common
societal properties individual's responsibilities
Answers
Individual Responsibility
At its most simple, responsibility is concerned with individual or personal responsibility: individuals are responsible for themselves, their successes and failures. People also may hold responsibility for the action (or inaction) of others who, by virtue of their age and vulnerability, need another person to take some responsibility for them (including very young and very old family members, those who are sick or disabled and in need of care).
This understanding of responsibility is filled with historical resonance. From the seventeenth century onward, ideas of individualism and liberalism were at the heart of political, economic, and social life in the then industrializing world. ‘Laissez-faire’ principles maintained that the market should be free to regulate itself; that government intervention in economics and in society would do more harm than good. At the same time, it was believed that anything was possible for those who worked hard and showed initiative; ‘heaven helps those who help themselves’ was the familiar mantra of the day. Self-help was seen as the best way forward, and any assistance given to needy individuals should be that which encouraged independence and individual responsibility, not dependence and sloth (Fraser, 2009). The idea of individual responsibility is illustrated in the workings of the UK Poor Law (Cree and Myers, 2008). Those in need were classified into two groups: the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor; the deserving poor were those who were prepared to take responsibility and act to improve their situation, while the undeserving poor were characterized as idle, feckless, and irresponsible. When the Charity Organisation Society was formed toward the end of the nineteenth century, the principles of ‘scientific charity’ again highlighted the value of individual responsibility (Seed, 1973: 17).
A very similar presentation of responsibility is found across the world, demonstrated in the popular slogan, “If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime” (Kiewra, 2010: 78). Encouraging individual responsibility is not, however, always positive, for the individual or society. Individualism may bring with it selfishness, acquisitiveness, and a lack of concern for others. It may also encourage a culture of blame. Webb points out that “although we are supposed to increasingly take responsibility for our own actions, there is plenty of evidence suggesting we wish to point the finger of blame elsewhere” (2006: 12). He cites obesity as an example of this; people prefer to blame the ‘fast food’ industry for our obese society, rather than confront the more difficult issue of individual choices in eating habits. They are also quick to deny any personal responsibility for ‘bad’ things such as atrocities or torture. Individuals often prefer to acquiesce, obey, and deny responsibility, rather than face up to the challenge of expressing disagreement with others (Cohen, 2000).
Ideas of individual responsibility infuse two current strands within social work: the idea of ‘personalization’ and the notion of ‘responsivity.’ Personalization is a policy initiative that emerged within social care. The not-so-radical idea is that people should be responsible for their own support services, able to determine and manage their own care, rather than fitting in with existing models of service provision. This, of course, reflects notions of individualism discussed above. It also owes allegiance to the idea of ‘client self-determination,’ which came out of casework practice in the 1940s and 1950s (Biestek, 1951) as well as pointing to current ideas about individual rights, illustrated in both Human Rights and Disability Discrimination legislation. Personalization has been viewed by some commentators (for example, Ferguson, 2007; Lymbery, 2012) as a double-edged sword: although it is, in principle, a positive development for service users, personalization moves responsibility for care from service providers to service users, allowing the state to abdicate responsibility and, at the same time, transferring any risks associated with this; the market, meanwhile, is free to dominate the supply of care services (Cree, 2009).