Your second point about unhealthy expectations in helping professions is so important! I taught high school for 4 years before becoming disabled and having to leave the profession, and now that I’m working in a different field, it’s wild to me what’s normalized in teaching (which I’m sure is similar to other helping professions). I think a lot too about how when individuals in the helping professions show up and continue to push themselves to meet these unhealthy expectations, it actually perpetuates the systems that they are most desperate to change because it keeps those systems functioning (but at their expense). The part I wrestle with is that there is a human cost to pushing back on the unhealthy expectations - in the case of teaching, it’s the students who often pay the price. But it’s so necessary to set those healthy boundaries to be able to continue for the long term in a helping profession.
I agree, it can feel incredibly unfair to the people being served when you have to fight for better conditions. It's helpful for me to be reminded that *I'm* not the one putting them in that position though. It reminds me of when teachers strike, everyone shouts "what about the children???" when the teachers are the ones advocating for thee children every day. It's a nasty tactic used to prevent change and make the advocates seem like the villains, and of course we can't help ourselves but feel guilty. (Because we're the ones who actually care.)
Great review. I was stoked for this book when I first saw it coming out -- for the broad attention for the issue(s), and personally now that I live in Boston and continue to serve the unhoused community. But I pretty quickly grew concerned about the narrative and framings it seemed like Kidder selected. You confirmed that to be the case.
There’s this way of relating to society, which your description of the world Kidder paints made me think of, as everything just being that way, just “how it is,” as though history and power and choice aren’t things and everything is settled into its natural permanent immutable state. And within that world as it is we have dragons and heroes, and we all say, wow, gosh, isn’t that something! It’s amazing how good of a storyteller or journalist or “liberal” you can be and still function inside of that paradigm...
One more thought, sorry this is so long! Kidder’s Paul Farmer book also made a huge impact on me around 2011. Farmer was one of my many gateway personalities I clung to as I was grasping for something solid while tumbling into the world of the poor without any theoretical framework through which to make sense of it all. Mama Theresa and Shane Claiborne were others. Another at the same time was Greg Mortenson, the Three Cups of Tea guy. I went to an event with him and got a book signed and everything. And just like you said, when he got canceled I was pretty upended by it. Psychologically it does seem like there’s something to individual examples that materializes the theoretical and makes it easier for the uninitiated to approach and possibly even enter into an issue. But as soon as we tell the story of those individuals as Great (White) Man stories who rise above the rest of us, placing them at the center instead of those bearing the violence of an injustice--and exposing the historical-structural forces behind it--we ultimately undermine everything that truly matters.
Thanks Kathryn! And yes, exactly--I'm not really in the habit of reviewing books, but I thought it brought up so many important things that are applicable outside the book. Thanks for reading!
I really appreciated this thoughtful review. In response, I think I first have to own my lack of sophistication in my thinking about this issue as well as an internal resistance to offering people who are homeless as much compassion and empathy as they deserve. In my own writing (about adoption and foster care), I advocate often for people to humanize kids who have been in foster care and consider them with radical empathy. I'm disappointed that I have so often struggled to do that for people who are homeless. In so far as this book helped me challenge those feelings, I found it to be beneficial, a net good, as you said.
That being said, I hadn't really thought deeply about the portrayal of Dr. Jim and I appreciate your critiques of the way he was presented in the book. As a teacher, I'm very familiar with the pressure on people in helping professions to let their (underpaid, undervalued) work take over their whole lives. The school district in our town gives out teaching awards every year; very often the recipients are people whose work occupies almost all of their waking hours. That may be an admirable choice for those for whom it's a true passion to live that way, but I resent the pressure it puts on all teachers to live like that. So, I understand why holding Dr. Jim and his lack of boundaries up as a standard is problematic. One question I had in that regard while reading the book: it seemed like the implication was that Dr. Jim wouldn't have been able to form close relationships and be as effective in his work if he had had better boundaries. Do you think that's accurate or do you think physicians/service providers can be highly effective even while maintaining schedules around boundaries and personal contact?
Last point (in this already very long comment), your point that the voices of people who are homeless were not centered in this book is an important one. I'm not sure to what extent most people experiencing homelessness are also able to take a big picture, high level policy view of the issues contributing to the homelessness crisis but I think including their voices, narratives, and opinions is important regardless. Similarly in the world of adoption and foster care, there isn't always significant overlap between people who have been in care and people who have the skill set and power to effect change in systems but to leave former foster kids out of the conversation (or include only salacious/tragic details about their lives) is objectifying and disrespectful.
Thanks Gretchen. Regarding your question about boundaries and being effective within them, it’s unfortunately a numbers game. If one person is responsible for providing great service to too many people, the choice is to provide worse service or overextend themselves. The solution isn’t to celebrate those who overextend as the example, it’s to get them some help!
And so part of it is how Kidder tells the story, right? It could be, “Wow, Dr Jim really tries so hard but these broken systems are crushing him, what are we going to do about that?” Instead it’s “Wow, Dr Jim is really inspiring for his dedication.”
But where I started to turn on Jim was with the money thing. By this point in the story, Jim has a whole team of coworkers whose role is to help him balance his workload and share the responsibility, but he’s overextending boundaries in a different way, and when confronted with it he still doesn’t stop. To me, that shows that the complex has been internalized to some degree. He’s choosing to have bad boundaries within a system where he doesn’t have to.
Great review. I wish we didn't have such a hero complex. It really doesn't help anyone--especially the so-called "heroes."
Your second point about unhealthy expectations in helping professions is so important! I taught high school for 4 years before becoming disabled and having to leave the profession, and now that I’m working in a different field, it’s wild to me what’s normalized in teaching (which I’m sure is similar to other helping professions). I think a lot too about how when individuals in the helping professions show up and continue to push themselves to meet these unhealthy expectations, it actually perpetuates the systems that they are most desperate to change because it keeps those systems functioning (but at their expense). The part I wrestle with is that there is a human cost to pushing back on the unhealthy expectations - in the case of teaching, it’s the students who often pay the price. But it’s so necessary to set those healthy boundaries to be able to continue for the long term in a helping profession.
I agree, it can feel incredibly unfair to the people being served when you have to fight for better conditions. It's helpful for me to be reminded that *I'm* not the one putting them in that position though. It reminds me of when teachers strike, everyone shouts "what about the children???" when the teachers are the ones advocating for thee children every day. It's a nasty tactic used to prevent change and make the advocates seem like the villains, and of course we can't help ourselves but feel guilty. (Because we're the ones who actually care.)
Great review. I was stoked for this book when I first saw it coming out -- for the broad attention for the issue(s), and personally now that I live in Boston and continue to serve the unhoused community. But I pretty quickly grew concerned about the narrative and framings it seemed like Kidder selected. You confirmed that to be the case.
There’s this way of relating to society, which your description of the world Kidder paints made me think of, as everything just being that way, just “how it is,” as though history and power and choice aren’t things and everything is settled into its natural permanent immutable state. And within that world as it is we have dragons and heroes, and we all say, wow, gosh, isn’t that something! It’s amazing how good of a storyteller or journalist or “liberal” you can be and still function inside of that paradigm...
One more thought, sorry this is so long! Kidder’s Paul Farmer book also made a huge impact on me around 2011. Farmer was one of my many gateway personalities I clung to as I was grasping for something solid while tumbling into the world of the poor without any theoretical framework through which to make sense of it all. Mama Theresa and Shane Claiborne were others. Another at the same time was Greg Mortenson, the Three Cups of Tea guy. I went to an event with him and got a book signed and everything. And just like you said, when he got canceled I was pretty upended by it. Psychologically it does seem like there’s something to individual examples that materializes the theoretical and makes it easier for the uninitiated to approach and possibly even enter into an issue. But as soon as we tell the story of those individuals as Great (White) Man stories who rise above the rest of us, placing them at the center instead of those bearing the violence of an injustice--and exposing the historical-structural forces behind it--we ultimately undermine everything that truly matters.
I haven’t read that book, but you explained your perspective really well. Those criticisms could be applied to how so many issues are addressed.
Thanks Kathryn! And yes, exactly--I'm not really in the habit of reviewing books, but I thought it brought up so many important things that are applicable outside the book. Thanks for reading!
I really appreciated this thoughtful review. In response, I think I first have to own my lack of sophistication in my thinking about this issue as well as an internal resistance to offering people who are homeless as much compassion and empathy as they deserve. In my own writing (about adoption and foster care), I advocate often for people to humanize kids who have been in foster care and consider them with radical empathy. I'm disappointed that I have so often struggled to do that for people who are homeless. In so far as this book helped me challenge those feelings, I found it to be beneficial, a net good, as you said.
That being said, I hadn't really thought deeply about the portrayal of Dr. Jim and I appreciate your critiques of the way he was presented in the book. As a teacher, I'm very familiar with the pressure on people in helping professions to let their (underpaid, undervalued) work take over their whole lives. The school district in our town gives out teaching awards every year; very often the recipients are people whose work occupies almost all of their waking hours. That may be an admirable choice for those for whom it's a true passion to live that way, but I resent the pressure it puts on all teachers to live like that. So, I understand why holding Dr. Jim and his lack of boundaries up as a standard is problematic. One question I had in that regard while reading the book: it seemed like the implication was that Dr. Jim wouldn't have been able to form close relationships and be as effective in his work if he had had better boundaries. Do you think that's accurate or do you think physicians/service providers can be highly effective even while maintaining schedules around boundaries and personal contact?
Last point (in this already very long comment), your point that the voices of people who are homeless were not centered in this book is an important one. I'm not sure to what extent most people experiencing homelessness are also able to take a big picture, high level policy view of the issues contributing to the homelessness crisis but I think including their voices, narratives, and opinions is important regardless. Similarly in the world of adoption and foster care, there isn't always significant overlap between people who have been in care and people who have the skill set and power to effect change in systems but to leave former foster kids out of the conversation (or include only salacious/tragic details about their lives) is objectifying and disrespectful.
Thank you for your thought provoking writing!
Thanks Gretchen. Regarding your question about boundaries and being effective within them, it’s unfortunately a numbers game. If one person is responsible for providing great service to too many people, the choice is to provide worse service or overextend themselves. The solution isn’t to celebrate those who overextend as the example, it’s to get them some help!
And so part of it is how Kidder tells the story, right? It could be, “Wow, Dr Jim really tries so hard but these broken systems are crushing him, what are we going to do about that?” Instead it’s “Wow, Dr Jim is really inspiring for his dedication.”
But where I started to turn on Jim was with the money thing. By this point in the story, Jim has a whole team of coworkers whose role is to help him balance his workload and share the responsibility, but he’s overextending boundaries in a different way, and when confronted with it he still doesn’t stop. To me, that shows that the complex has been internalized to some degree. He’s choosing to have bad boundaries within a system where he doesn’t have to.