you ever experienced one of those nightmares of every motorist: namely, a mechanical breakdown of your car whilst driving in heavy traffic? I certainly have. As a former owner of a temperamental car, I am all too familiar with that sinking feeling which is induced by the realisation that one’s car has stalled interminably, causing disruption to the flow of traffic, to the manifest annoyance of other motorists.
However, in my experience, the stress of being the target of disgruntled expressions, as the driver of an obstinately stationary car, is invariably tempered with the encouraging response of some fellow travellers who reliably come to the rescue -- either to attend to the mechanical defect which has caused the breakdown, or to help push the vehicle to the safety of the roadside.
As a person who has been the recipient of such help, as well as one who has witnessed similar responses to other hapless motorists, I have often reflected on the readiness of some people in rendering assistance in certain circumstances. Perhaps people are unhesitatingly willing to help in situations such as the above-mentioned scenario because the nature of the person’s plight -- stranded in heavy traffic -- is dramatically transparent. Or, perhaps assistance is readily offered because the helpers realise that there is something they can do in response, even if it is only to push the offending car off the congested road.
At any rate, regardless of the reasons, if we saw a motorist stopping to assist another whose car has become immobile, we are unlikely to view such a response as odd or unusual -- even these days, when people are less disposed to help each other. Indeed, in our society, such help would not only be regarded as nothing out of the ordinary -- something which is familiar and accepted -- but that which is expected to occur. There is an acceptance and expectation that there will be at least some people who will respond naturally to those who need help: the sort of response to which we are accustomed, and which could therefore be thought of as one that is culturally typical.
If we thought about it, there would be acknowledgment of the timeless reality that people have always supported, or stood by, others (particularly for whom they care) in all sorts of ways which are natural and typical, with little contrivance or formality.
Citizen Advocacy represents one such helping form which is consistent with cultural expectations and norms. Simply put, Citizen Advocacy happens when an ordinary citizen, whose attention has been drawn to the needs of a fellow citizen with a disability, responds in a manner which is familiar and typical. Logically and appropriately, the advocate’s motivation to respond, and the kind of support he/she provides, is activated by the need(s) of the protege.
Yet, despite the reality that the citizen advocacy philosophy and practice exemplifies that which is ordinary and identifiable in our culture, Citizen Advocacy itself may be seen as a formal "service for people with disabilities," rather than a community-based programme for citizen activism. There are at least two reasons why Citizen Advocacy may be viewed by the larger community as yet another "service" on the human service landscape.
(a) A fear of the unknown or of differentness -- in this case, personified by people with disabilities -- lends an aura of mystique to any "service" which is associated with people who are perceived in that light. Consequently, the public is apt to conclude that all organisations which purport to advance the welfare of people with disabilities must necessarily be formal and clinical in nature, often engaging the exclusive services of specialists whose knowledge and skills are inaccessible to ordinary citizens.
(b) Lamentably, the conduct of some citizen advocacy offices -- with a strong (formal) "service" resonance in their modus operandi -- can also reinforce the misconception that Citizen Advocacy is indistinguishably associated with, and part of, the specialist service system.
Nonetheless, that the concept of Citizen Advocacy is anchored in practices which are typical and recognisable in our society, can be confidently demonstrated by reviewing some of its inherent features, including those to which reference has already been made above.
1. Citizen Advocacy has its foundation in the community, not the formal service sector.
Citizen Advocacy invites the involvement of ordinary members of the community into the lives of people with disabilities. It consciously avoids recruiting as citizen advocates people who have significant ties to agencies which provide direct services to people with disabilities. Citizen Advocacy thus springs from, and belongs to, the community -- not the formal service system.
2. Citizen Advocacy as a personal response is analogous to the everyday actions of ordinary citizens in the larger society.
At the heart of Citizen Advocacy is people freely responding to the needs of other people for important reasons. As mentioned previously, standing up for or otherwise supporting a person for whom one cares or is concerned, when the need arises, is consistent with our cultural values of what ought to happen as a customary matter of course.
3. Citizen advocates respond to the needs of their proteges in ways which are familiar, within the capacity of ordinary citizens, and are therefore commonly practised.
Citizen advocates are recruited, oriented, and supported to address the unmet fundamental needs of their proteges in ways which do not differ greatly from responses that are made to other citizens in similar situations of need. If a person has been rejected and is friendless, it is hoped that the advocate would provide acceptance and friendship -- not some esoteric form of therapy. And if a person is being subjected to abuse and exploitation, it is hoped that the advocate would provide protection and representation -- not psychological counselling. Instinctively, the protege’s situation provides the rationale for the advocate’s involvement, and the basis for framing the appropriate response.
An important assumption, therefore, is that ordinary citizens have pre-existing abilities to meet the basic human needs of people with disabilities, and that by drawing on their personal resources, will respond in a natural way. On the other hand, the provision of mandatory clinical training to advocates as a precursor to their involvement will only mystify their role, and serve to confirm the erroneous perception that people with disabilities are so unlike other citizens that all of their needs must invariably be addressed in the context of "specialist care."
By acting and reacting intuitively and informally to their proteges’ circumstances, citizen advocates can explode the myth that contrived, non-normalising measures must be employed in meeting all of the needs of people with disabilities.
4. Citizen advocacy relationships are independent of, and not controlled by, others.
Our society exalts such values as individuality, autonomy, and freedom. These qualities are usually found in the sorts of relationships we all enjoy and take for granted. In other words, in our society, it would be unacceptable -- and it would clash with our cultural expectations -- if a third party (or a number of parties) exerted considerable social control over our personal relationships, at least those consensual relationships between adults.
Citizen advocacy "matches" are facilitated to be substantively the same as other culturally typical relationships. The citizen advocacy office supports, but does not direct, the individual advocacy relationships. Whilst the protege and the citizen advocate own their relationship, by the very nature of the advocate’s role, he/she is expected to speak/act with and for the protege. Indeed, the citizen advocate is recruited to represent the interests of the protege, as if those interests were the advocate’s own.
This characteristic of independent representation intrinsic to citizen advocacy relationships, based on close identification with the protege, can be contrasted with "advocacy" efforts in formal human services, in which the decision about what is in a person’s best interests may, for example, be circumscribed by such problematic factors as the ethics of social work practice, the outcomes reached at a multidisciplinary individual programme plan meeting, or the (declared or unstated) philosophy of the service.
The independence of citizen advocacy relationships, and the primary loyalty of the advocate to his/her protege, thus parallels the unconditional, genuine commitments that people make to each other in the wider community.
5. Citizen Advocacy takes place in a variety of contexts.
Citizen advocates are not contracted to provide a prescribed "service" to people with disabilities. Rather, advocates willingly choose to personally act in the interests of their proteges. Because the advocate’s actions are guided by the specific needs of his/her protege, the advocacy or support provided may take place, naturally, in a variety of environments and contexts. For example, in the course of an advocacy relationship, an advocate may act on or respond to a number of situations affecting his/her protege, which can occur within, or arise out of, different contexts and/or places, including those which involve the protege’s other relationships, residence, work, and so on.
In that sense, the person-centred, "adaptable" support provided in citizen advocacy relationships mirrors that which occurs spontaneously in other ordinary relationships.
6. Citizen advocacy relationships are flexible and can evolve over time.
Just as other relationships which endure over time can change, the nature of citizen advocacy relationships may evolve in response to the protege’s and/or the advocate’s situation. Whilst in the matching process, it is the role of the citizen advocacy office to interpret to the advocate the needs of the protege and the initial advocacy role, the office does not seek to entrench the relationship in a particular mode indefinitely. Instead, as the relationship develops and evolves over time with the support of the citizen advocacy office, its endurance and flexibility -- like other important relationships which happen outside the context of Citizen Advocacy -- is recognised and celebrated by the programme.
Clearly, the central elements of citizen advocacy relationships are those with which most people can identify, and which are to be found in other culturally familiar relationships. The onus of the citizen advocacy programme is to consciously promote those qualities in the relationships it arranges and supports.