Can We Just Come to Terms with Self-Care, Organizational Wellness, and Community Care?
Lately, I’m seeing communications that frame self-care, organizational wellness, and/or community care against one other. On social media, memes dismiss individual self-care, because organizations need to change. Similar messages convey that community care is needed, not self-care.
Using a Systems Approach
Emphatically, attention to macro contexts for practitioners’ well-being—and, ultimately, the health of our profession—is crucial. However, framing that pits macro accountability and attention (organizational wellness; community care) against micro empowerment (self-care) is counterproductive.
Notably, this problematic framing is a tension that persistently plagues the profession. At its core, social work is uniquely dedicated to a systems approach, yet, struggles to fully embrace it. A previous blog post articulated a systems approach to organizational wellness and self-care.
Defining Terms
A dangerous dissonance is created by the either/or fallacy and unclear (even adversarial) framing of self-care, organizational wellness, and community care. This dissonance needs to be recognized and explicitly addressed.
First, the terms “self-care” and “organizational wellness” are sometimes erroneously used interchangeably, which creates problems in conceptualization and implementation. To clarify, “organizational wellness” is distinctive from self-care, in that it focuses on the larger system’s role in employee well-being. Similarly, “community care” focuses on entire communities, with particular attention to marginalized groups, toward creating solidarity and justice. In contrast—and complementarity—self-care is the purview of the individual practitioner to affect their own well-being.
Second, oftentimes when self-care is pitted against organizational wellness or community care, self-care is defined in a limited way—e.g., gyms, massages, indulgences. However, as the self-care movement evolves, a wholistic understanding of self-care is developing. Contrasted with the traditional, limited conceptualization, wholistic self-care is an intentional lifestyle, not an extra activity.
This wholistic understanding expands the domains of self-care to include all areas of living that affect one’s well-being—including physical, social, psychological, and so forth. Professional self-care is a crucial dimension of wholistic self-care. This expansive, wholistic conceptualization of self-care may include practical, spiritual, financial, and any other aspect significant to the individual. As such, community care—i.e., building community—can be an important element of one’s interdependent, self-care plan commitments.
Conceptualizing Complementarity: Just “And”!
Promoting an either/or fallacy contributes to a stand-off, which expends energy that could be used more productively. Pitting organizational accountability or community care against individual empowerment and vice versa is largely counterproductive. Similarly, intermingling these concepts typically results in confusion and projection. When treated as distinctive, yet complementary, the systemic potential can be leveraged.
Likewise, individual practitioners can develop effective self-care strategies, which offsets the disempowering stance of waiting for larger systems to change. That is, individual practitioners also have significant power to affect their own well-being. This ability is even more crucial in systems with unhealthy cultures. Further, individual practitioners can affect the larger systems through their dedication to micro self-care.
One of the most important terms to embrace for a just approach is the little, powerful word: And. Let’s just come to complementary and constructive terms: Community Care, and Organizational Wellness, and Self-Care!
Peace, Love, And Self-Care,
Erlene