Like for Like
Like for like. Not a phrase that is commonly used to describe who should or can provide assistance, but is a neat summary for what this article appears to be saying.
This article touches on the situation of farmers, typically male, living in remote areas and when in times of stress they have a reluctance to discuss their personal issues with people who, and this is important, they feel cannot relate to them nor understand their situation. It is an assertion that has not been, and possibly cannot be, tested and confirmed.
I understand the desire for someone who is struggling to want to be helped by someone who can relate to their circumstances – as in a farmer not wanting to talk to a city slicker. The question I pose is this: is it reasonable that each of us be served by someone that ‘fits in’ with us?
We all fall into some form of a minority group, if we choose to. It would not be too hard to reduce each of us down to a sub-group comprising 5% of the population. But would that distinction be real? To suggest that the characteristics that define one sub-group from another are more unique for one particular group than another, should of course be considered false. If what sets you apart from me is clear and definable, than obviously so is what sets me apart from you. So yes, any distinction I choose to place myself into a group is as real as the next persons.
This article in a sense reinforces prejudice as it is essentially saying, ‘you can’t help me unless you are one of me, unless you come from the same group as I do’. This is a form of xenophobia – not so much a fear of outsiders, but certainly a distrust. The sentiment expressed in this article jars with the emerging theme of inclusiveness that is becoming central to our society – that anyone should be able to participate fully in our society, and should feel comfortable when doing so. The theme of inclusiveness supports the idea that these support services should be able to be provided by anyone, regardless of gender, race etc.
Restricting the delivery of support to others from within the sub-group reduces the possibility of different perspectives and in-directly reduces the perceived value of there being different perspectives. This narrowing of the range of input and potential insight is contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the value of diversity and suggests that empathy is only possible, or can only be received, from people who are like us.
Are other people given the same latitude to select their assistant? Will each minority group insist on being served only by people from their minority group? Must counsellors to firies, ambos,or cops have been firies, ambos, or cops themselves?
I do not see how you could argue against any of the points above, and yet, if you were the child, partner, sibling or parent of a distressed farmer you would hope and probably encourage said farmer to seek support, and you would want that support to be tailored to the particular circumstances that gave rise to the need for the support, and knowing the reluctance of many, not just farmers, to seek support, you would prefer that there were few impediments to engaging with that support.
The challenge here is to recognise the circumstances where the ‘general’ philosophy, eg inclusiveness, needs to be modified or adjusted for particular specific circumstances.
This is, in a sense, the challenge of recognising and celebrating diversity, while all the while supporting inclusiveness. The article, while outwardly appears to be a story about support services for rural/remote workers, is really an article about conflicting paradigms: that we all form part of a single humanity, but that we also all belong to tribes.
What will it mean, where will it lead, if we all insist on ‘like for like’.
