Face values

Quote

“For news of the heart, ask the face.”  Cambodian proverb.

News

Last week the most extensive face transplant ever undertaken is transforming the life of American Richard Lee Norris, who was disfigured in a horrific shooting accident in 1997, when he was 22.  Even though he now has the appearance of another man, he can, literally, face the world again.

Considered to be the ‘organ of emotion’, the human face is capable of 5000 different expressions.  They provide information about moods and emotions, cognitive activity, temperament and personality, truthfulness and psychopathology (aiding in mental health diagnosis).

Remarkably, people of every culture use the same mannerisms to show their emotions.  Our facial expressions are universal and innate to us as human beings, leading to their central role in interpersonal relationships. 

Being ‘face-to-face’ with another person provides the most comprehensive environment for communication and understanding – to build and cherish relationships on one hand, or to repair them on the other.  Eye contact reveals the inner person with their thoughts and feelings; opening a window into the soul. 

Our face encapsulates our identity and our relationality.  Hence injury or disfigurement to the face – through accidents, operations, resulting from a stroke or other illness – is potentially more disabling than injury to other parts of the body, because it affects one’s ability to relate.

Western culture makes an idol out of photogenic beauty; we have a billion dollar beauty industry, but how much do we spend on the development of character, valuing each and every human face and the unique person behind it?

Read on...

Dr Paul Brand was someone who understood more than most the link between disfigurement 

and social rejection, after a lifetime of working to restore the hands of leprosy sufferers in India.   Read a short article he wrote on “The Wisdom of the Body” here.

Walk the talk

To what extent do you subconsciously adopt the prevailing value system by esteeming the handsome over the plain, the slim over the overweight, the young over the old?   Is there any relationship where you need to pay more attention to the person’s underlying character?

The last word

From the Bible, 1 Samuel 16, verse 7: “People look at the outward appearances but the Lord looks at the heart.”

Pray for Muamba

Quote
“When you pray, rather let your heart be without words than your words without heart.”  John Bunyan

News

The tragic collapse of 23 year old footballer Fabrice Muamba during Saturday’s FA Cup match sent a shock wave through the world of football.  After the paramedics failed to resuscitate the player on the pitch, he was rushed to the London Chest Hospital.  The game was cancelled and the shocked spectators were left bewildered that this young man could be playing world class football one minute and be fighting for his life the next. 

As the news spread, so did a rallying cry, ‘Pray for Muamba’, led by his fiancée Shauna.  Over the weekend, 685,000 tweets contained the hashtag #PrayForMuamba, and thousands of get well messages were sent via Facebook and other social media. 
 

The response to this very public tragedy brings the relational nature of life sharply into focus.  Perfect strangers were touched by the plight of Muamba, the courage of his fiancée, the dedication of the NHS staff (including the cardiologist-cum-Spurs fan, who ran on to the pitch to help) and the compassion of his Bolton colleagues.  These show the true value of ‘horizontal’ relationships such as a loving family, committed friendships and a caring society. 
 

But the rallying cry points to a ‘vertical’ relational dimension too.  ‘Pray for Muamba’ was relayed by believers and non-religious people alike; the latter invoked an unknown God, because they sensed, perhaps, that such a spectacular demise can only be reversed by a supernatural intervention.  Indeed, the cardiologist admitted that the player’s recovery over the weekend was nothing short of miraculous.
 

And all this takes place in a country which only a few weeks ago sought to ban prayers from local council meetings.  Perhaps the lesson from this is that we would do well to ensure that public policy and the decisions of judges support, protect and encourage the quality of relationships which make life worth living for all of us.
 

Read on
Friendship is within the grasp of everyone; cultivating and keeping friendships is one of the most relationally fulfilling things we can do.  A chapter in the R Option by Michael Schluter and David Lee offers guidance in making friendships work; read it here.
 

Walk the talk
Is there someone you know who is sick, and who would be encouraged by a phone call, a card or even better a visit from you?  If yes, then don’t let the opportunity pass by – act on it!
 

Verse
Matthew 25, 35-36 “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

The dilemmas of adoption

Quote

“Children need two things. One is roots and the other is wings.”  Anon

News

The Prime Minister announced his intention last week to speed up the process of adoption in England, since it takes on average two and a half years for a child to be adopted after being taken into care.

It’s clear that the adoption system is slow and bureaucratic, and a glimpse at the complex web of relational dilemmas surrounding children in care helps explain why. Social services have to consider the relational risks and benefits of the four options: returning the child to a parent or relative; placing the child with a foster family; permanent adoption into another family or keeping the child in a care home.

The culture in social services often views adoption as very much second best; biological relationships come first so the priority is to restore children to their (extended) family – even if that takes months or years to achieve. However, while social workers are keen not to separate a child in the long run from their biological family, every month that goes by leaves the child’s security and attachment issues unresolved.

Our capricious media has encouraged an excessively cautious approach to adoption, as professionals want to avoid the risk of a bad placement; society rarely praises them for successfully getting children out of the care system, instead they are vilified whenever there is a failure.

Speeding up the adoption process will help the relatively small proportion of children who are adoptable; as for the remainder of the 65,520 children in state care in England, their relational needs must be the first goal in any further shake up of the care system.

Read on…

Developmental psychologist Sharon Willmer has collaborated with the Relationships Foundation on a research project looking at five foundations for maturation; the first one if these is attachment.  Read this chapter in the forthcoming report here.

Walk the talk

A child’s development is most often assessed in terms of health indicators or academic progress; harder to measure are the emotional and relational factors.  If you have any children in your care, why not take a few minutes to brush up on ways to get them talking with you about their friendships and feelings?  (Check out some ideas here.)

The last word

From the Bible, Matthew 19 verses 13-14: “Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.  Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’ ”

Meryl Streep’s greatest success?

Quote

“In Hollywood a girl's virtue is much less important than her hairdo. You're judged by how you look, not by what you are. Hollywood's a place where they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss, and fifty cents for your soul." Marilyn Monroe

News

Meryl Streep is a major success by anyone’s standards. The versatile and gifted character actor has been nominated for a record number of Golden Globes and Academy Awards; she won her third Oscar on Sunday for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady.

Success is defined in different ways in different cultures and professions; in the world of entertainment, talent, professionalism, luck, determination and teamwork are all contributing factors. In Meryl Streep’s acceptance speech, it was clear she valued one thing above all others in her success both on and off the stage.

Unlike many speeches at the Oscars, it was not a diplomatic list of credits and tributes; she only thanked two people by name.  Firstly Don Gummer, her husband of 33 years, to whom she said, “I want [you] to know that everything I value most in our lives you’ve given me.”  Then she credited her professional colleague, hair stylist and makeup artist Roy Helland, for working with her for 37 years, including every single film from Sophie’s Choice in 1982 (for which she won her second Oscar) to the Iron Lady (for which Helland won his first).

Amid the rivalry, glitz and superficiality of Hollywood, Meryl Streep is an example of someone who is committed to continuity in relationships over the long haul. The fruit of this in professional accomplishment and in a deeply fulfilled family life were eloquently demonstrated in her acceptance speech. That’s not something one expects to see on Oscar night.

Read on

What does it take to build and maintain personal or professional relationships over the long haul?  One essential ingredient is friendship.  Read the chapter entitled “Friends” in the R Option by Michael Schluter and David Lee here.

Walk the talk
Is there someone who has worked for you over a long period, but who gets less credit than you do for what you accomplish together?   Why not find a way of honouring them publicly for their unique contribution to the success of the venture?

Last word

From the Bible: Proverbs 18 verse 24, “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”

Public services and private companies ~ two worlds or one?

Quote
“It is easy to get a thousand prescriptions but hard to get one single remedy.”  Chinese Proverb

News
Government reforms in health and education are provoking a sharp debate in Britain when private sector companies start running public services.  Although this has been going on for some time (e.g. most GP practices are independent partnerships), the NHS hospital at Hinchingbrook and several new state-funded Free Schools are now being run by private companies.

The classic arguments are that businesses are out to make profits while public sector organisations provide services to everyone, irrespective of users’ ability to pay; these are two different worlds and no one should profit from running public services.  Proponents of reform argue that private companies are more efficient, and that savings to the taxpayer more than outweigh any profit made by shareholders. 

The assumptions that private companies are only out to make a profit, and public sector organisations are always inefficient, both need challenging.  Being profitable and providing good services to customers are not mutually exclusive goals; indeed, to earn a profit year after year requires meeting customers’ needs and delivering value for money; this is not to deny the risk that private enterprise can err on the side of greed.

In contrast, public services are less responsive to the needs of their end users precisely because those users are not paying customers.  Although many working for public sector organisations have a strong social ethos, it’s easy for the interests of staff and the demands of governments to come first.  A target culture and mountains of customer complaints seem to be the inevitable result. 

It is in everyone’s interest that public sector reforms reduce inefficiency without compromising on access for the most vulnerable, the range of services available and fair pay and conditions for staff.  Crucial to the outcomes of the whole system are the relationships between the people who commission public services, those who provide them and people who use them.  Reforms need to reduce the relational distance between these three groups, and the long term success of using private companies may hinge on whether they maintain a collaborative commitment to the health or education system as a whole. 

If that is so, perhaps we can have the best of both worlds after all.

Read on:
Another approach to bridging the gap between profit and public service is social enterprise.  Charles Leadbeater is a leading writer and communicator who understands the importance of relationships to public services.  Read his paper on social enterprise and its role in public service innovation here.

Walk the talk:
Are any government reforms affecting public services in your community?  Look carefully at the changes being proposed and consider how they might affect the three key relationships involved in public service provision.  On this basis, how effective might the reforms be?

Verse:
From the Bible, Mark chapter 10 verse 45:  “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Redefining marriage: what is at stake?

Quote

“Marriage is an alliance entered into by a man who can't sleep with the window shut, and a woman who can't sleep with the window open.” George Bernard Shaw 

News

While national Marriage Week was celebrated in 18 countries last week, the governor of Washington state signed a bill legalising same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, the British government is preparing to launch a consultation next month on redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Those supporting the change in legal definition argue that it’s an equality issue. Any society committed to ending discrimination must not only allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (which already exist in civil partnerships legislation), but should do away with religious restrictions on gay marriage too.

On the other hand, those opposing the redefinition of marriage agree that politicians should ensure minorities are not discriminated against, but it is not their job to redefine a centuries old institution that has its roots in the church, nor to pass laws forcing faith groups to act against their beliefs.

Moral, religious and cultural arguments are being made to support the traditional view of marriage, but in public debate, the benefit of heterosexual marriage to society in the long term must be demonstrated.

Two arguments stand out. A sustainable society requires each generation to ensure the best possible outcomes for their children. Research studies overwhelmingly conclude that a stable domestic relationship between the biological parents of a child outperforms every other family structure in terms of health, emotional and financial outcomes for their children. Any change in law that further weakens this gold standard of heterosexual marriage for family formation and child development will lead to poorer prospects for children and the next generation.

 
Secondly, the way that men and women relate to each other is crucial to personal, family and society’s wellbeing. Competitive or coercive gender relationships have led to incalculable suffering over the years; but this problem is not solved by promoting gender uniformity (which is behind the campaign for same-sex marriages). Instead, the structure which best encourages interdependent relations between the genders needs strengthening; society calls this marriage. Redefining it for the sake of the few could bring relational suffering to the many; is it worth the risk?

Read on...

“Gender cooperation: some implications of God’s design for society” is a Cambridge Paper by Michael and Auriel Schluter, which explores some of the challenges of influencing gender relationships. Read this insightful paper here.

Walk the talk

Gender roles and relationships are stereotyped to the n-th degree, but each one of us can still choose how to relate to the opposite sex; do you have any relationships that need to be shifted from a competitive towards a more complementary basis?

The last word

From the Bible, Genesis chapter 2 verse 24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Queen and Country

Quote

“The monarchy is so extraordinarily useful. When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister.”  Sir Winston Churchill

News

Sixty years ago on Monday, Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne, aged just 25.  She had learned the values of “diligence, duty, dignity, and compassion” from her father’s wartime leadership, and from her own vibrant Christian faith.  In the intervening years, the 40th monarch since William the Conqueror has served her country and the Commonwealth tirelessly, not least by opening parliament 58 times, making 261 overseas visits, holding weekly audiences with her prime ministers (from Churchill to Cameron), signing 3,500 acts of parliament and answering 3.5 million letters.

The future of the monarchy is a topic of lively debate, with political, financial and ethical arguments being made both for and against.  But what about the relational impact of Queen Elizabeth’s reign?  One reason for her popularity with the public are her “walkabouts”, which she first began during a visit to New Zealand in 1970.  She habitually takes time to converse with ordinary well-wishers, not just the elites and dignitaries lined up to meet her.  However, she has never given an interview to a journalist, suggesting that she wants to relate to her subjects directly and personally, rather than risking the more unpredictable, indirect route offered by the media.

A significant role played by the Queen is to provide support to political leaders.  She has been a confidant to numerous Commonwealth leaders over the years, and particularly to the incumbent British prime minister, who has an audience with her on Tuesday evenings.  The Queen’s position as unelected head of state for life frees her from the pressures of having to defend her role.  But neither does she yield to complacency; her extensive knowledge of government affairs is gained by her meticulous reading of state papers (in Downing street she is known as “Reader Number One”).

In his new biography on the Queen, political journalist Andrew Marr talks about the “humility of the hereditary”: precisely because the Queen cannot claim to hold her position through some meritocratic scramble, she is humble.  However, others who are blessed by similar advantages of birth can end up arrogant, remote and dictatorial.  It is to the Queen’s credit that she has chosen to put service of others and of her country ahead of personal aggrandisement and reward.  Britain would be a lot better off if leaders in industry and politics were more consistent in doing likewise.

Read on…

John Milton published a tract in 1660, warning of the dangers of re-establishing the monarchy in Britain following the Commonwealth period; he argued that a profligate king would be an economic burden, and restrict both freedom and virtue in the land.  The constitutional monarchy we have ended up with in Britain has largely avoided these dangers due, in part, to the warnings of Milton and others.  Read his “Free Commonwealth” pamphlet here.

Walk the talk

Organisational leadership comes by merit and is exercised through the structures of the organisation; relational leadership is ascribed to us by others, based on our character and patterns of behaviour.  What one lesson might you draw from the Queen’s example?

The last word

From the Bible, Mark 10, verse 42-45: “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ ”