Listen to thisAs an outsider who has been closely linked with Camphill communities for over ten years, I have oftenbeen asked what I think make Camphill communities so different from other forms of residential care provision for people with intellectual disabilities. Today there are over 100 Camphill communities in countries throughout the world. The first community was co-founded in Scotland in 1940 by Dr Karl Koenig, an inspirational Austrian physician, who had been forced to flee his native land which had been annexed by the Nazis. http://www.camphillscotland.org.uk/
If I were to be asked to distil the essence of Camphillness, I would highlight four key constituents: mutuality, rhythmicity, spirituality and tranquillity: each one inextricably bonded to the others, remove one and the overall potency and effect would be lost.
Mutuality
The relationship between carer and child is characterised by mutuality, defined here as the respectful give-and-take between and among persons. Mutuality is not merely a technique or attitude; it is a practice that embodies the value of interaction and understanding not isolation and alienation. The life sharing aspect of living in a Camphill community is one of its defining features as this ensures that the principles of dignity, value and mutual respect can be meaningfully translated into practice. There has to be recognition and acceptance of the mutual character of the relationship between the person giving and the person receiving care: mutuality does not mean that what is given by each person is equal but means that it is of an incomparable quality. The daily process of learning across difference and inequality is vital, for it transforms the basic attitudes of caregivers towards difference. Also the negotiation of power sharing across inequality makes a reality of the rhetoric of empowerment, as such an approach requires the power to come from, and be given up by, someone else, namely the caregiver (Cushing, 2003).
John Macmurray, who was greatly influenced by the writings of Rudolf Steiner, was convinced that community meant nothing unless there was an opportunity for communion or a coming together in friendship (Costello, 2002). Friendship, he argued, should not be confused with friendliness. While friendliness is not to be despised, it is only the imitation of friendship and a poor substitute for the real thing. Macmurray pointed out that we only come to be who we are as personal individuals through personal relationships. The positive form of that relationship goes by many names: love, friendship, fellowship, communion and community. In talking about seeking to create a loving relationship in acare setting, one’s motives can all too easily be misconstrued.
What we are talking about here is the establishment of an affective relationship which is unconditional. It is mutual friendship that provides the cohesive force that binds together the different elements of a community; it is the mortar without which any communal edifice would collapse. Macmurray makes his position clear: ‘create communion and community: the reality of it, not the form or appearance of it: discard the pretence. In the attempt, we shall discover the condition of a new life’.
Rhythmicity
Maier (1992) has indicated that rhythmicity is a potent force not only for linking people together but also in creating a sense of internal togetherness. Life comprises a wide range of natural rhythms from the regularity of the heartbeat to the change from day to night. Maier argued that rhythmicity is an essential ingredient in human communication and development. In attempting to communicate effectively with a child the carer has to fall into step with the child so that they dance to the same tune.
The child and the caregiver then search for ways to establish and maintain that joint rhythm in amutually inclusive way. An awareness of this engagement can help carers pace their interactions and further their capacity to interact and to speak with, rather than to, the child. It is important for us to learn to listen, to look and explore in a new way the pulse of groups with which we are working. It is argued that only by living one’s work in a community can one become sensitised and respond appropriately to these rhythms.
Spirituality
Attention to the spiritual wellbeing of all is an integral facet of life in a Camphill community. Spiritual wellbeing, which may have everything or nothing to do with religious belief and observance, is an integral and essential aspect of everyday life.
It can be defined as a sense of good health about one self as a human being and as a unique individual. It occurs when people are fulfilling their potential as individuals and as human beings; are aware of their own dignity and value; enjoy themselves and have a sense of direction; can sense this quality in others and consequently respect and relate positively to them; and are at ease with the world around them (Crompton & Jackson, 2004). Spiritual care and support do not result from the acquisition and application of a series of techniques and skills; they result from sharing together and learning together.They come by addressing questions which relate to the value and meaning of life (Swinton, 2001).
Tranquillity
A further characteristic feature of Camphill settings is their tranquillity. There are few visitors who do not quickly become aware of this distinct and rare quality and comment favourably upon it (Brennan-Krohn, 2011). It is a quality which immediately communicates itself to the individual. But what do we mean by tranquillity? Too often tranquillity is simply equated with silence or an absence of noise but tranquillity is a quality that has to be created. It can be defined as a state of inner emotional and intellectual peace.
While many people may recognise its importance, few understand its benefits. Tranquillity can help individuals overcome feelings of anger, nervousness and fear that often form part of their daily life. It brings enhanced levels of emotional and mental calm that enable the individual to feel mentally stable and grounded. By keeping the mind clear and stable, it is argued that tranquillity can help improve judgment and by so doing make the future appear bright and positive. This in turn helps to maintain a person’s good physical health through keeping the body strong and resistant to illness. Thus there is a sense in which tranquillity has a healing or curative quality. The creation of a tranquil environment is essential for therapeutic reasons as a significant number of children who attend Camphill schools react adversely to noise or disturbance. Research has clearly demonstrated the negative impact of noise on children who are autistic (Attwood, 2006; Menzinger & Jackson, 2009).
Conclusion
What is indisputable is that Camphill communities constitute a challenge to contemporary care philosophy, provision and practice. The notion of mutuality runs counter to the belief that one should maintain distance in all professional relationships and questions the meaning, purpose and value of that kind of professional relationship. There is an urgent need to reshape professional practice in such a way that the primacy of relationships is re-established, for human services will only flourish where they are imbued with humanity (Jackson & Monteux, 2003).
The idea of the professional ‘dancing’ in step with the client where the client takes the lead is difficult to envisage. Yet presumably that is what the personalisation agenda is all about! The proposal that professional carers should concern themselves with the spiritual wellbeing of clients is usually dismissed as being ‘off limits’. This sensitivity results in large part from a misunderstanding of the meaning of spirituality. There is a certain irony here given the current popularity of wellbeing as a topic for discussion in conferences and courses for members of the care profession. It is difficult to see how one can discuss wellbeing without some reference to the spiritual dimension. The importance of tranquillity rarely registers with those responsible for the placement of children and young people. Indeed tranquillity is assumed to be a direct and negative consequence of physical isolation and for those committed to the policy of inclusion it signifies something undesirable.
There is then a sense in which Camphill communities present an ongoing challenge to professional orthodoxy; something they have consistently done over the past seven decades. Karl Koenig, co-founder of the Camphill Movement, made clear in The Scotsman newspaper in 1944 that it was wrong to speak about any child as being ‘ineducable’. He rejected the medical model of disability and was opposed to the categorisation of children according to measured intelligence. In looking at the child, Koenig focused on what the child could do not on what he could not do: it was a vision that filtered out the negative and concentrated on the positive.
In writing this article I am not wishing to suggest that Camphill communities have successfully evolved an ideal model of residential child care. What I hope readers who work in the care sector will ask themselves as a result of reading this article is the extent to which one or more of the four features identified is present in their place of work. To those readers who have a designated responsibility for planning innovative residential care services for children and young people, I hope something in this description of Camphillness will resonate and possibly help shape their deliberations.
References
Attwood, T. (2006) The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Brennan-Krohn, Z. (2011) Negotiating the Twentieth Century: A historical analysis of Camphill communities. In R. Jackson (ed) Discovering Camphill: New Perspectives, Research and Developments. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Costello, J. (2002) John Macmurray: A biography. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
Crompton, M. & Jackson, R. (2004) Spiritual Wellbeing of Adults with Down Syndrome. Southsea: Down Syndrome Educational Trust.
Cushing, P. (2003) Shaping the Moral Imagination of Caregivers: Disability, difference and inequality in L’Arche. Unpublished PhD thesis, McMaster University.
Jackson, R. & Monteux, A. (2003) Promoting the spiritual well-being of children and young people with special needs. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 2(1): 52-54.
Maier, H. (1992) Rhythmicity: A powerful force for experiencing unity and personal connections. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 8: 7-13.
Menzinger, B. & Jackson, R. (2009) The effect of light intensity and noise on the classroom behaviour of pupils with Asperger syndrome. British Journal of Learning Support, 24(4): 170-175.
Swinton, J. (2001) A Space to Listen: Meeting the Spiritual Needs of People with Learning Difficulties. London: The Foundation for People with Learning Difficulties.
