Nurturing Others’ Capacities

When we think of professionals who serve the interests of their students, clients, patients, we often do not stop to think what this service entails. Chapter 3 looked at self-interested practices on the part of some lawyers, doctors, and financial advisers, who put their interest in profits before the interests of those they ostensibly serve. There is also a more subtle form of professional self-interest, rarely acknowledged, that prolongs the dependence of those “served.” It occurs when little professional attention or thought is given to helping those served to develop their capacity for self-reliance. “Capacity” refers to the potential of what someone can offer or the potential of what collaboration with others may lead to—a “we” capacity, not just a “me” capacity—which credentialed specialists often fail to acknowledge and develop. Almost twenty years ago, John McKnight took aim at professional services: “The social policy mapmakers … build a world based upon the emptiness of each of us—a model based upon deficiency and need. Communities depend upon capacities. Systems commodify deficiencies.”1 More recently, McKnight with Peter Block went on to say: “Professionalization is the market replacement for a community that has lost or outsourced its capacity to care. The loss of community competence is the price we pay for the growth of the service economy.”2 They argue: “There is a colonizing dimension of professionalizing a capacity. It leaves us believing that only the certified professional has the capacity to help us with our troubles.” 3 McKnight and Block would summon the unused capacities of laypersons. But if developing capacities was also the work of more professionals, they might find that they too have unused personal talents beyond their credentialed expertise. It is not an either/or proposition.