becoming: the stories of l`arche children

BECOMING: STORIES OF L’ARCHE CHILDREN
BY
Caroline A. Currie
Bachelor of Arts (Hons.), Université d’Ottawa, 2002
THESIS
Submitted to the Department of Psychology
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
Master of Arts
Wilfrid Laurier University
2005
© Caroline A. Currie 2005
i
“Belonging is for becoming.”
– Jean Vanier –
ii
Abstract
In this study, I explore what it means to be a child of L’Arche from a combined
narrative and autoethnographic approach. L’Arche is an international federation of
intentional communities where individuals with a developmental disability and nondisabled individuals live together in the spirit of the Beatitudes1. While much is written
about the history and philosophy of L’Arche, and the personal experiences of its adult
members, L’Arche’s narrative does not include the voice of its children. Therefore, my
study aims to give voice to the stories of L’Arche children so they may be included in the
narrative of L’Arche. It is also my intention to highlight and celebrate the diversity
among our stories.
I conducted narrative interviews with 10 former L’Arche children from Canadian
communities who shared their personal stories of growing up at L’Arche. My narrative
participants (six women and four men, currently between 20 and 38 years of age) spent
between 9 and 21 years of their childhood (and beyond) in one or more L’Arche
communities. As a former L’Arche child, I used autoethnography to map my story of
L’Arche. I also conducted three key stakeholder interviews with long-time L’Arche
members (two men and one woman, each with 32-33 years of lived experience at
L’Arche) who provided additional context to our stories.
In my Findings section, I present summary stories for each narrative participant
(including my own), and I share the many important themes that emerged from them.
These themes highlight how the historical and countercultural context of L’Arche played
an important role in shaping our experiences (safety issues and sexual abuse especially
1
The Beatitudes represent the seven characteristics of those who are blessed by God and who belong to the
Kingdom of heaven (e.g., Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven). The
Beatitudes, taken from the Sermon on the Mount, were recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
iii
took on an important role in this discussion). The themes also name our needs as
children, adolescents, and members of family. They speak of our deep spirituality and the
many choices we face as children of L’Arche. Finally, they celebrate our strong sense of
connection and meaningful relationships, and name the many ways in which L’Arche has
made us who we are.
I approached my Discussion section from an ecological perspective to explain
how the themes and issues named in our stories were played out on multiple levels. This
ecological explanation is focused on the following encapsulating themes: (a) sexual abuse
at L’Arche, (b) difference, (c) sense of community, and (d) narrative, stories and identity.
I also name the resulting implications for L’Arche and parents of L’Arche children, and
propose seven basic principles that contribute to a healthy childhood in all intentional
communities, not just L’Arche. Finally, I express my commitment to share this new
knowledge with L’Arche and to assist L’Arche children in reconnecting with each other.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank…
¸ My parents
…For choosing to raise me in L’Arche and for always supporting me in
everything that I do.
¸ Richard, my advisor
…For being a wonderful cheerleader and wise guide throughout this process.
¸ David
…For loving me and always understanding even when you don’t. For taking me
to P.E.I. to work on my thesis!
¸ My L’Arche Peers
…For opening yourselves up to me and to the process, for sharing your stories
with utmost honesty and feeling, for answering my inquisitive e-mails, for
challenging me on my assumptions, for making me want to get it right.
¸ My Key Stakeholders
…For your enthusiasm and support, for sharing your wealth of knowledge, for
your candour and openness, and for finding time in your busy schedules.
¸ Other L’Arche Families and Friends, or Members of L’Arche
…For your interest in my project and for your support.
v
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ V
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................VIII
PROLOGUE...................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5
L’ARCHE COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 5
Founding of the Movement ......................................................................................... 5
Daily Life at L’Arche .................................................................................................. 6
Principles, Philosophy and Ideology .......................................................................... 6
A Countercultural Movement...................................................................................... 9
Family, Children and Community............................................................................... 9
IMPORTANT CONCEPTS .................................................................................................. 11
Normalization ........................................................................................................... 11
Communal Living...................................................................................................... 12
MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE LITERATURE ....................................................................... 14
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 15
LIFE STORIES, THE NARRATIVE APPROACH, AND IDENTITY ........................................... 15
AUTOETHNOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 18
METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 19
Narrative Interviews (Your Story) ............................................................................ 19
Autoethnographic Writing (My Story) ...................................................................... 21
Key Stakeholders Interviews (Context)..................................................................... 22
Photo Elicitation ....................................................................................................... 22
Recruitment and Sampling........................................................................................ 24
Research Relationship .............................................................................................. 27
Involvement. ..................................................................................................................... 27
Ethics and confidentiality. ................................................................................................ 28
Sharing knowledge. .......................................................................................................... 29
On being an insider: Mediating the emic perspective....................................................... 29
Narrative Analysis .................................................................................................... 31
FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 33
OUR STORIES ................................................................................................................. 33
Christina ................................................................................................................... 33
Peter.......................................................................................................................... 36
Shelagh...................................................................................................................... 39
My Story .................................................................................................................... 42
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON MY THESIS PROCESS: I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH............ 48
THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NARRATIVE INTERVIEWS........................................................ 50
vi
A Brief Overview – Who Are We? Where do We Come From?................................ 52
L’Arche: A Place in Time ......................................................................................... 53
Living in a Counterculture........................................................................................ 60
Choosing L’Arche ..................................................................................................... 64
Choice to join: members by default. ................................................................................. 65
Choice of involvement...................................................................................................... 65
Leaving L’Arche............................................................................................................... 66
Returning to L’Arche as assistants. .................................................................................. 68
Choice in present and future involvement. ....................................................................... 69
Children in L’Arche .................................................................................................. 70
Families Grounded in L’Arche ................................................................................. 72
Our L’Arche Connection: Talk about Sense of Community ..................................... 76
Building Strong Relationships at L’Arche ................................................................ 79
Assistants. ......................................................................................................................... 79
Other families and children............................................................................................... 80
Our ties to core members. ................................................................................................. 80
Growing up “Goddi”: Religion & Spirituality at L’Arche....................................... 83
Becoming: L’Arche’s Role in Forming our Identity ................................................. 85
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: KEY STAKEHOLDERS REFLECT ON THE EXPERIENCES OF
L’ARCHE CHILDREN ...................................................................................................... 87
A Brief Overview: Who are the Key Stakeholders? .................................................. 88
Early L’Arche: Learning by Trial and Error............................................................ 89
Shedding Light on Important Aspects of Our Counterculture .................................. 91
Finding a Healthy Place for Families and Children in L’Arche .............................. 92
Commenting on Relationships with L’Arche Children ............................................. 95
Ruptures with L’Arche: A Painful Part of our History............................................. 96
Final Thoughts .......................................................................................................... 97
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 98
COMMON THREADS: STORIES THAT VALIDATE OUR EXPERIENCES............................... 99
EXPLANATIONS FROM AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................. 103
Sexual Abuse at L’Arche......................................................................................... 104
Multi-level factors contributing to the sexual abuse (Why?).......................................... 104
Multi-level factors affecting L’Arche’s response to abuse (How?)................................ 107
Difference: Dealing with a Bi-Cultural Existence.................................................. 110
Sense of Community................................................................................................ 112
Narratives, Stories, and Identity ............................................................................. 117
NOW WHAT? APPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE ............................................................. 121
Implications for L’Arche and L’Arche Parents ...................................................... 124
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 124
EPILOGUE ................................................................................................................... 127
APPENDIX A: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF L’ARCHE ............................................. 128
APPENDIX B: SCRIPT FOR TELEPHONE NARRATIVE INTERVIEW .................................. 129
APPENDIX C: SCRIPT FOR KEY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ....................................... 132
APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT (NARRATIVE PARTICIPANTS) ........... 135
vii
APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT (KEY STAKEHOLDERS) .................... 138
APPENDIX F: CONSENT FORM (NARRATIVE PARTICIPANTS)....................................... 141
APPENDIX G: CONSENT FORM (KEY STAKEHOLDERS) ............................................... 143
APPENDIX H: CATHERINE’S STORY ............................................................................ 145
APPENDIX I: JEAN-FRÉDÉRICK’S STORY ..................................................................... 149
APPENDIX J: KRISTA’S STORY .................................................................................... 153
APPENDIX K: STÉPHANIE’S STORY ............................................................................. 156
APPENDIX L: INOUK’S STORY ..................................................................................... 159
APPENDIX M: JULIE-ANNE’S STORY........................................................................... 162
APPENDIX N: DAVID’S STORY .................................................................................... 165
APPENDIX O: OUR PICTURES ...................................................................................... 168
APPENDIX P: NATASHA’S STORY................................................................................ 174
APPENDIX Q: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR COMMUNITY LIFE (RELATIONSHIP AND
SEXUALITY SECTION) ...................................................................................................... 177
APPENDIX R: L’ARCHE IDENTITY & MISSION STAGE II ............................................. 180
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 183
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Triangulation of sources in the study of childhood L’Arche experiences.
Figure 2. Elements influencing the experience of a L’Arche child at five ecological levels
of analysis.
1
Prologue
I remember my dad reading C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia aloud to my
brothers and me when I was a little girl. We used to play-act some of the books’ stories. I
also remember staying up past my bedtime, flashlight in hand, concealed beneath my
blankets, reading books. I loved to get lost in the imaginary worlds of their pages.
As I grew up, I loved to write funny, thoughtful, creative, and satirical stories for
school assignments. I loved to play with words and images, trying to capture my readers’
attention.
I have also always enjoyed meeting new and interesting people. I can listen for
hours to stories about a person’s life and who they are. We swap stories about jobs, funny
things that happened to us, accidents, departures, new beginnings, family, childhood,
school, favourite things; all the pieces of us.
Stories have always played an important role in my life, and always will. I can see
quite clearly in my mind how the stories I tell certain people at certain times reveal parts
of who I was, am, and will be. If you think about it, you can see how your friendships and
relationships developed through the exchange of stories. (This is who I am. This is who
you are.) Probably, you have also created shared stories with your friends and significant
others that define your friendship or relationship. (This is who we are.) I have all these
different stories (personal and shared) tucked away inside. Some are well-rehearsed and
rarely change, no matter the audience or place in time. Others change depending on who
is listening or how I am feeling. Others still are hidden and I try not to look at them – we
all have those, don’t we? Finally, some stories are still emerging – they have not been
picked up and looked at closely. We talk about them, but only superficially, because we
2
don’t quite know what to make of them or understand how they fit into our bigger story.
These stories hold a certain mystery that cultivates a yearning to know, but also a fear of
what they will reveal about us. I have a story like that: my childhood in the L’Arche
community of La Caravane in Glen Roy, Ontario.
Over the years, I have both recognized and taken for granted the uniqueness of
my childhood at L’Arche, an intentional community where I spent the first 11 years of
my life. To live in a community, sharing your family life with individuals with a
disability is not exactly a common occurrence in the Western world today, nor is it a
common topic of conversation. When I was living in the community I was too young and
too much in the present to feel a need to analyze the experience – it was just my regular
life. And when my family left the community, I was 11-years-old and just wanted to fit in
with my new friends. I have always found it a bit difficult or awkward to explain to
others that I grew up in a L’Arche community. Most people have a difficult time
understanding it because it is so abnormal compared to a mainstream way of living. For
all of these reasons, I realize that I have never really put into words the impact that
L’Arche has had on my life, nor have I completely processed the experience.
Though I have not consciously looked at this story of mine and allowed it to take
shape, I have always seen this aspect of my childhood as something that makes me
unique and special. My thesis is a response to my growing need to write my story. I am
compelled to vocalize and integrate my L’Arche experience into who I have become so
that I may move forward in life, knowing who I am and where I came from.
In my quest for self-knowledge, I am also compelled to reach out to other
L’Arche children and hear their stories. What has community life done to their lives, their
3
identity? I believe that they have very rich stories to share and that their experiences,
combined with mine, will allow you to glimpse into our world and better understand what
it is like to be a child of L’Arche.
My desire is not to essentialize the experience of L’Arche children and to say:
This is the L’Arche experience. Rather, the goal of my thesis is to pull together the stories
of former L’Arche children that give rich descriptions of our experiences as young
members of a community, and speak about who we are, who we have become. I want to
assemble a polyphonic narrative in which different voices and stories coexist, bringing
together similar and different points of view and experiences (Ezzy, 2000; Church, 2002).
Only through the telling of our stories can you start to understand how we have been
shaped by L’Arche. My goal is that you may hear our stories; my hope is that we, as
L’Arche children, may continue to shape our identities as we create and share our stories.
4
Introduction
L’Arche is an international federation of intentional communities where
individuals with a developmental disability and non-disabled individuals live together in
the spirit of the Beatitudes. In this report, I will use the term core member to refer to the
members of L’Arche communities that have a developmental or intellectual disability,
and assistant to refer to the individuals who live with and assist the core members. These
are the terms used by the International Federation of L’Arche. For the sake of simplicity,
when not using the term core member, but referring to individuals with an intellectual or
developmental disability, I will use the term individual with a disability.
I am not currently affiliated with L’Arche in any capacity, nor have I been since
leaving La Caravane, the community where I lived 14 years ago. However, in exploring
my emerging thesis topic, I did contact the current International Coordinator for L’Arche
and he provided me with some feedback and guidance in the development of my thesis
proposal.
My approach to this research project is inspired by the constructivism paradigm
and feminist theoretical framework (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Reinharz, 1992). To me, this
means that reality is constructed on experience and social interaction. Therefore, it is
through interaction that my participants and I have created the knowledge comprised in
this study. I recognize that, like the individuals I interviewed, I brought to this project
many assumptions and beliefs that have contributed to the knowledge created. I have
tried to make these assumptions clear and transparent in this report so that you may better
understand and judge the value of my thesis for yourself.
5
I believe that all voices are valid. The individuals whom I interviewed are the
experts on their lives and their stories of L’Arche. Throughout this research project, I
have been committed to receiving the stories of my participants as they present them to
me and I have been vigilant not to let my own experience distort the truth contained in
their stories. As for my own story and journey on this research project, I have dedicated
myself to applying reflexivity to all aspects of the project. As such, through the stories of
my participants and my reflections on the process, I hope to present you with a thesis that
is true to what is at the heart of this project – the stories of L’Arche children.
Literature Review
L’Arche Communities
Founding of the Movement
L’Arche was founded in 1964 in Trosly-Breuil, France by Jean Vanier. The son of
former Governor-General of Canada Georges Vanier, Jean Vanier was in his early thirties
when he became aware of the plight of individuals with a disability who were in mental
institutions (Dunne, 1986). In 1963, Vanier’s friend, Father Thomas Philippe, invited him
to visit an institution in Trosly-Breuil where he was the chaplain. Vanier was deeply
touched by the experience and felt called to enter into friendship with individuals with a
disability. Thus, in 1964 he invited two men with disabilities to leave their institution in
Trosly-Breuil and to share a home with him (L’Arche Internationale, 2003c). Educated
with a doctorate in philosophy, Vanier had no training in service provision for individuals
with disabilities. However, he held a deep belief in the value of each individual and in the
gift of those rejected by society. Vanier wanted to create a community that welcomed
individuals with disabilities instead of rejecting them. He wanted L’Arche (named in
6
reference to Noah’s Ark) to be a Christian community based on the Beatitudes. Today, 41
years later, L’Arche has grown to include 124 communities in 30 countries in its
international federation (L’Arche Internationale, 2004a). In Canada alone, there are 26
L’Arche communities where 478 core members and 380 assistants live together (L’Arche
Canada, 2001).
Daily Life at L’Arche
At L’Arche, assistants and core members live together, much like a family
(Angrosino, 2003; Sumarah, 1987b). While most core members work in special
workshops, assistants have meetings, take core members to appointments, and tend to the
household chores. At night, members are welcomed home and the day’s events are shared
and celebrated over a meal together. Evenings are free time or sometimes include prayer,
special events, or community celebrations. Like families, communities take vacations and
go on trips. Community members also regularly participate in various L’Arche gatherings
and celebrations.
Principles, Philosophy and Ideology
Those who call L’Arche home come from varied backgrounds. The young,
middle-aged, senior, single, married, and those of many cultures and faiths are all
committed to sharing their lives and growing together. A great deal of care and energy
goes into fostering the well-being of all community members through spiritual, work, and
community accompaniment. At L’Arche, the term accompaniment means “walking with”
or “being alongside people as a companion and friend in order to help them grow in
freedom and in the spirit of the community” (Vanier, 1989, p. 249). A good example of
accompaniment for assistants and their families are L’Arche renewals. These infrequent
7
gatherings bring together assistants and their families, who have been at L’Arche for
several years, from around the world for 8 to 10 weeks of renewal and nourishment.
Workshops, outside guest-speakers, various activities, and even children’s programs are
provided to foster personal growth and support members of L’Arche in their community
life. In fact, L’Arche’s five fundamental principles confirm its focus on personal and
communal growth (see Appendix A).
Although much information and discussion about L’Arche is shared through
L’Arche’s international magazine, The Letters of L’Arche, and books written by
members, only a handful of academics have studied and written about L’Arche. John
Sumarah, a professor at Acadia University, has been affiliated with L’Arche since 1971
and has written various texts about the philosophy and impact of L’Arche (1985, 1987a,
1987b, 1989). Sumarah (1987b) identifies the following dimensions as the tenets of
L’Arche’s philosophy and ideology: (a) the value of persons with mental handicaps, (b)
the importance of mutual relationships, (c) the importance of a sense of community, and
(d) spirituality.
People with mental handicaps are valued because it is recognized that they can
teach others how to live in community. As such, mutual relationships are valued because
they are a recognition of human interdependence. At L’Arche, interdependence is not a
sign of weakness as conceived in individualistic Western society. Rather, it is something
to be embraced and developped. The importance of mutual relationships is reinforced by
L’Arche’s non-professional staff. L’Arche does not attempt to change or cure
handicapped people: It simply wants to share meaningful relationships with them. As
8
such, everyone is expected to learn and grow from the love that is shared by all members
of the community (Vanier, 1989; Sumarah, 1987b; Nouwen, 1988).
Sense of community is prized in L’Arche. These communities provide individuals
with a place to share their lives, their ideals, and their vision with others (Vanier, 1989).
Many authors observing L’Arche are struck by the sense of community felt by the core
members (Sumarah, 1987a; Dunne, 1986) and assistants (Sumarah, 1988). But sense of
community at L’Arche is broader than what is seen within an individual community. As
Moore (1989) explained, “L’Arche is a community within a community. The network of
friendships within the small community also extends to a network of friendships in the
larger community. Everything else flows from this” (p. 11). Friendships are nurtured
through local, national, and international renewals, meetings, celebrations, and
correspondence. Support is also shared through partnerships and relationships with local
and international groups and organizations that share similar values with L’Arche.
Finally, L’Arche recognizes the importance of spirituality in the lives of all of its
members. Core members are spiritual beings just like everyone else. In fact, the
simplicity and huge capacity for joy that L’Arche’s core members possess makes them
great contributors to the community’s spiritual life. Daily life is especially infused with
spirituality through joy and celebration at meal times.
Celebration is a moment of wonder when the joy of the body and the senses are
linked to the joy of the spirit. It unites everything that is most human and most
divine in community life.… The harder and more irksome our daily life, the more
our hearts need these moments of celebration and wonder. We need times when we
all come together to give thanks, sing, dance, and enjoy special meals. (Vanier,
1989, p. 315)
Spirituality is also present in the interactions that guide relationships in the
community. Openness to working through conflict and difficulties makes L’Arche a place
9
of forgiveness (Sumarah, 1987b). Diversity in religious tradition enriches the spiritual
atmosphere at L’Arche. The international nature of L’Arche makes it possible for its
different communities to be multi-faith. Thus, L’Arche is an ecumenical Christian
community that welcomes members to deepen their spirituality, whatever their faith
(L’Arche Internationale, 2004b).
A Countercultural Movement
Vanier, along with other authors (e.g., Angrosino, 2003; Dunne, 1986; Harris,
1987), has characterized L’Arche as countercultural to a society that privileges
autonomy, high incomes and material possessions, and casts out its weakest members.
According to Sumarah (1989), L’Arche is “a countercultural movement that boldly
attacks the values of present day Western society, not through lectures or techniques but
through living” (p. 12). L’Arche rejects mainstream values and acts as an example of a
“more humanizing collective life-style” (Dunne, 1986) by placing value on
interdependence, humility, compassion, and by welcoming society’s weakest members
(Angrosino, 2003). Although some may think that L’Arche’s rejection of individualism
leads to the loss of individuality in its members, such is not the case. As Angrosino
(2003) explained, “…community is not a place where individuality is denied; it is a place
where individuality is nurtured and supported in such a way that it ceases to be the
destructive seed of envy and division” (p. 945).
Family, Children and Community
When Vanier first began L’Arche in Trosly-Breuil, he saw it as a place where
celibate individuals came to live their lives with individuals with a disability. The
changes that took place within L’Arche and transformed its celibate-focus are clearly
10
mapped out in Egan’s (1987) Letters of L’Arche article, which details the history and
evolution of families in L’Arche. Egan spoke of three phases in this evolution. In the first
phase, couples started arriving at the celibacy-orientated L’Arche, wanting to be part of
the community. This unexpected development came as L’Arche was expanding and
evolving on many fronts. Consequently, the first couples often struggled as they tried to
live like the celibate individuals within the community. Thus, L’Arche and the couples
were faced with a steep learning curve when “…discovering what was good for them or
not, and trying to understand what they were called to live in L’Arche” (Egan, 1987,
p. 2). In the second phase, Egan explained that many of L’Arche’s new communities,
which spread at an incredible rate (i.e., 60 communities were created in the nineteen
seventies), were founded by couples. Consequently, couples who had children or who
were building their families had to overcome many obstacles in finding their place within
the community. Single assistants and communities also struggled to accept, understand,
respect, and support families. The creation of couples among single individuals who had
come to L’Arche further added to the questions L’Arche faced in this phase. Finally, in
phase three, Egan described how many founding families left L’Arche and new families
arrived, bringing with them a variety of ways to live in L’Arche, and more questions
about the role of families in L’Arche’s evolving vision.
Through the ups and downs of fitting families into L’Arche’s founding vision of
celibacy, L’Arche has come to appreciate families and what they bring to the community.
Today, much like the other members of a community, families are an integral part of
L’Arche.
11
Their presence in the community is important. Their love, their emotional stability,
their children, bring so much to the weaker people – and to us all. The way they
live a covenant amongst themselves is a sign of love for the community and for the
world. (Vanier, 1989, p. 66)
However, L’Arche has also come to realize that families need their own space to grow
because they are communities in themselves (Vanier, 1989). Therefore, while many
families often lived in the same houses as assistants and core members in the past,
families at L’Arche today have their own home. Children are included in communal life
in a variety of ways, all of which depend on their parents and the community in which
they live. Parents sometimes bring their young children along in community households
when they are assisting, and families regularly share in meals and celebrations with the
community. Often, families and children also participate in retreats or renewals. Yet it is
still not clear how children are members of the community (Janzen, 1996). There is a lack
of discussion about children in L’Arche that is quite apparent by their quasi-absence in
the voluminous literature on L’Arche and in L’Arche’s narrative. While much is written
about the history and mission of L’Arche, and the stories and experiences of its core
members and assistants are regularly shared, nothing, as of yet, has focused on the
experience of children in the community.
Important Concepts
Normalization
While new therapies and approaches to dealing with disability evolved between
the nineteen fifties and seventies, progress was slow and individuals with a disability
suffered terrible living conditions in institutions for several decades (Wolfensberger,
1999). In fact, when Jean Vanier founded the first L’Arche home in 1964, there were few
centers for adults with a disability; most were still living in institutions (Vanier, 1985).
12
Thus, the arrival of normalization marked an important progress in the field of disability.
Normalization is a concept that originated in Scandinavia and became well-known to the
rest of the world when Wolf Wolfensberger published his book The Principle of
Normalization in Human Services in 1972. “The normalization principle means making
available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living
which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life of society”
(Nirje, 1980, p. 33). Like the rest of the world, Vanier only became aware of
normalization in the early Seventies, several years after L’Arche was founded. While
Vanier did not found L’Arche on the principle of normalization, he saw in this new
concept richness and truth, which further contributed to his understanding of individuals
with a disability and how they were perceived at L’Arche (Vanier, 1995). However,
Vanier did warn against over-normalization, questioning whether society’s definition of
normal was realistic in light of our humanity. For him, the attempt to mould individuals
with a disability into society’s vision of normalcy might not fully address the human
needs and gifts that they possess (Vanier, 1995).
Communal Living
Communal living is a social phenomenon that has a very rich history throughout
the world (Metcalf, 1996a) although many people today mistakenly associate it simply
with the hippie movement of the nineteen sixties. Some of the first communities were
created by early Christians who resisted the materialistic power of the Roman Empire. In
fact, before the late nineteen sixties, communities were mostly monastic; very few secular
communities existed, with the exception of the Israeli kibbutz movement. However, by
the end of the nineteen sixties, community living experienced a boom and Christian and
13
secular communities, communes, and community houses appeared more frequently
(Lockley, 1976; Schehr, 1997; Smith, 1996). Today, communities around the globe
continue to be created and disbanded. The 1995 publication of the Communities
Directory (Fellowship for Intentional Community) listed more than 500 intentional
communities operating in North America. This number, along with all other estimates of
communities, is considered to be conservative because many communities do not wish to
be identified and guard their privacy (Smith, 1996).
The world of communal living is heterogeneous. There are no set criteria to define
what constitutes a community, nor is there an agreed upon terminology. Intentional
community, commune, utopia, collective settlement, cooperative community, and many
more terms are used interchangeably and hold different meanings for different people
(Smith, 1996). Communities also vary based on their organization and purpose, although
Miller (1990) identified three key elements that all intentional communities share:
geographical proximity, economic sharing, and common vision.
There is much literature on communal living. In the past, this consisted mostly in
sociological descriptions or commentaries on one or many intentional communities (e.g.,
context, beliefs, advances, pitfalls, and daily routines; Lockley, 1976; Jerome, 1974;
Mercer, 1984), with a few first-person accounts aimed at promoting certain communities
(e.g., Gish, 1979; Arnold, 1967). Today, many books are still written about intentional
communities. Some focus on general historical accounts of the communal movement
(e.g., Miller, 2000) or the life and history of specific communities, often through personal
accounts (e.g., Janzen, 1996; Metcalf, 1996b; Bogliolo & Newfeld, 2002; Kinkade,
1994). Several current books also focus on helping individuals find and build
14
communities (e.g., Meltzer, 2005; Leafe Christian, 2002; Hogeland, 2000). As for
children in intentional communities, while the literature often describes who raises,
educates, or disciplines them, and how (e.g., Talmon, 1972; Kinkade, 1994; Hogeland,
2000), there is a paucity of literature that looks directly at personal accounts of children
raised in communities. The Communities Journal of Cooperative Living’s special issue
“Growing up in Community” (Johnsen, 1994), which featured personal childhood
accounts of life in intentional communities, is a rare find in this domain.
My Contribution to the Literature
In the absence or limited presence of children’s voices in the literature regarding
L’Arche and communal living, I feel that we are presented with an incomplete picture of
community. How does life at L’Arche affect the children raised there? Where do they
feel they belong? Because community life is not for everyone and L’Arche stresses that
core members and assistants alike choose to be a part of the community (Vanier, 1989;
Moore, 1989), I wonder how the experience of choice is lived by the children of L’Arche.
Some parents have included their children in the decision to live at L’Arche while other
children were not consulted or were born into a community. If L’Arche contends that
everyone stands to learn from each other when love is shared mutually, how are children
affected when communal living is their first life-experience? Jean Vanier (1989) asserted
that “community is a place of belonging, a place where people are earthed and find their
identity” (p. 13). As such, I want to know what kind of identity children develop in
countercultural L’Arche communities, and how they reconcile this identity with the
prevailing individualistic culture. I want our voice to be heard on these issues.
15
My research departs substantially from the existing literature on L’Arche by
privileging the stories and experiences of children raised in community, rather than
uniquely focusing on the experiences of core members and assistants (Sumarah, 1987a;
Moore, 1989). My research also departs from the current literature by exploring themes
that are of importance to L’Arche children, not simply to the L’Arche movement
(Sumarah, 1988; Angrosino, 2003; Dunne, 1986). Therefore, my study can provide a
unique contribution to the literature by making visible the stories and experiences of
L’Arche children, and by making these stories an integral part of L’Arche’s community
narrative. For both these reasons, the narrative approach to social inquiry is well-suited to
my thesis intentions.
Methodology
Life Stories, the Narrative Approach, and Identity
The universal nature of storytelling has made the narrative approach appealing to
many. According to McAdams (1999), contemporary narrative research is influenced
mainly by thematic analysis, hermeneutics, psychobiography, and life history studies.
While thematic analysis drives towards the quantifying of qualitative data through
different coding schemes, hermeneutics assembles various approaches that give primacy
to the debates of truth, power, and voice in the interpretation of narratives. The latter
draws fuel from critical theory, constructivism, and feminist epistemologies. On a
completely different plane, psychobiography relies on psychological theories to interpret
and give meaning to a life, usually that of a famous or infamous person whom the public
finds interesting. Finally, life histories are collected by sociologists and anthropologists
who wish to generate theory, often through the grounded-theory methodology.
16
Such a wide range of use makes terminology in the area of narrative quite
variable. In her review of feminist narrative research methods, Reinharz (1992) noted that
the terms oral history, case studies, in-depth life-history interview, biographical
interviews, life history, and personal narratives were all used interchangeably. For their
part, Mankowski and Rappaport (1995) have attributed story to an individual’s
experience and narrative to the stories or experiences that are common to a group of
people (i.e., community narrative). I will be using these latter definitions in my research
because they are consistent with my interest in gathering individual experiences (stories)
and seeing how they have been influenced by a social context (community narrative).
Furthermore, as a student of community psychology, I appreciate that this terminological
distinction allows me to differentiate between multiple levels of analysis (Rappaport,
1993) and to recognize the influence that a social context exerts on an individual.
Stories possess many important characteristics. Stories help people make sense of
events, experiences, and who they are (Chase, 2003; McAdams, 1999). They are a social
phenomenon (Chase, 2003) because they are meant to be told (McAdams, 2001), and
because they are shaped and encouraged by community narratives (Rappaport, 1995).
Stories are also dynamic. Emerging from the constructivism paradigm, they necessarily
incorporate the context and actively include the teller and listener (Rappaport, 1993).
Finally, stories fit with an agenda of empowerment because finding one’s voice can be a
transformative experience on a personal level, just like listening to and being heard can
change the research relationship from “researcher and participant” to “co-participants”
(Reinharz, 1992; Rappaport, 1995).
17
Identity formation is a concept closely tied to the narrative approach because both
stories and identity aim to be a coherent representation or integration of one’s past,
present, and future (McAdams, 1999; Mankowski & Rappaport, 1995). Stories are often
described as a vehicle for constructing and representing identity (individual and
community). As Mankowski and Rappaport (1995) explained, “If the self is a knowledge
structure and knowledge is stories, then these ideas, in combination, suggest another
metaphor: that the self is stories. More specifically, identity is created, enacted, and
maintained through storytelling” (p. 215)2. Finally, because stories are a social
phenomenon, adopting one’s community narrative is part of normal identity development
(McAdams, 2001; Rappaport, 1993, 1995; Mankowski & Rappaport, 1995).
To have the freedom to voice your story, and to access or influence the stories of
others is to have control of a powerful resource (Rappaport, 1995). Therefore, in using
stories in this study, I was aware that I could be put in a position of power over
participants. In addressing this issue, I was inspired by the feminist approach to oral
history that emphasizes collaboration and speaking for oneself (Reinharz, 1992). I wanted
my storytellers to be empowered by the act of telling their stories, by being heard and
valued, and by controlling the use of data we produced in collaboration. Furthermore, my
work was influenced by the assumption that stories can be considered at multiple levels
of analysis: I was not interested in studying individual stories in isolation from their
context. As such, I conducted key stakeholder interviews to provide a social context to
the personal stories collected here. Finally, I also explore in this document the ways in
which the stories and identity of L’Arche children are influenced by L’Arche’s narrative.
2
Italics are Rappaport’s.
18
Autoethnography
Autoethnography has emerged out of a realization that, like reflexivity, writing
about the self facilitates our understanding of others (Ellis, 1997; Patton, 2002).
Autoethnography is not self-indulgent or exclusionary of others. As Kathryn Church
(1995) expressed so well,
I assume that my subjectivity is filled with the voices of other people. Writing
about myself is a way of writing about these others and about the worlds which we
create/inhabit…. Because my subjective experience is part of the world, the story
which emerges is not completely private and idiosyncratic. (p. 5)
Furthermore, writing one’s story is not, as Ellis and Bochner (2000) put it, “a neutral
attempt to mirror the facts of one’s life” (p. 745). Rather, it is a stitching together of
essence and meaning, the presentation of narrative truth (Ellis, 1997). Personal stories
revise the past in light of the present and the future. Though they are founded on facts,
personal stories should not be consumed by them (Ellis, 1997). Consequently, what is
privileged in autoethnography is one’s experience and its accompanying feelings and
personal truths. No matter its unhistorical or non-sequential order, a personal story is
constructed in a way that satisfies the author’s need for personal coherence and meaningmaking. It is a challenging process of self-reflection and reflexivity to write about
personal experiences (feelings, fears, faults, and failings included; Church, 2002; Ellis,
1997). What is revealed (to me and to you), and what is kept hidden (from me, from
you)? What I write cannot be unwritten, especially once published. However, if I am not
open and honest, there is no substance or validity to my story.
According to Carolyn Ellis (1997), validity in autoethnography is determined by
the reader’s evaluation of the story’s believability and authenticity. This is similar to
Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) alternate standards of proof for internal validity: credibility.
19
Ellis (1997) also says that should a story speak to you about your own experiences, and
should you find parts of yourself in a story, then it is generalizable as well. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) call this the alternate standard of proof for external validity: transferability.
Methods
I have applied triangulation of sources in this research project by bringing
together my story with the stories of other former L’Arche children, and by locating them
within the greater context of L’Arche through key stakeholder interviews (see Figure 1).
Narrative Interviews (Your Story)
The main focus of my study is to give voice to the experiences of L’Arche
children. Therefore, I conducted 10 narrative interviews to gather the stories of former
L’Arche children from communities across Canada. These semi-structured three-part
qualitative interviews (see Appendix B) were conducted by telephone3 and lasted
between 1.5 and 3.5 hours (average length was two hours). In the first part of the
interview, I asked participants for general information about themselves (i.e., age,
occupation, education, family) so I could situate their L’Arche experience within their
current context. I found this also helped gently ease both of us into our interview. In the
second part, I asked a generative narrative question (Flick, 1998) to elicit the childhood
L’Arche story of my participants: What was it like for you to be a child in a L’Arche
community? This question was broad enough to evoke a great deal of content, but
specific enough to limit participants to their childhood experience at L’Arche. The
question also allowed participants the freedom to share their story as they conceived it;
including anecdotes and facts that they felt were representative and significant, and
3
Due to geographic and budgetary constraints, it was not possible for me to travel across Canada to
conduct my interviews in person.
20
omitting elements that were irrelevant or without personal meaning. To support freedom
in their story-telling, I tried to interrupt participants as little as possible during this phase
of the interview. However, I did interrupt or redirect participants at times if they left the
realm of their childhood L’Arche experience or if they asked for guidance. To ensure the
collection of rich data, I also encouraged my participants to explore the areas of conflict
and ambiguity in their stories. Finally, in the third part of the interview, I asked
participants open questions about certain themes that applied to their childhood at
L’Arche (e.g., choice, countercultural values, sense of community, spirituality, etc.). I
identified these themes from the literature on L’Arche and reflection on my own
experience as a child of L’Arche. When participants had already touched on these themes
in their stories, I often returned to them, asking for more detail. As such, my interviews
followed a basic structure but allowed me the flexibility I needed to adapt to the needs
and varied experiences of my participants.
This type of interview is well-suited to the purpose of my study, which is to create
a polyphonic narrative for L’Arche children. That is, in asking individuals to tell their
story in their own words, I welcomed the diversity needed to create a narrative that unites
different voices. Furthermore, in being open to the stories of others, in sharing in their
childhood memories, and in making my personal experience visible, I believe that the
narrative interviews fostered intimacy between participants and me. The intimate nature
of the interviews thus fulfilled a related purpose of this study, which is to understand
what the experience of L’Arche means personally to each one of us. When I began this
study, I hoped that storytelling would serve an integrative function for my participants
and that they would benefit from sharing their story. That is, I hoped that in creating their
21
story, participants would learn about themselves and integrate this knowledge into whom
they are. As I explain later in this report, this was also achieved.
Autoethnographic Writing (My Story)
Much like my narrative participants, I also explored my story of L’Arche so that it
could be part of our polyphonic narrative. In following the autoethnographic method
suggested by Ellis and Bochner (2000), I began by making retrospective notes of my
childhood at L’Arche. Initially, I organized my story chronologically, guided by certain
milestones and my photo album, so as to facilitate the resurfacing of memories and
associated emotions. However, as I explained previously in this Methodology section, the
purpose of personal narrative is not to produce a carbon copy of the past. As such, I
focused my story on what I thought of as its core: the most important and personally
meaningful aspects of my childhood at L’Arche. I wrote the first few drafts of my story
before conducting my narrative interviews. I knew that my story would shape the
questions I asked others and define the direction of my research. However, the final
version of my story, included in this report, was partially influenced by the stories of my
participants and my experiences throughout this research process. The stories of my
participants, my many interactions with them, and my analysis of the data emerging from
this study helped me better understand and define my story.
Autoethnography requires that one moves in and out of their personal experience,
delving into memories and stepping back to analyze the experience from a cultural
perspective. Therefore, my story evolved as part of this cycle of feeling and reflecting as
I moved back and forth between emotional recall and analysis. My research diary was an
indispensable tool in guiding me through this cycle, helping me to process the feelings,
22
insights, and reflections that my research activities and the stories of my participants
brought to the surface. To complete my story, I also focused on answering questions like
those suggested by Ellis and Bochner (2000): “What are the consequences my story
produces? What kind of a person does it shape me into? What new possibilities does it
introduce for living my life?” (p. 746).
In this study, the reach of autoethnography extends beyond the few pages that
contain my personal story. Throughout this report, you will find my thoughts, feelings,
impressions, and reactions adding nuance to the content of my study.
Key Stakeholders Interviews (Context)
In order to situate the stories of L’Arche children gathered in this study, I
interviewed three key stakeholders (i.e., long-time community members), two of whom
are parents of adult L’Arche children. Prior to our interviews, I provided these
individuals with a draft of the thematic analysis of my narrative interviews. Therefore,
our semi-structured telephone interviews focused on the stakeholders’ interpretations and
contextualization of the material contained in this thematic analysis (see Appendix C),
and were based on their experience and knowledge of L’Arche. These interviews were
clearly structured as I asked open questions about each theme as it appeared in my
analysis document. The interviews lasted between 50 to 90 minutes.
Photo Elicitation
Photo elicitation is a research method that uses photographs to guide what is
essentially an open-ended interview (Harper, 1994). Photographs are viewed as a useful
tool for eliciting personal information in a familiar, non-threatening way (Schwartz,
1989; Atkinson, 1998). As such, Walker and Moulton (1989) identified the following
23
characteristics of the presentation/viewing of photo albums: influential relationship
between the presenter and the audience, personal nature of the album, and importance of
an album’s accompanying narrative (which varies according to the context and audience
and links different themes of pictures/events). Parallels may then be drawn between the
characteristics of a person’s storytelling and picture showing. Like album viewing,
storytelling depends on who is listening and attempts to integrate themes and events into
a captivating whole (McAdams, 1999, 2001; Rappaport, 1993, 1995; Chase, 2003).
In this study, I used photo elicitation to enrich the quality of the stories shared.
That is, I asked storytellers to review photo albums and/or pictures of their childhood at
L’Arche prior to our narrative interviews. I also encouraged them to make notes about the
memories these pictures evoked, thus using the pictures as a tool to guide them in their
storytelling. Several participants told me they found this suggestion useful as the pictures
reminded them of aspects of their childhood they did not think they would have otherwise
been able to recall freely. Looking at their pictures and/or taking time to reflect upon their
childhood at L’Arche prior to our interviews helped participants organize their memories
and feelings. Several said that this method helped them feel more comfortable during the
storytelling part of our interviews. Finally, I found that photo elicitation added depth to
the stories of narrative participants, because I often experienced them retelling stories of
events that were captured in one of their pictures with a great amount of detail and
vividness.
In this study, I also used photographs to complement the stories of L’Arche
children. I asked narrative participants if they were willing to share a few childhood
photographs with me so that they could be interspersed among our stories. While many
24
participants were willing to do so, most were unable to find pictures (often in their
parents possessions) or too busy to send them to me in time. Nevertheless, I have
included the pictures that were sent to me and have added several of my own.
Recruitment and Sampling
To gain in-depth knowledge about the experience of growing up in a L’Arche
community, I limited myself to 10 quality narrative interviews (Reinharz, 1992). I also
conducted 10 interviews, because I thought this represented a reasonable percentage of
the children whose families were the first to live in Canadian L’Arche communities,
starting with L’Arche Daybreak in 1969. Although many families and children have since
made their homes in L’Arche communities across Canada, I estimate that there are
probably less than 100 who were the first to be raised in the 24 communities that were
founded in Canada between 1969 and 1985 (Vanier, 1995).
During their respective 16 and 21 years of life at L’Arche, my father and mother
had the opportunity to meet many individuals and families living in communities across
Canada. Therefore, my mother helped me generate a list of possible narrative participants
through my parents’ network of contacts. My initial list contained the names of 10
L’Arche families as well as the names of communities where my mother knew there were
families and the names of contact persons who could connect me to them. I knew a few
of the families on my list (personally or quite remotely) from my childhood at L’Arche.
Many families I had heard of but did not know. Sometimes my mother knew how many
children were in these families, their gender, and approximate age range, and sometimes
she only knew that the couple had one child or more.
25
My selection criteria for including participants from this list in my study consisted
of the following:
1. adults living independently from L’Arche (paid L’Arche assistants qualified)
2. aged 20 – 35 years4
3. individuals having lived in a L’Arche community for a minimum of two years
during their middle childhood or adolescence.
I was interested in adult participants who were living independently, because I believed
they were more likely to have relatively solid knowledge of who they are and where they
came from. I also assumed that they would be more open to exploring their past.
Furthermore, I felt that this age-range would ensure variability in the childhood
experiences of my participants by including individuals who were at L’Arche in the early
nineteen seventies right through to those who were there in the late nineteen nineties or
later. These participants would thus represent the children of the first Canadian L’Arche
families. I set the criteria of a two-year minimum of lived-experience during middle
childhood or adolescence to ensure that participants were at L’Arche long enough and at
an age where they had a meaningful story to tell about their life there. In addition to these
criteria, I wanted my participants to equally represent both sexes and to represent a range
of age and experience within different Canadian L’Arche communities.
Consequently, I set out to purposefully sample potential participants who met my
criteria from my list of L’Arche families. With the exception of one participant whom I
contacted directly, I started contacting the parents on my list by phone or e-mail. I
obtained their contact information through my parents, the phonebook, L’Arche
4
I was flexible in extending the maximum age limit because, when I set it, I did not think that there were
former Canadian L’Arche children of that age.
26
communities, or other members and friends of L’Arche. I explained to parents the
purpose of my study and my interest in contacting their children. Once I knew the gender
and current age of the children in these families, I often expressed my interest in
interviewing one of the children in particular because he or she fit my criteria. Gender
was typically the issue here as it was slightly more difficult to find male participants.5
Parents were very receptive to my requests, mostly because they found my study
interesting. As such, they either gave me their children’s contact information or passed
my request directly on to their children so that they could contact me if they were
interested (see Appendix D for the Informed Consent Form I sent to potential narrative
participants). In most families, one or more children responded to my request. When
more than one child per family wished to participate, I explained that I could only
interview one of them, because I was looking for diversity and variability within my
small sample of 10 L’Arche children. When I was not limited by my selection criteria, I
let the siblings decide amongst themselves who would participate. However, when I was
more interested in a sibling of a certain age or gender, I respectfully made this known and
was met with understanding and agreement. I assured these non-participating siblings that
I would share the results of my study with them and that I would include them in any
action-oriented aspect of my thesis. There were a few children in the families I first
contacted who did not respond to my e-mails or who expressed that they were too busy or
not interested in participating in my study. I obtained the names and contact information
for five other L’Arche families through two other L’Arche parents I contacted, in order to
obtain my 10 narrative participants.
5
This is why I ended up with six female participants and four male participants instead of an even split as I
had hoped.
27
Although this is not the most conventional method of contacting prospective
participants in academic research, it is not so unconventional within L’Arche. As a
former L’Arche child and member of the extended L’Arche family, I was confident that
this method respected privacy and community norms. L’Arche is founded on the
principle of welcoming others into one’s life and thrives on the relationships and
networks that are built among friends, neighbours, and community members. Contacting
and reaching out to community members, whom you know directly or indirectly, is the
norm in this organization and is not considered intrusive. Therefore, as I approached
potential participants for my study, I was confident that I was working within the context
and norms of this community.
I selected key stakeholders based on the insights that I felt they could provide
about L’Arche children as parents and long-time L’Arche members. I wanted to
interview two men and one woman so as to compensate for the 6:4 ratio in my narrative
participants. As a child at L’Arche, I had met and interacted with two of the key
stakeholders. I confirmed their expert knowledge and extensive experience with my
mother who knows them well. I selected the third key stakeholder based on information
obtained from the literature on L’Arche. I contacted all three participants through e-mail
and they all agreed to participate (see Appendix E for the Informed Consent Statement I
sent to key stakeholders).
Research Relationship
Involvement. In being entrusted with the stories of individuals, I was committed to
keeping my participants involved in this research process. However, due to geographic
and budgetary constraints, I was unable to form a committee to oversee my study or to
28
form a focus group to discuss the stories gathered. Nevertheless, I regularly sought the
assistance of my participants during the interviews and after the transcription and analysis
of their stories, and was responsive to their comments and suggestions.
Ethics and confidentiality. I required all participants to sign an informed consent
form before being interviewed. The forms (see Appendices F and G) explained the
purpose of the study, clearly stated that participation was voluntary, and explained how
data would be used. With regards to confidentiality, I presented participants with
different options of self-identification so that they could choose the option with which
they felt most comfortable. If they did not wish to identify themselves by first name
and/or community name, I suggested that they could preserve anonymity by using a
pseudonym, stating the geographic region rather than the name of their community,
and/or not including any pictures in my final document. The informed consent form was
explicit about the gains and drawbacks of participation so that participants who chose to
identify themselves and their community did so in an informed way. All three key
stakeholders chose not to disclose their current or former community names, and the titles
of specific positions they occupy (or occupied) within L’Arche. However, all narrative
participants felt comfortable using their fist name and community name, with the
exception of one who preferred not to name her community. The willingness of my
narrative participants to share this information, which easily makes them identifiable
within the world of L’Arche, is highly unique in this type of research. I believe it is a
testament to their desire to voice their stories and be acknowledged by L’Arche.
I asked participants for permission to digitally record their interviews. Once I
transcribed the interviews, I deleted all electronic recording files. During the research
29
process, I kept transcripts, pictures, and material linked to participants in a locked cabinet
to ensure that privacy was maintained.
All participants, with the exception of one,6 reviewed their stories, transcripts, and
my thematic analysis so that anything that they were uncomfortable with I adjusted
accordingly. Finally, I consulted my family for certain elements of my story in order to
respect their feelings and need for privacy. I did not want them to be negatively affected
by what I wrote in a story that indirectly involves them. I also encouraged one participant
to do the same for an aspect of her story.
Sharing knowledge. At the end of the research process, I sent each participant a
summary report of the research findings as well as an electronic copy of my thesis.
Another aspect of my sharing knowledge is that I am interested in exploring different
options for sharing my study with the International Federation of L’Arche. From the
beginning, it has been an important goal of mine that the voices of L’Arche children be
heard by L’Arche communities more broadly. L’Arche members actively engage in
dialogue about their experiences of communal living through the Letters of L’Arche and
other publications. It is important to me that L’Arche children be brought into this
dialogue to add richness and complexity to it. I want to encourage community directors,
parents, assistants, core members, board members, and all of L’Arche’s friends to think
about the children in their communities. I will address my plan for acting on the results of
this study and sharing knowledge in the Conclusion section of this report.
On being an insider: Mediating the emic perspective. When I began this study, I
believed that my personal characteristics and history within L’Arche would be similar
6
Despite my issued reminders, one participant was not able to provide me with feedback on his story and
my thematic analysis of narrative interviews due to his busy schedule. However, he did confirm reception
of the documents I sent him and previously approved his interview transcript.
30
enough to those of my participants that they would feel as though they could easily relate
to me, thus leading to a good rapport and strong research relationship. However, I was
also aware that the opposite could happen. My personal characteristics and identity could
have hindered my work for the following two reasons: First, my participants could have
felt uncomfortable sharing their stories with me because I am not a complete stranger.
My recruitment strategy made it clear that we have, at the very least, a few common
acquaintances. This reality could have led them to omit or embellish parts of their stories
to protect their privacy. Secondly, participants may have omitted certain facts or details
in their storytelling, assuming that I knew about them because I have lived in L’Arche
and am familiar with its culture. This possibility could have affected the richness of the
information that I collected.
In order to remedy this first potential problem, I was mindful of the possibility
that not everyone would be open to sharing their experiences with me and that it was my
responsibility to be respectful of their choices. I was especially aware that the participants
whom I knew, directly or indirectly, might feel obliged to participate in my study in order
not to offend me. However, the three participants I personally knew previously to my
study were very enthused by the idea of participating in my project, so much so that two
of them volunteered among their siblings to represent the children in their family. During
this study, I was extremely mindful of the privacy and personal limits of all my
participants due to the highly personal nature of their stories. In the course of the
interviews, several sensitive issues were brought up and, together, participants and I
negotiated the most appropriate and respectful way of presenting them here.
31
In addressing the second potential problem resulting from my insider status, I
informed participants that I was interested in their individual experiences, which are
inherently different from mine and that of other participants. I stressed the fact that they
were the experts on their experience and that I was relying on their expertise and the rich
details that they could provide to compose a polyphonic narrative of L’Arche children.
Regardless of the sacrifices and challenges involved in communal living, I very
much enjoyed my childhood at L’Arche and look upon my 11 years there as a very
positive and enriching life experience. From the beginning, I recognized in myself the
assumption that my fellow participants would also have experienced a generally positive
childhood at L’Arche. I had to remind myself, in light of this assumption, that I would be
speaking to individuals whose experiences varied in a multitude of ways from mine,
simply from having lived in different communities and at different times. Therefore, I
cultivated my curiosity and was eager to hear the varied stories of L’Arche children that
would enrich and deepen my study. Furthermore, I informed participants of my desire to
hear both the positive and negative experiences they had at L’Arche. As for my own
story, I pushed myself to delve into the areas of conflict and ambiguity in my life at
L’Arche so that I would remain true to my whole experience.
Narrative Analysis
Once my 10 narrative participants approved or edited their interview transcripts, I
began the analysis process. My goal in this research phase was to let the data speak for
themselves through an inductive and open approach (Patton, 2002). I chose three
transcripts that I felt represented the range of experiences and themes covered in my
interviews and read each transcript twice; coding emerging themes and concepts and
32
identifying illustrative quotes with each reading (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). I then assembled
the marked passages of all three interviews under the theme or concept to which I had
associated them in my primary analysis. From this document, I read through the compiled
data under each heading to confirm that everything was properly coded and removed
redundant codes. During this time, I also noted ideas and insights about relationships I
saw emerging between various themes. Once I felt comfortable with my codes, I created
a coding scheme to analyze the remaining seven interviews. I repeated the above steps of
coding and collating for these interviews. Once the data from all 10 interviews were
collected in one document under various headings, I reviewed them to confirm their
coding and wrote summary statements for each theme. I moved some data around during
this process, finding better combinations or links between themes (Chase, 2003). I
proceeded to write my thematic analysis from my summary statements and identified
quotations. I followed the same process in the analysis of my three key stakeholder
interviews. However, this analysis was much simpler, because my key stakeholder
interviews were structured around the themes from my narrative analysis.
As mentioned previously, I ensured accuracy of data by having all participants
and key stakeholders review their interview transcripts and stories (Elliot, Fischer, &
Rennie, 1999). I also supported my analysis through illustrative quotes (Cole & Knowles,
1995; Josselson & Lieblich, 1993) and regular returns to my transcripts to verify that they
confirmed my interpretations (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Finally, I asked narrative
participants and key stakeholders to review my thematic analyses of their interviews to
verify their accuracy. As for autoethnographic data, I ensured accuracy through
reflexivity and disciplined journal writing. After each interview, I wrote my reactions,
33
thoughts, and initial interpretations of what participants shared with me in my journal. I
also used my journal to keep track of and justify my research decisions throughout this
research process (Tutty, Rothery, & Grinnell, 1996).
Findings
Our Stories
Based on our interviews, I composed summary stories for each narrative
participant in this study. I have included three of these stories here, along with mine, and
have put the remaining seven stories in Appendixes H to N, followed by our pictures in
Appendix O. I have done this to prevent an unbalanced document. I chose to include the
stories of Christina, Peter, and Shelagh in this section because they cover a wide range of
our experiences. However, there is much richness and diversity in each of our stories and
I encourage you to read all of them.
Christina
Christina is a 23 year old student at Mount Alison University in New Brunswick.
She is currently in her fourth year of an art degree focused on painting and photography.
Christina is the third child of a large family of eight children (three girls and five boys),
three of whom are adopted. Christina’s parents adopted her older sister when they were
living at L’Arche in India, before returning to Canada and founding the L’Arche
community of Cape-Breton where Christina spent 17 years of her life. When Christina’s
parents decided to found the community in Cape-Breton, she was one year old, and she
and her family lived in a community house with core members and assistants until she
was four or five years old. It was then, with the assistance of her L’Arche community,
and the neighbouring aboriginal community, that Christina’s family built a log house of
34
their own on the community property. As new siblings were born and her two brothers
were adopted, Christina’s family continued to add on to the house.
Christina’s community soon grew to have a chapel, a workshop, several homes,
vegetable fields, and some cows and horses. Taking care of the animals was something
that Christina enjoyed, as was the country setting and open space. There was enough
room for Christina and her family to have space of their own, all the while being able to
participate in community activities and be in contact with others. In fact, Christina
enjoyed the presence of community members and welcomed the opportunity to be
included and accepted among this group of adults. Her experience at L’Arche was quite
positive and stimulating.
During her childhood at L’Arche, Christina developed special relationships with a
few assistants who took on an important role in her daily life. She also grew close to one
core member in particular who was like an uncle to her. Today, Christina still appreciates
his simple way of relating to her and the ease with which he welcomes her back, never
asking any questions, just happy that she came to see him. Christina has always felt like
she was a child of the community, especially to the core members. In fact, core members
are the people with whom Christina feels she has had the deepest relationships, because
of their constant presence in the community, unlike assistants who often come and go.
Today, Christina takes great pleasure in knowing that the core members of her
community continue to look out for her and inquire how she is doing.
Just as Christina was leaving home to start university, her family left their
L’Arche community. While the situation is complex and Christina does not wish to speak
for her parents, she admits that, even though they were bound to their community by their
35
promise to live with its members, her parents were forced to leave when they were
unwilling to compromise their ideals or themselves to meet the demands of the
community. Christina and her siblings were spared from much of the conflict in the long
process leading up to their departure from L’Arche. As she gradually learns more about
the difficulties her parents encountered in their rupture from the community, Christina is
thankful that they kept their children out of the conflict. Today, Christina still values the
ideals and the experience of L’Arche, but it is clear that her family’s departure has caused
her much pain and anger. “I feel that L’Arche rejected my parents, my family, and myself
in this expulsion, and in since efforts to erase us/our history, or to retell us as a fable.”
As she continues to address what her family’s departure from L’Arche means to
her, Christina remains bound to her former community through her adopted brother who
is a core member there. However, because of the conflict, and now that she is away at
university, Christina finds it more difficult to go back to the community on her own.
Nevertheless, she has recently completed a photography project featuring pictures of core
members from her former community for a university class, and it has been wonderful for
her to reconnect with these special people in her life through her art.
A few years ago, Christina worked as an assistant in a L’Arche community in
France for four months. She was also an assistant in the Montreal L’Arche community
last summer. Although she enjoyed the experience of being an assistant, Christina does
not feel that she was able to experience L’Arche in the same way that other assistants do
because she is a child of L’Arche. It is not in Christina’s plans to return to live at L’Arche
in the future. She does however, hope to find a way to involve her future family with
36
L’Arche because she considers her former community members to be her extended
family.
While she sometimes has trouble sorting out what parts of her are from L’Arche
and which are from her family, Christina knows that her childhood has made her more
flexible in her interactions with people.
I sort of accept whatever comes to me. But I also allow it to come. I’m really
aware of people’s space – I guess that’s what I want to say. So I mean your
physical space (…) but also [your] personal space and [your] mental space.
For Christina, flexibility also means respecting and expecting that people have a whole
range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. Finally, Christina’s childhood at L’Arche has
exposed her to the many aspects of life which makes it hard to shock her, and keeps her
from turning a blind eye to important social and human concerns.
Peter
Peter is a 31 year old software developer living in Brampton, Ontario with his
wife, daughter and newborn son. He is the eldest of five children (three girls and two
boys) and was born into the L’Arche Daybreak community in Richmond Hill, Ontario.
Within approximately one year of his birth, Peter’s family moved to Frontenac County in
Ontario where his parents eventually founded L’Arche Frontenac (the now renamed and
relocated L’Arche Arnprior) when they welcomed a man with a disability into their farm
home. Peter does not have memories of his own of those first few years, but his earliest
memories relate to his life on the farm. He remembers the freedom of roaming the
community property and the fun to be had in helping his father and other core members
with farm chores like chopping wood, chasing after pigs, and collecting sap from Maple
trees.
37
Peter enjoyed the company of the core members in his community who were
mostly physically independent and able people. In particular, Peter loved to read comic
books and play GhostBusters with one child-like core member. Peter especially enjoyed
the presence of the many visitors of his community and the unpredictability and surprise
of L’Arche gatherings. “I think L’Arche gatherings, there’s something about them that’s
just, I don’t know…spontaneity… Just the fact that anything can happen and people don’t
much care if it does.” In fact, daily life at L’Arche was unpredictable and fun for Peter:
His story includes innumerable entertaining and wacky memories. Members of his
community often played pranks on each other and on members of the nearby North Bay
community. Peter’s community also organized fun activities like Christmas in July and
their own mock version of the Grey Cup. As Peter explained, any occasion was turned
into a celebration in his community.
My family tried to raise turkeys a couple times. My dad of course tells us how
stupid turkeys are… You start of with 10 turkeys and they all drown themselves,
you know. And this particular year, I don’t know with how many we started
with… 10 or 20, whatever it was… And ended up with one that lived to edible
size. And he was named Ralph. And so, when it came to the time that Ralph was
going to be um… served (laughs), we had a big celebration. It was really crazy!
And they made up a menu, you know… Ralph la dinde (laughs). It was just
crazy…people were in little hats, you know…
Unfortunately, for all the joy Peter got out of L’Arche, there was also much pain.
While on a mini-retreat with his community, Peter was sexually abused by a male core
member that was being considered for membership in his community. Although this was
the most negative experience Peter says he had at L’Arche, there were other hard times as
well. Peter got picked on, teased, and beaten up by his schoolmates who did not
understand his life at L’Arche. He was stigmatized because he lived on “the funny farm.”
This was very hurtful for Peter and he believes that the abuse and stigmatization, among
38
other factors, may have contributed to his feelings of insecurity and lack of confidence
for many years.
This lack of confidence was felt by Peter when his father decided to take a year’s
sabbatical from his position of director at L’Arche Frontenac and Peter’s family moved to
Toronto. Peter was entering into grade eight in a new school that year and he had trouble
fitting in to the already formed social groups. He was expecting to go back to his life in
Frontenac after the year was over, but his family never returned and Peter had a hard time
accepting that. Peter’s family maintained contact with L’Arche Frontenac after they left
the community. However, their regular contact with L’Arche was now with the Daybreak
community because it was closer. They attended community nights and weekends at
Daybreak and Peter even babysat some of the younger children in the community while
parents participated in community meetings.
When Peter was 18 or 19 years old and needed work one summer, his mother
suggested he call L’Arche Daybreak to see if they had anything available for him. Peter
was not really interested, but it was a job, and by the middle of the summer he decided to
call L’Arche Daybreak where he worked in the summer program. After his first year of
university, Peter decided to take a year off and went to Australia where he worked in
L’Arche Tasmania. Peter returned to Daybreak a year later where he did some casual
work before eventually ending up in Vancouver where he got a job in a group home. The
cultural divide between L’Arche and the group home was massive and after less than a
week of confrontations and unease, Peter left the group home and went to work for
L’Arche Vancouver for six months. After this, Peter ceased being an assistant at L’Arche
because he had trouble accepting L’Arche’s intense religious focus and no longer felt he
39
could accompany core members spiritually, or actively participate in communal religious
celebrations. As a child, Peter had accepted this part of his life at L’Arche because it was
part of his reality and his parents had chosen it for him. However, as an adult, Peter was
free to choose otherwise and he did.
Today, Peter maintains a friendly relationship with L’Arche Daybreak, where his
wife works, but he is clear that his time at L’Arche is over. His children will not be raised
in a L’Arche community as he was, but Peter is happy that he and his wife are able to
introduce their children to L’Arche and to share part of the experience with them.
Peter has learned many things from his childhood at L’Arche, one of which is the
importance of accepting difference and seeing people as they truly are. For Peter, seeing
people as they are means looking at the positives and the negatives and knowing that
everyone has both. L’Arche taught Peter how to look past the physical differences among
us and give people a second chance.
Shelagh
Shelagh, 36 years old, lives in Calgary with her husband, son and daughter. She
has a degree in sociology and women’s studies from the University of Calgary and has a
degree in journalism from Ryerson. Shelagh is currently working part-time as an English
as a second-language (ESL) teacher in a Calgary community college and is the project
manager of a volunteer training program. She also works for a national scholarship
foundation.
Shelagh is the middle child in a family of three daughters and she spent the first
five years of her life in Edmonton with her parents and older sister. During those years,
Shelagh’s parents were looking for more meaning in their life and they welcomed a man
40
with a disability into their home. When Shelagh’s father left his family business, her
parents felt it was time to move on and to follow this calling that they felt to help others.
So they travelled across Canada (like real hippies in their tent trailer according to
Shelagh) and stayed briefly in a L’Arche community in Ontario before starting a
community in Calgary.
Shelagh has fond memories of her life before L’Arche and experienced her
family’s transition into L’Arche as a very alarming and upsetting change. “It really was
like someone had taken our life and just shaken everything up and said: ‘Okay, here’s
your new life’.” Shelagh shared her memory of the first day her family arrived at the
house that was to be hers and this new community’s to share.
I remember the day when we arrived at this house, which was not even a part of
Calgary at that time…. It was this old two-storey house that looked like a hovel.
Everything was boarded up. There was a huge chain link fence around the house.
And there was grass, probably up to my neck, all around the house. And I
remember feeling so angry that day. I was just completely angry. I thought “How
could you do this to us? “We’re living here?” And even from the pictures of that
day, I refused to smile for the camera. The look on my face was just “I don’t want
to be here.” So I just remember that beginning part being really hard because we
had lost a life that was just so, you know, so safe and so secure… And I mean
everything that I knew as a kid had been completely turned upside down. So I
don’t think I entirely knew what was going on.
Shelagh felt very isolated living in this house that was so far removed from other people
and the life she once knew. Her parents recognized the isolation of this location and the
Calgary community eventually bought a duplex in the city. Shelagh’s family took over
one side of the duplex while the core members and assistants lived in the other side. The
two homes were easily accessible to each other through a connecting door on the inside.
Being surrounded by people was great at times because there was always something
exciting going on, like a wild water fight, but it also meant less quality family time. In
fact, Shelagh and her sisters had a very difficult time protecting their personal space
41
because people were always walking into their family’s side of the duplex, and they
shared all their meals, with the exception of breakfast, with the community.
Shelagh has some fond memories of certain core members and the activities that
she shared with them (e.g., singing Kenny Rogers and Olivia Newton John, watching
television together and sharing popcorn and Russian tea). However, she also felt very
insecure and fearful of some of the male core members in her community. She believes
that many of them may have had mental health issues in addition to their disabilities,
which made some of them unpredictable and sometimes dangerous. Three core members
in particular engaged in odd and disturbing behaviours that made her uncomfortable and
even terrorized her at times.
When Shelagh was 15 years old, her family finally moved out of this shared
house and into another duplex that did not have a connecting door with L’Arche.
Shelagh’s life was changed – she said it was heaven. She was now able to control her
level of involvement and her contact with L’Arche. While Shelagh continued to attend
community nights, which she enjoyed, she was also able to distance herself from her
community and get the breathing space which she had been longing for. In fact, always
having to say “yes” to the demands of community life was something that Shelagh and
her sisters struggled with throughout their childhood and adolescence. As she explained,
I think the older we got, the more we felt that we could articulate our needs and
that we didn’t have to say “yes” to everything. That was a big [deal] actually, just
the whole thing of our always continually having to say “yes.”
– “Can this person come over?”
– “Yes.”
– “Can we have this person stay here for three weeks?”
– “Yes.”
And so, I think finally the older we got, the more we could say “no.”
42
When Shelagh moved away from home after completing her bachelor’s degree, she
increased the distance between herself and L’Arche by breaking all ties. She had a lot of
anger, confusion, and hurt to work through from her childhood at L’Arche.
Shelagh feels her childhood at L’Arche would have been completely different had
her family been allowed to have its own space early on. However, despite her struggles
with community life, Shelagh feels that the experience has made her a stronger, more
spiritual person who appreciates the value of community, and who has a strong sense of
social justice. Today, Shelagh remains apart from L’Arche, and finds it difficult to
introduce her children to the members of the Lethbridge community where her mother is
an active member. Nevertheless, due to an odd coincidence or the seemingly permanent
ties that bind us to L’Arche, Shelagh was teaching ESL to some assistants from the
L’Arche Calgary community in the fall of 2004.
My Story
Like many other L’Arche children, my parents met, fell in love, and married at
L’Arche. It was the mid-Seventies and they were participating in the creation of a new
community: La Caravane in Glen Roy, Ontario. La Caravane was officially founded in
1975 from an already existing L’Arche project called Mary-Farm. My brother was born
in 1977, shortly followed by me and my younger brother. For the first few years, my
family lived in one of the community houses called the Oasis. After that, we moved into
our own house next door on the L’Arche property. Our community now consisted of four
neighbouring houses (the director’s family house, our house, and the Oasis and Caravane
houses) on a gravel road. There was a private farm across the road and a forest behind us
with lots of open space in-between.
43
By the time I was born in September 1979, I was already the fifth child to call La
Caravane home. Nevertheless, my arrival into the community was a special occasion: I
was the first little girl born into the community. The first few pages of my childhood
photo album are filled with handwritten notes and cards from assistants and core
members that show how, from the very beginning, I was welcomed, I was loved, and I
was celebrated.
To Caroline. You are the hope and the gentleness of the community. If it were not
for you the world would certainly lack new life. In you lives the beauty of your
mother and the courage of your father. I know you will carry your share in this
life. (Assistant)
¸
Through your birth, you bring me the love that you have. (Core member)7
¸
Through your birth, you bring me someone to love, someone to take care of.
(Core member)
In my photo album, these messages are interspersed with pictures of my baptism.
I love to look at these pictures because they always remind me of my favourite part of
being at La Caravane and of being a member of L’Arche: community celebration.
Whether it was those memorable Christmas eves at the Caravane house with a special
appearance by Saint Nicholas (accompanied by his white horse and Black Pete),8 a
summer picnic, a community potluck dinner, or a community anniversary, I always loved
the spirit of these celebrations. I remember the room teeming with joy and laughter,
happy chatter, hugs and kisses, playful teasing, acceptance. Such an atmosphere is hard to
find outside of L’Arche. Nevertheless, I seek it out and try to create it wherever I am. No
matter the utopian tinge to these memories, I also remember conflict, tantrums, inability
7
I have translated both core member quotes found here from French.
Santa-Claus is an Americanized version of the European St-Nicholas. While the traditions related to StNicholas differ in each country, the general agreement is that he is an old man with a long white beard and
a red mantle. St-Nicholas rides his white horse on rooftops, distributing presents to children through their
home’s chimney with the help of his assistant Black Pete.
8
44
to be still. But what marked me most was that no matter the issue or personal difficulty,
people often tried to accept and deal with a crisis in the most compassionate way. I
remember problems usually being addressed directly, rather than trying to shut someone
up just because they were disrupting the proceedings of an event. I think that trying to
live out the realities of humanity as honestly and openly as possible allowed my
community to concentrate more on celebrating life, friendship, and individual gifts.
Individual gifts were certainly celebrated in the community. My parents and the
community ingrained in me, from the very beginning, that everyone has something
unique and wonderful to offer the world. I learned to see and value these gifts through the
daily interactions of our community and the strength of certain core members. Many of
the core members at La Caravane spent all their life, or many years of it, living in
institutions where the living conditions were sub-standard and inhumane. I remember my
parents telling me one woman often spent her days tied to a chair in an institution. Yet, to
me, she was one of the most cheerful members of the community. My brothers and I
would always laugh and find it funny when she would pinch our cheeks and repeat “Rosy
cheeks, rosy cheeks!” with enthusiasm: We loved and remember her for this. This woman
impressed me with her courage to stand up for herself in the community. After years of
mistreatment, she was able to empower herself in the positive environment of L’Arche,
and was fearless. How she managed to be so trusting and loving, despite her past, was a
great lesson to me.
Like the core members, assistants and friends of our community also hold a
special place in my heart. L’Arche introduced me to people of different cultures and
backgrounds, and I feel as though they each contributed something unique to my
45
upbringing by their presence in my life. Some assistants were sisters from a religious
order and some were adventurers searching for meaning in their life. Some assistants
came from as far as Belgium or Trinidad, some were gay or lesbian, some stayed for a
while, and some stayed for years on end. I think that I learned vicariously, through the
experiences of my parents, other assistants, and core members, the value of friendship
and mutual relationships. I was exposed to a model of life where individuals strive to be
authentic in their relationships, struggle to overcome adversity and discrimination, and
work towards being their true selves.
In addition to being my first experience with diversity, L’Arche was the place of
my introduction to religion and spirituality. My parents raised me in the Roman Catholic
faith, but I knew early on that I did not have the same faith as the rest of my Catholic
peers. My baptism and first communion took place in the Caravane house, surrounded by
community members and friends, and celebrated by the priest living in our L’Arche
community. I was always proud to celebrate these sacraments within my community
because I felt these L’Arche celebrations were more authentic and meaningful than those
of my local Church. At L’Arche, my parents and the community encouraged my sense of
wonder and celebration in my spirituality. We had a tiny chapel behind the Caravane
house and, to me, it was a wonderful place of peace and tranquility of the spirit. I
especially liked going there on certain occasions, like Easter, when the community would
hold overnight vigils. My father or mother would rouse me from my sleep in the middle
of the night for our “shift” in the chapel and we would bundle up against the cold of the
early spring night. The crisp air always shook me awake, but the beauty of the night-time
sky made me feel awake in a dream. I always looked up at the clear sky, filled with bright
46
stars, and felt so alive, so connected to the world. When we reached the chapel, after a
five minute walk, we would nod a quiet acknowledgement to the person whom we were
replacing in the chapel and close the door behind us. The tiny chapel, no more than 10
feet by 10 feet and with a low ceiling, wrapped me in its mysterious warmth. Candles
were burning on the small altar and on the floor, shadows dancing on the wall. While Dad
or Mum prayed or meditated quietly by my side, I would settle among the cushions on
the floor and let peace, security, and wonderment settle my soul. When I was younger, I
would read through an illustrated child’s book about the stories and adventures of
characters in the Bible. As I grew older, I remember being able to just settle quietly and
let myself be lulled into peace by the flickering candle glow. Through the spiritual
celebrations at L’Arche, like these vigils, and my parents’ own spirituality, I learned that
my spirituality is nourished by stillness, joy, and beauty. I also discovered that spirituality
is a powerful intangible that can be found anywhere (in physical spaces, in psychological
spaces, in nature, in people), if one is willing to look hard enough for it.
Although my experiences at L’Arche were generally positive, my childhood there
has exposed me to certain personal challenges. I have always struggled with the feeling
that living at L’Arche as a child has made me incurably naïve when it comes to dealing
with the contradiction between my countercultural values and those of mainstream
society. This is not something I ever vocalized to myself or to anyone else. Rather, it is a
feeling that has followed me throughout my life, surprising me from time to time. I am
often confused or frustrated by the way Western society is structured and functions or by
the way people treat each other. I naïvely expect them to act according to the values I
learned at L’Arche. As such, my many years as a student and employee have been
47
peppered with disappointment when I have realized that they do not. I am not interested
in giving up my values: I have seen first-hand how life can be transformed when they are
lived-out daily. However, I feel that if I do not nuance some of my expectations, I will
burn out from being repeatedly let down and hurt. It is a fine balance I continually
struggle to achieve.
When I was at L’Arche, I sometimes felt as though I had one foot in my
community and one foot in the “real” world – two worlds that demanded very different
things of me. So while I often stuck up for the underdog, butted head with the meaner
children, or told classmates to stop making jokes about individuals with a disability, I
also struggled to fit in. This need to blend in, because I did not want to be different from
my peers, sometimes meant that I did not speak up, or that I called my brothers “retards”
when I was mad at them. Guilt would gnaw at my insides when I did this. It was
challenging for me to reconcile the message of L’Arche with the cruelty of children and
the pressures of the outside world.
Continually having to reconcile these two worlds has made me constantly strive to
achieve balance in my life. I have had to find a way to remain open (vulnerable) and
loving (forgiving) to resist the pull of Western society that calls us to push people away.
But I have also had to set clear boundaries, and learn when to be guarded, to protect
myself from harm. Although the contradictions between L’Arche and my life outside of it
as a child were often striking and bewildering, I know that L’Arche provided me with a
solid foundation from which to move into adolescence and adulthood.
It was however, a blessing that I was able to face the turbulence of adolescence
outside of L’Arche. Dealing with issues of identity and autonomy are complicated
48
enough without living in two very different worlds. Nevertheless, while it was convenient
for me to leave L’Arche when we did, the circumstances were not of my parents
choosing. Mismanagement and abuse of authority were at the root of our departure.
When my father verified the possibility of a sabbatical year with the director of the
community, he was met by an unexpected answer: He was told there was no longer a
place for him in the community. Realities and truths had been misconstrued by the
director when presented to the board of directors resulting in a terrible turmoil for both
our family and the community. Unable to continue working in the community under such
circumstances, my mother resigned from her position and my family moved to Ottawa,
leaving L’Arche. As these events unfolded, my parents were open with my brothers and
me about the situation, without getting into all the details. I think that this was an
important lesson for me as it helped nuance my overly positive view of L’Arche. I
learned first-hand that no matter our strong values and good intentions, we are all human
and possess the potential to hurt others and to be unkind. Although my parents’ hurt and
sadness was apparent, I must admit my 11 year old self felt only excitement about a move
to Ottawa: this was a new adventure beginning. When I did get homesick after the move,
I think it was more of a longing for familiarity than for L’Arche.
Personal Reflections on my Thesis Process: I Have Learned so Much
I intuitively chose this thesis topic more than a year ago, feeling it had to be done,
feeling that it would prove to be important to me. I was soon plagued by self-doubts,
questioning whether I would be able to critically look back on my experience and open
myself up to the process. I was right to assume autoethnography was scary and difficult. I
found it extremely challenging to sit still with my thoughts and memories and to push
49
myself to go to those areas of my story that are sad, embarrassing, and no so flattering;
and not only to face them, but to write them down for everyone to see. However, in
hearing the stories of other L’Arche children, I gained courage and inspiration. I have
been able to see L’Arche in a new light and gain new insight about my experience. Our
rich conversations instructed me about the diversity and similarity of our experiences,
thereby bringing me closer to my own experience.
When I am observing others I always treat the other person as a mirror for
looking inwardly at myself. (Xingjian, 2000, p. 151)
Former L’Arche children who were hurt and let down by L’Arche moved and inspired
me by their ability to vocalize their disappointment and address the less talked about
sides of L’Arche. Those who have a mainly positive view of L’Arche also helped me see
where I let the positive overshadow the negative in my story.
Although it was a demanding process to explore my childhood at L’Arche in a
balanced and enlightened approach, I benefited greatly. In allowing myself to explore the
nuances of my story and that of others, I was able to recognize the challenges I have
faced. Particularly, this has helped me understand and validate my feelings of frustration,
my naïveté, and my hurt, when my countercultural and mainstream worlds face off.
Recognizing that I share many experiences with other L’Arche children has also helped
me normalize my experience and put it into context.
It is humbling to recognize that one’s private and peculiar moments are only part
of a general pattern shared by countless others. (Wright, 2001, p. 111)
I can now absolve myself from the guilt I felt about my disinterest in the disability field,
about not wanting to return to L’Arche as an assistant, about not having very deep
relationships with core members, and about struggling in the explanation and
understanding of my childhood at L’Arche. Through all of these new self-discoveries,
50
this project has given me back to myself. Today, I move forward along my path more
confidently: I am better acquainted with myself, with the roots that feed my core and
keep me grounded.
Thematic Analysis of Narrative Interviews
It is as much a privilege for me to have been entrusted with the stories of my
L’Arche peers as it is a large responsibility. Before I even gathered our stories, I wrote
anxiously in my journal that I hoped I would not misrepresent or distort them. The stories
humans tell and how we tell them define our identity; they are personal, they are sacred.
That is how I approached my interviews and now, my analysis, with the utmost respect
for each story and person behind it. What follows is my attempt to analyze these stories
and draw meaning from them. My goal was not to essentialize the L’Arche experience of
children, but rather to give voice to our stories, thereby highlighting our common and
divergent experiences. I acknowledge that my way of analyzing these stories may not be
the same as yours or someone else’s way. I have tried to make myself as visible as
possible in this process so that you may clearly see my influence in the analysis of the
data. Throughout this analysis, I have inserted my comments, reactions, thoughts, and
even experiences in italicized text. I hope that this literary device will allow you to better
see me in this project and encourage you to question what you read because “there is
great value in questioning who speaks for whom; indeed, who speaks may be more
important than what is said” (Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000, p. 823).
It is my intention that you hear my voice alongside that of my L’Arche peers.
Therefore, because I am a co-creator of this data, I have included myself in this analysis
by using the terms “us” and “we.” It is important for me to let us all tell our stories in our
51
own words as much as possible throughout this document. As such, I have included many
quotations from our interviews in the next pages. These quotations are attributed to
participants in parentheses at the end of each statement. I have edited these quotations as
little as possible; removing false starts, unnecessary repetitions, and some speech
mannerisms (e.g., um, like, you know…) when they distracted from what was being said
and did not add any meaning to the quotation. In some cases, I have added certain words
in brackets to clarify quotations or to protect the privacy of individuals who figure in our
stories. At times, I have used ellipses to skip over digressions or unnecessary information.
Any italicized text in participants’ quotations represents the emphasis they put on certain
words during our interviews. Finally, you may notice in certain quotations that the
vocabulary surrounding disability is not up-to-date. Although some participants did give
me permission to edit this aspect of our interviews and apologized for not knowing the
current appropriate terms, I chose not to edit this aspect of our vocabulary. I think that
many of us used the word “handicapped,” because that is the term that was used in the
Seventies and Eighties when most of us were children at L’Arche. Furthermore, those of
us whose first language is French have most likely used the term “handicap,” because
that is the French equivalent for “disability.”
Rather than present actual numbers and proportions in my analysis, which could
lead to mistaken assumptions of significance or generalizability (Weiss, 1994), and for
stylistic purposes, I have opted to us general quantitative terms like “some” or “many” in
this analysis section. My focus is on the breadth and depth of our experiences, not on how
many of us felt some way and how many of us did not. Therefore, I used the terms
“some” or “a few” to represent less than half of us (i.e., less than 5), and the terms
52
“many” and “most” to represent more than half of our group (i.e., more than 6).
Occasionally, I have used precise numbers to refer to some of us, usually when I felt it
was important to highlight a proportion or when it was stylistically more appropriate. It is
important to remember while reading this section that mine is a very small sample of 11
(including myself) and that I am not speaking for all L’Arche children.
The following table highlights the themes that I will discuss in this section.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A Brief Overview: Who are we? Where do we come from?
L’Arche: A place in time
Living in a counterculture
Choosing L’Arche
Children in L’Arche
Families grounded in L’Arche
Our L’Arche connection: Talk about sense of community
Building strong relationships at L’Arche
Growing up “Goddi”: Religion and spirituality in L’Arche
Becoming: L’Arche’s role in forming our identity
A Brief Overview – Who Are We? Where do We Come From?
I conducted narrative interviews with 10 fellow L’Arche children; six women and
four men. Together, our current age ranged between 20 and 38 years (our mean age was
27 years). Many of our parents met and married at L’Arche when they were assistants or
founding members of a community. Many of our fathers moved into leadership positions
such as community director or various positions within L’Arche Canada or L’Arche
International. Most of our mothers occupied a variety of positions at L’Arche over the
years (e.g. assistant, counselor, coordinator) in addition to spending much of our early
childhood raising us.
Many of us were born at L’Arche or entered L’Arche between one and two years
of age. We had relatively large families with a mean of four children per family. Two of
53
our families adopted children, some of whom had Down Syndrome. While we lived at
L’Arche, we attended school and participated in activities outside our L’Arche
communities. We are experienced veterans of community life, our experience ranging
from approximately 9 to 21 years of life at L’Arche. Many of us lived in two different
communities over this period of time and we all lived in Canadian L’Arche communities
except for one of us who also lived for a period of time in a L’Arche community abroad.
L’Arche: A Place in Time
L’Arche came to Canada in 1969, a time when some of us feel that the spirit of
the Seventies influenced L’Arche and our parents’ choice to live and raise their families
in an intentional community. Generally speaking, our parents came to L’Arche looking
for a purposeful life based on their values. Many of our parents joined or founded
L’Arche communities in rural Canada and adopted a simple way of living, which often
included some kind of farm. “I guess that it’s kind of important that our L’Arche was in
the countryside. My parents were really inspired by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and
stuff. And they really wanted to live simplistically so they bought this big piece of land in
the middle of Cape-Breton” (Christina). For the six of us who were raised in rural
L’Arche communities, living in the country and on a farm-like setting was an important
part of our childhood, an aspect we treasured. The remaining five of us who were raised
in urban L’Arche communities however, did not focus on the importance of our
communities’ locality in our stories.
The Seventies mentality of peace, love, freedom, and equality that permeated our
communities led to a very carefree and innocent childhood for many of us. When I first
began my thesis journey, I realized that my childhood recollections were pretty utopian
54
and that L’Arche stood on a protected pedestal in my mind. I soon discovered that many
of us saw and spoke of L’Arche in this way.
I always thought that growing up, and even now, looking back, I do think that
L’Arche was an amazing place…. it was this perfect bliss. You know, nothing
ever really went wrong. It was just an amazing place (…) something just
extraordinary. (Krista)
In the planning stages of this project, one of my thesis committee members
encouraged me to look at issues of conflict and ambiguity in my story and those of my
participants. I agreed that I wanted a balanced perspective for my thesis but I was a little
unsure of how to go about this and where it would lead me. It was hard work to look at
my experience differently and to seek out the ambiguity that lay beneath our blissful
recollections. During our interviews, I sometimes had to probe several times and repeat
my intention for a balanced perspective. It was not easy for some of us, we were just not
very interested (or able? or ready?) to see L’Arche differently, because our childhood
really was pretty great and that made it easy to let the negatives slip and fade into the
background. Participants among us who did not have such a pleasant experience with
L’Arche were more forthcoming with the challenges, drawbacks, and faults of L’Arche. I
was impressed by this honesty and ability to vocalize the hurt.
In speaking with my L’Arche peers, it became clear to me that a few of us felt that
our parents were the ones most entranced by the utopian feel of L’Arche. In fact, those of
us who fully experienced both the positive and negative sides of L’Arche think that our
parents were somewhat naïve in jumping in to community life and raising us at L’Arche.
I think that they just want[ed] this different life. And sometimes I feel… No, I
know, they were really blinded and they were innocent (…) as to what this
change would mean for the family…. They were going to live their lives in an
alternative way and it was going to be all good (…) You know, all of these lofty
ideals. But I think the reality was something a little different. (Shelagh)
55
Consequently, some of us felt that the biggest failing of this utopian naïveté was the
unspoken assumption by some of our parents, and other community members, that
nothing bad could happen at L’Arche, when in fact it did. I think that those of us who still
see L’Arche through rose coloured glasses do so because we did not live through the big
failings or let-downs that some of us did. Two narrative participants (Peter and another
participant who wishes to remain anonymous) shared their confrontation with such a
failing when they told me they were sexually abused by a core member at L’Arche. After
I wrote and distributed a draft of this analysis section to participants and key
stakeholders, Natasha, the younger sister of narrative participant Shelagh, contacted me
to say that she was sexually abused by a L’Arche assistant and his brother while in the
assistant’s care.9
When these stories of abuse were first shared with me, I was stunned and did not
quite know how to respond. It was hard to reconcile this painful, horrible thing
happening in the happy L’Arche that I remembered from my childhood. I was
uncomfortable, sad and confused, but I admitted to myself that deep down I was not
really that surprised after all. I remembered seeing the potential for abuse at L’Arche
when I was a child. Nevertheless, I never seriously entertained the possibility that any of
my participants would have such experiences, let alone share them with me. I was a naïve
researcher who underestimated both my participants and their experiences.
I was not the only one to see the potential for abuse at L’Arche, and most of us
acknowledged this in our discussions. It was hard to avoid seeing or experiencing shades
of inappropriate sexual behaviour when we were at L’Arche (as children or later as
9
Natasha felt it was important for her to share her story of abuse in this project. It was also very important
to her to have her name and her voice acknowledged. In support of this, I am including Natasha’s story of
abuse (written by her) in Appendix P along with the remainder of our stories.
56
assistants). Life at L’Arche was unpredictable in the sense that you never really knew
what some core members would do. When you consider that most (if not all) of them did
not have any outlets to express their sexual tension or to have their sexual needs met, it is
not very surprising that the resulting tension got expressed in socially inappropriate ways
like overly affectionate hugs, exhibitionism, and so on. However, those of us who did not
have to suffer through direct abuse were generally able to disregard or downplay this
facet of life at L’Arche. When I asked Catherine if she had recognized this aspect of
inappropriate sexual behaviour at L’Arche, she explained her perception and experience
with it.
Yeah, yeah. That of course it arrives because I remember there was one guy, I
was young, and he was trying to kiss me on my mouth and all that. It was quite
disturbing, you know, it’s not really funny. And now I am assistant, I know how
to deal with that. When I was young, I just didn’t [know] what to do with that and
I didn’t understand and so this part is difficult. But mostly it’s not the most
important thing that I remember. It’s not [the] things that affected me a lot.
Those of us who did survive sexual abuse at L’Arche, however, were profoundly affected
by the experience, as is normal in such cases. Surprisingly, both Peter and my other
narrative participant said the abuse did not ruin their relationship with L’Arche. They
both emphasized to me that they did not blame L’Arche for the sexual abuse and that they
really attributed it to their abuser.
I don’t want to condemn L’Arche despite that. I think there’s so many more
positive things that I think that’s a drop in the bucket. And I want to make that
clear that I don’t hold resentment towards L’Arche. And I think that’s an
important thing to note, for me anyways. (Anonymous)
Natasha, however, feels quite differently. L’Arche took Natasha’s parents away, leaving
her in a vulnerable position in which she suffered abuse. “To this day I will never be able
to forgive L’Arche for taking my parents away from us” (Natasha, personal
communication, July 24, 2005).
57
I want to be clear here that in the case of my two narrative participants, their
parents were made aware of the abuse and the issue was dealt with in their communities
by the removal of the abuser. Both also used therapy to address difficulties stemming
from their abuse, though Peter only sought minimal therapy several years after the
abuse. These were two separate cases of abuse, perpetrated by two different core
members in two different communities. In Natasha’s case, she repressed the abuse until
the age of nineteen when memories of the abuse started to return. Natasha underwent a
lot of therapy, eventually pressed charges that were investigated but denied by the
perpetrators, and finally filed for compensation from a victim’s assistance program. The
small monetary compensation Natasha was awarded from this program is an important
acknowledgement: her experience is valid, it is real.
During narrative interviews, and through later correspondence, further examples
of the difficult issues brought up by sexuality in L'Arche communities (for assistants,
children, and core members alike) were shared with me. Consequently, as all of these
experiences show, the potential for abuse was present at L’Arche, not only in core
members who had complex sexual histories or challenges, but also in the many assistants
that came through the doors of our communities. I suspect that police checks were not the
norm back then and core members and children were often left alone with these trusted
adults. In the end, however, what constitutes the core of the issue is not “Who did what to
whom?” but rather “Why and how was this allowed to happen?” Therefore, what
emerged from our discussions as being important to us was that L’Arche should take a
closer look at the issue of sexual abuse and acknowledge its existence. Furthermore,
although we have come a long way in our beliefs about people with disabilities, some of
58
us feel that there still seems to be an unwillingness to see core members as sexual beings.
For Peter, this must be addressed at L’Arche so that parents and assistants can protect
children, core members, and themselves.
People have to take more of a realistic look at who these people are and how
human they are…. I think it’s kind of the whole thing that for the longest time
(…) the general perception is you know, maybe that these people are not sexual.
Even though you hear these certain things have happened. (Peter)
The utopian atmosphere in our communities may have lulled some of our parents
into a false sense of security that made them a little careless about safety, but I do not
think that any of us would go so far as to say they were negligent. Some of us roamed
freely on our community’s property and were left alone with core members, even able to
visit their rooms. However, others had strict off-limit guidelines about bedrooms; were
rarely, if ever, left alone with core members; and were even sometimes given pointers by
parents on how to avoid inappropriate sexual behaviour.
While sexual abuse shattered the utopian illusion of L’Arche for some of us, there
were also many other circumstances that nuanced the utopia for all of us. There were all
kinds of challenges to living out these ideals of love, freedom and equality.
Consequently, our childhood at L’Arche exposed all of us, to a certain extent, to violent
crises and outbursts on the part of some core members struggling with their difficulties.
Some of us came to experience these outbursts as a normal part of life at L’Arche, while
others felt our safety threatened. The core members in all of our communities came with
a different background, personality, and personal baggage. Some of our communities
appear to have welcomed more “high needs” core members, while others welcomed more
independent and mentally stable core members. In hearing all of our stories, the stability
of core members seems to be the element that stands out as the determining factor in our
59
sense of safety. Shelagh came from a community with several mentally unstable core
members who initially lived in the same house as her family, and later in an adjoining
duplex for several years. Under such circumstances, she experienced serious safety issues
with which the rest of us were not faced.
A lot of the people we lived with at the time… Like I don’t think that necessarily
we should have been living with them. They were a bit dicey in terms of just their
own mental stability. I think probably they were mentally handicapped, but I
think there were lots of other mental health issues with them…. I have lots of
memories of feeling insecure, not that safe. I’ve got a memory of one of the men,
one night, going after my dad with a knife and being kind of scurried off to our
bedroom.
Although a few of us heard stories about violent crises in our community without
ever witnessing them, many of us experienced the crises without feeling as though they
were directed at us or threatening our safety.
…Like when someone was having a crisis or something and lock themselves up
in their room, or would throw a chair, or whatever. And that was okay for me to
see…. Even though there was a lot of chaos sometimes, I always felt like
someone else was stepping in. I was just kind of on the sidelines observing and I
never felt it directed at me…. And when it was a public thing, usually even the
core members had some sort of restraint…. No one ever really got caught up
enough that they forgot that there were kids around and did anything dangerous to
us or for us. I never felt that. (Inouk)
As children at L’Arche, not only did we see people get physically upset and violent, but
we also got to see people pull out their false teeth in public, lift their shirt up to expose
bare flesh, scream at each other, and do a thousand socially inappropriate things.
Sometimes we remembered these odd and shocking behaviours more than the violent
outbursts. Regardless, we usually did not stay stunned or shocked for very long. It was
just part of our reality.
60
Some of us took all the “controlled chaos” of L’Arche and learned about
humanity without the socially sugar-coated, nicely packaged exterior that conceals our
wounds, wants, and weaknesses.
When you’re in L’Arche, you really face (…) that people get violent or that
people are gonna be angry (…) And I think that there’s no way that you can hide
those things so you just experience it. And I think that’s probably one of the
really important things that you come away from…you come away from L’Arche
with that. (Christina)
In this sense, it seemed to some of us that L’Arche made us wiser and more
knowledgeable about people and about life; more able to expect (and to welcome) the
unexpected. Although some of us felt wiser and more able because of L’Arche, others
sometimes felt naïve because we believed so much in the utopian-tinged ideals of
L’Arche and were confronted with quite another reality once we stepped out of our
communities.
I kind of think that the situation was so nurturing and so protective an
environment. I think that was a very idyllic kind of setting to grow up in. And the
only thing that it did was that it really didn’t prepare me for life outside of
L’Arche…. I was just really ill-equipped to handle the rest of the world. (JeanFrédérick)
L’Arche taught us to trust others and to be vulnerable to them. The mutuality and the
nurturing aspect of our relationships and encounters within L’Arche was sometimes
completely foreign to others in the outside worlds where we went to school or work,
where cynicism, self-preservation, and competition ruled. It was not always easy for us to
understand and deal with this.
Living in a Counterculture
Although hippie communes were popular in the Seventies, L’Arche remained a
countercultural setting that clashed with Western notions of how one should live, and
especially with whom one should live. In being at L’Arche, our families definitely
61
challenged the societal idea of what a “normal” life was by living a simple, highly
spiritual, non-materialistic life with people with disabilities. For most of us, L’Arche was
always what we knew and we carried this countercultural aspect with us. Sometimes it
clashed with outside views and norms, and sometimes we really did not feel there was
any tension between our life at L’Arche and our life outside of it.
Many of us felt at one time or another that we were different from our peers
because of our experience at L’Arche. Our home environment, teeming with people and
activities, and shared with people with disabilities, was not like any of our friends’
homes. Generally, the feeling of difference was not something that preoccupied us very
much. Yet it always seemed to hover there in the background. Some of us only seemed to
become conscious of our difference as we got older and understood more about L’Arche
and social norms. Adolescence, for those of us who spent it at L’Arche, was especially
made a little more difficult because we lived in a countercultural setting. It was often then
that we saw the uniqueness of our lifestyle and values more clearly.
Not unlike all teenagers, we were faced with issues of embarrassment during our
adolescence. However, in addition to being embarrassed by the usual elements, we were
also embarrassed by the sometimes circus-like atmosphere of our community. Assistants
and core members were loud and exuberant in their interactions. Core members did not
always follow proper social etiquette or behavioural norms and did silly or bizarre things.
Like most teenagers, we sometimes just wished our life would be normal and that we
could do our own thing. Eventually, this led some of us to break away from L’Arche, as I
will explain in the following section that addresses the theme of choice in our life at
L’Arche.
62
Most of us were not socially handicapped by our life at L’Arche and had normal
social and interpersonal dealings with our peers. Some of us were even quite popular
because you could always count on excitement around our house with all the activity of
our community. Nonetheless, bringing friends into this environment was sometimes
tricky for some of us. We knew our home life was not like that of our friends and
sometimes we wondered how they would react to our life at L’Arche. For many of us, it
was mostly a positive experience and we did not have to worry too much about being
rejected by our peers because of the stigma attached to people with disabilities. However,
sometimes we could not escape the discomfort that our friends felt around people with
disabilities.
Unfortunately for two of us, our peers’ learned insecurities and prejudices towards
people with disabilities led them to tease and stigmatize us for living at L’Arche. Peers
and classmates made fun of where Peter and Inouk lived and with whom. Their cruel and
thoughtless attacks left these two with many wounds and insecurities.
For a long time I was insecure in certain ways…. Some of that, I’m sure, is due to
the fact that I would get mocked and in fact, physically beaten up, or put in
headlocks and that kind of thing at school, because I lived on the “funny farm.”
(Peter)
Many of us really struggled to understand why our friends and other people were
so uncomfortable around people with disabilities and our living with them. For us, it was
just so natural to accept people as they were that we were confused when we met with the
intolerance of others.
I remember once when one of my friends came for supper and she felt out of
place and uncomfortable with a handicapped person being there. And I kind of
realized, I think, at that point that I thought it was normal because that’s the way
it had always been. And so I think that’s when I sort of became conscious of:
“Hey, that’s not everybody’s experience.” And I realized then [that] some people
63
were uncomfortable around handicapped people…. [but] I didn’t understand why.
(Stéphanie)
Today, many of us are still faced with this difficulty in comprehending or
accepting society’s views of people with disabilities. Mostly though, we have struggled
and continue to struggle with explaining L’Arche (and our childhood there) to others.
Whether we invited friends home as children or were asked about our childhood and
where we lived, we always had (and still have) a lot of explaining to do. “I would find
that really challenging, to try and figure out how to explain our life; how to figure out
how to tell people what do my mom and dad do. Cause I never really knew how to
explain it.” (Shelagh) Of course one of the biggest issues that made our explanations
difficult was that people with disabilities were involved. The concept is just so foreign to
many people that we often knew that, however we may phrase the explanation of our life
at L’Arche, most people would not understand. To further complicate our explanations,
not only did we have to face the stigma of living with people with disabilities, but also
the stigmas attached to communal living and spiritual or religious communities.
There’s so many stigmas attached to other communes. You know, like Jonestown
and other kind of group activities gone awry that it’s something that conjures up a
lot of really odd notions in people’s heads. And especially with religious
overtones, it often gets misunderstood or misinterpreted or whatever. (JeanFrédérick)
Therefore, explaining what our community did, how it worked, and why our parents
chose to live this way was almost always a challenge. Many of us continue to simplify or
omit this part of our lives when interacting with strangers or acquaintances, sometimes
even with good friends, because although it is a big part of who we are, it is too foreign
and incomprehensible to many around us. However, not all of us have been weighed
down by issues of disclosure surrounding our childhood. Catherine really takes pride in
64
being at L’Arche and sees people’s ignorance as an opportunity for her to educate them
and tell them about L’Arche. She does however, tend to omit the spiritual facet of
L’Arche in her explanations because that part of her life makes her uncomfortable and it
is difficult for her to explain.
So I have come to realize that much like we differ in our perceptions of, and
experiences at L’Arche, we each approach our explanation of it in a different way and we
all struggle with some aspect of life there. Like my L’Arche peers, I am not ashamed of
my childhood there (I am quite proud actually), but I sometimes just don’t want to have
to look at those blank stares and try to summarize in two or three short sentences the
philosophy of L’Arche and the experiences I hold nearest and dearest to me. L’Arche has
had such an important role to play in my development that it is not really the sort of deep
topic you want to get into when strangers or acquaintances ask you a polite question that
is quite simple to answer for the majority of the population. The irony is not lost on me
that in choosing this particular topic for my thesis I have exposed myself to frequent
questions from all kinds of people about this private and complicated part of my personal
story (“Oh, your thesis, really? What’s it about?”), which I had shelved away, untouched
for so long.
Choosing L’Arche
Although most of us are happy and proud of our childhood at L’Arche, none of us
entered our communities through choices of our own. Only as we grew into our own
individuality did we start to face various choices about our relationship with L’Arche and
its place in our lives. Consequently, L’Arche’s presence in our lives has varied in
65
intensity throughout the years, and its ebb and flow is strongly tied to the theme of
choice.
Choice to join: members by default. Much like no child can choose where his or
her family will live, we were unable to choose to live in L’Arche – it was simply where
our parents chose to raise us. While we were either born into our communities, or brought
into them as young children by our parents, this absence of choice did not negatively
affect most of us. We generally did not resent our parents for making this decision for us
because like all children, we took our life and daily reality at face value. Shelagh,
however, having been uprooted from her safe and stable home and dropped into the chaos
of a community in creation, had a very difficult time accepting her parents’ choice. “I
wouldn’t say that I’m resentful of my parents. Although there certainly was a time when I
was just angry, and I really had to work through that anger in my twenties” (Shelagh).
Although we were not able to choose to join our L’Arche communities in the
beginning, many of us eventually chose L’Arche. It was not a conscious choice in most
cases, but rather an unconscious acceptance of our life there. After all, we participated as
fully as we could in community life and were considered part of a group that many
admired and wanted to join.
Because there were such strong examples of people choosing to be part of the
community, my choice was naturally to choose the same thing. I mean I could
have rebelled but I didn’t really have a point in rebelling…. I didn’t need, you
know, to rebel against that idea of participating. I was happy there and that was
genuine. (…) I guess I chose it. (Inouk)
Choice of involvement. Much like our choice to join the community, the choice to
participate (or not) in community activities was mostly regulated by our age. When we
were younger, we had to attend events by default because our parents did. However, as
we grew older, many of us felt able to choose when and how often we wanted to
66
participate in community events, even if there was still some influence on our parents’
part.
Most of us usually enjoyed L’Arche activities so it was often a non-issue that we
had to accompany our parents to community events. Part of our enjoyment stemmed from
all the fun activities and people at L’Arche, and part of it stemmed from us being given
space and not always being forced to participate in everything. Many of us could go to
community events and just watch or sit on our own and do our own thing. However,
some of us were presented with fewer choices, even as we moved into adolescence. For
us, this lack of choice was especially frustrating, because most of the meetings or events
we had to attend no longer considered our teenage needs and interests. Finally, whether
we had a high or a low level of choice in our participation at L’Arche, we all considered
it important for children to be given as much choice as possible in their involvement with
L’Arche and that their choices be respected.
Leaving L’Arche. As we neared adolescence, the lack of a defined place for
L’Arche children, and the pull of outside interests and needs pushed some of us to break
away from L’Arche. Some of us simply attended community events less frequently,
because we wanted to spend more time with our friends or at our part-time jobs. For
some of us, our choice was disguised or made a little easier by having to leave home to
attend university. However, at a certain point, a few of us consciously broke all ties with
L’Arche, and even with our families. For us, it was an attempt at self-discovery,
rebellion, and sometimes protest.
I just sort of wanted to get away from everything that I knew at that point and try
my own experiences. I even actually didn’t speak to my parents all that much
during that time. I just went through a phase where I could say now that
community was probably the last thing on my mind at that point. I just wanted
67
something else, something new. And I was seventeen at that point, so I guess
adolescence kicked in: I was just kind of rebelling against everything. Obviously,
since community had been so present in my life then, that was like: “Okay. I’ve
had enough of that.” And I mean, what I was looking for was to sort of have my
own idea of what community was in terms of, you know, just my friends but not
related with L’Arche in any way. (Stéphanie)
Creating space between ourselves and L’Arche was an important part of discovering our
selves and of processing our experience there while our parents remained involved with
our communities.
Five of our families (mine included) left our communities prematurely because of
conflict, politics, or issues related to the demands of community life. Two families left
because of the strongly held belief that the skills needed to found a community were not
the same as those needed to continue its growth. As such, our parents were strongly
encouraged out of our communities. By community members? By board members? By
the greater L’Arche organization? We do not know. All we know is that our families
would have otherwise stayed in our communities.
Sometimes the reality of living communally at L’Arche did not fulfill the needs of
our parents and their temporary sabbaticals from L’Arche turned into permanent ones.
Sometimes, as Inouk shared, life at L’Arche also did not always fit with the needs of our
families.
So after 11 years at L’Arche, my dad had a burnout. It was too much for him…. I
think there were stresses about financial issues…. They [parents] felt very guilty
about leaving. And I remember them having huge issues about it…. We didn’t
really have much input (…). I don’t think I realized it at the time, but looking
back, I remember those being difficult years, because we didn’t really know what
was going on, and I only found out later that my dad had done a burnout.
This rupture with L’Arche was indeed difficult for many children. Just as we had no
choice in joining our community, most of us were also left out of the decision to leave. In
Christina’s case, she feels her parents also had no choice in leaving L’Arche, even if they
68
wanted the children to believe it was their decision. “I’m not entirely sure what happened.
It was presented to us children, I think, as though it was [our parents’] choice. But I don’t
think it really was…. It wasn’t like nothing that any of us really wanted” (Christina).
Today, many years later, darkness, mystery, sadness, and confusion still surround the
circumstances around the rupture between our families and L’Arche.
Returning to L’Arche as assistants. While we all left L’Arche in some shape or
form through choices of our own or of our parents, the choice to return as an assistant
was always ours to make, and continues to be. Four of us, including many of our siblings,
made the choice to be assistants for a period in our lives. Some of us chose to be
assistants because we wanted to see what it would be like to experience L’Arche from a
different perspective. Others wanted to see if we had what it takes to deal with the daily
concerns of life at L’Arche, but none of us really went into it wanting to make the same
lifestyle choice our parents and other assistants before us had made. For most of us, being
an assistant was a safe, familiar, and easy summer or temporary job. It was also a great
way to work abroad. In fact, for the seven of us who have not been assistants at L’Arche,
and who are not particularly drawn to it, L’Arche still remains a backup plan in our
minds, no matter how remote, because it is an easy way to see the world and it is a
familiar place. There are several reasons why the seven of us have chosen not to be
assistants at L’Arche. Some of us are just not interested in working in the disability field.
Others simply do not feel a need to relive the L’Arche experience again. We feel called
elsewhere and want to pursue other avenues. The intense spiritual and religious facet of
L’Arche, which I will discuss later in this thematic analysis, also keeps some of us away
69
from being assistants. Finally, for those of us who did not become assistants, the choice
was usually obvious early on in our lives.
You know, I have no interest in doing it.… For me, L’Arche wasn’t about
growing up and being a L’Arche person. I just feel I was so, sooo fortunate to live
it as a child. I think it was much richer than I could live it as an adult. Because in
my adult life now I have my own projects and my own ambitions and I think
that’s what L’Arche taught me; is to listen to that and to trust myself in those
quests, I guess. (Inouk)
Choice in present and future involvement. Whether or not we chose to become
assistants, we have all had, and continue to have, a choice in our current and future
involvement with L’Arche. Currently, none of us is living in a L’Arche community with
our family or as assistants – we seem to have moved on. For most of us it has been a
gradual and fairly easy choice that our parents have accepted and supported, even if some
of them may have hoped that we would choose the same path as they.
In our current and future choices, our group covers a broad range of involvement
with our former L’Arche communities. Most of us remain connected in some way to
L’Arche through a family member. For some of us, the relationship continues because
our parents (or a spouse or sibling) still live or work directly with L’Arche. For others,
the link remains because our parents, even though they are no longer at L’Arche, still
maintain relationships and friendships with certain core members and assistants and
attend occasional L’Arche gatherings. There is a persistent thread that connects us to
L’Arche, even though we have chosen a different path for our lives. “I can never not be a
part of L’Arche at least at a certain level. It’s always part of my life and who I am. But
it’s just not what I choose as a lifestyle anymore” (Peter). Although this silent presence is
sometimes all that some of us have, it drives another group of us to actively maintain a
link with L’Arche in our present and future endeavours. For some, maintaining contact
70
with L’Arche can mean returning as an assistant, acting as a board member, attending
community nights, providing financial support, or even making L’Arche the focus of our
thesis, I suppose.
Another way that some of us continue our relationship with L’Arche is through
our children. Although only three of us are currently parents, those of us who are, and
those of us who anticipate this role in the future, are generally glad to be able to have the
opportunity to expose our children to L’Arche and its values of acceptance and respect
for diversity.
It’s nice to be a witness to the next generation of L’Arche kids from an adult
perspective. I thought it could be interesting to sort of show [L’Arche] to [my
daughter]. And I thought it was important for her also to know at a young age to
respect handicapped people and not to be uncomfortable around them…. I’d like
my daughter definitely to just sort of know that (…) some people do choose to
live this way and choose to really share their life with somebody…. I just think it
sort of opens your mind to more…. So I think if I can just give that to my
daughter, that it’ll be a lot. (…) That’s probably one of the reasons that push me
to continue with L’Arche and with her. But at the same time, if at some point she
decides that she doesn’t want to go there anymore, then that’s fine because I don’t
want to force her into it or anything. I had choices, so will she. (Stéphanie)
Respecting our children’s needs and feelings around L’Arche is very important to us,
especially those of us who, at times, lived through invasions of private space and fear for
our safety. Our experience at L’Arche has instilled in us a need to nourish our children’s
minds and spirits, but also a drive to protect them from some of the hardships we
endured.
Children in L’Arche
In many ways, L’Arche is a wonderful place for children because, for most of us,
it provided lots of space to play, have fun, and just be children. Though we were not
involved in the daily concerns of running the community, or in the adult meetings and
discussions of our communities, we were all involved in community activities and
71
celebrations. In addition to participating in community events and religious celebrations,
we sometimes had our own games or activities, or were free to roam around, to play, and
to discover. A few of us even had the privilege to help our parents with the care of
animals or other farm chores when our community had a farming component. Having the
space and peace of mind to be children in the midst of sometimes intense community life
was important to us, even if we did not necessarily realize it then.
In retrospect, it’s kind of neat, because I wasn’t aware of a lot of things about
what my parents were going through then, about starting the community. But I’ve
been told since that we welcomed a lot of difficult people (…) so it was quite a
difficult time, but I didn’t know it. [I] really respect my parents for being able to
go keep us from that, even from stuff like, you know, the politics of L’Arche and
stuff. I was never aware of that when I was younger. (Christina)
For the most part, we children felt like we belonged in L’Arche and that it was
our place. After all, many of us were born into our communities. The feelings of warmth
and love are clear in most of our memories. “I always had people who wanted to relate to
me….People wanted to be around me, people wanted me to feel included” (JeanFrédérick). However, while most of us felt we had a privileged place in our communities
during our early childhood, some of us who continued to live at L’Arche through
adolescence started to feel less certain about our place in the community. Suddenly, some
of us were no longer provided with appropriate activities for our age group and had to
attend community meetings that dealt with daily community issues, which did not really
concern or interest us at the time. Stéphanie who was at L’Arche from early childhood
through to adolescence, voiced her struggle with the loss of her place in the community.
I think as adolescents it’s kind of harder to find your place in L’Arche. I think as
children you relate more easily to the handicapped people and to the assistants,
whereas when you’re an adolescent, (…) you don’t really care what other people
are doing. You kind of want to do your thing. So I think it’s just harder.
(Stéphanie)
72
When I asked my L’Arche peers what role they thought we occupied in L’Arche
communities, many of us first said we felt like the adopted children of all the community
members. Many of us also felt as though children bring joy to L’Arche communities and
their members by bringing out the lighter side of life and reducing the tension that stems
from communal living. We thought that our innocent joy and energy benefited core
members who struggled with their difficult pasts and tried to adjust to life at L’Arche.
Finally, some of us also felt that our role was to link our L’Arche community to its
surrounding community and neighbours (by going to school and participating in activities
outside of L’Arche), thereby preventing it from becoming closed off.
Families Grounded in L’Arche
Balance was not an issue we considered exclusive to our community. The
commitment to live in community with people with disabilities and a constantly changing
host of assistants challenged our families to find a balance between family and
community life, physically, mentally, and financially.
Whether our parents joined L’Arche with a young family or started their family at
L’Arche, the first few years were sometimes challenging and stressful for many of them.
Our parents were often building a new family and a new community at the same time.
Initially, L’Arche attracted celibate individuals to live in its communities to lead a life of
service, not couples or families. Therefore, our parents and their fellow community
members had to work hard at finding our families’ place and space in the community.
In fact, seven of our families shared a community house (sometimes with their
own apartment, sometimes not) with core members and assistants. Most of us did this in
the early years of our family’s membership in L’Arche and so our memories are only the
73
vague recollections of very young children. With the exception of Shelagh who lived in a
community house until her early teens, most of us moved into a house of our own, either
on the community property or close-by, within a few years. No matter our living
situation, we unanimously felt that having our own family space at L’Arche was really
important in our development.
Even with our own family space, there were still some intrusions from time to
time. Visitors from other communities, assistants, or core members sometimes dropped
by uninvited, or one of our parents would be called to a community house in the middle
of supper to go help with something. Sometimes we got upset by these demands of
community life, but generally speaking, we understood that it was part of our life. In most
communities, a real effort was made to minimize these intrusions and our parents tried to
set clear boundaries so that we knew where we stood. As Inouk shared with me, we were
well aware of these boundaries and any transgression of them.
Sometimes we’d have a core member over for dinner and I’d be pissed off
because, oh, you know, they’d be intruding. This is our private time, not
community time. And there was a very clear difference for me between when we
had celebrations or events, or when I was visiting or whatever.
Our parents often further defined boundaries by creating special family routines
or traditions that we really cherished. These were special times and occasions away from
the community when our family could unite and enjoy activities together. Family meals,
where we could catch up on each other’s day, vacations away from the community, and
outdoor activities were things that many of our families consciously made a priority. For
those of us whose family life and space had fewer boundaries, the loss of privacy and a
defined family unit was felt deeply.
74
All the meals were with everybody. So I have lots of memories of dinner with 12,
or 14, or 16 people. On one hand that was really exciting and wonderful and fun
because there was lots of action. And as a kid that’s really fun when there’s lots
of things going on. On the other hand, it was really hard because we were always
competing for my mum and dad’s attention. There were lots of dinners where,
you know, you just couldn’t really get in everything that you needed to say,
because there were ten other people eating dinner with you. (Shelagh)
In addition to needing special family time away from the community, many of us
noted the importance of having special time and activities for ourselves, whether it was to
do sports, art, music, or organized group/school activities. Our parents were usually very
good at providing us with the opportunity to participate in many outside activities, which
we appreciated. However, sometimes we were not able to participate in everything we
would have liked or did not have all the possessions we desired because of our parents’
small salaries (and our often large families). Again, this issue seems partially linked to
L’Arche’s initial membership of celibate members who did not have to provide for a
family. Inouk described the impact his parents’ low salary had on his family.
I think there were stresses about financial issues. Because raising five kids is
great in a community where everything is paid for but you don’t have a salary.
But it’s not so great when you’re starting to think of the future, and retirement,
and things like that…. I think at that time that was a frustration, the lack of
financial value to the work, which is part of the L’Arche philosophy, which I
understand, but it leads to losing people because at one point, you know, L’Arche
is about L’Arche. L’Arche is not about building financially secure families. And,
you know, that’s clear. And that’s how it should be, but at some point a family
needs to take its responsibilities.
My discussions with my L’Arche peers usually just grazed the surface of this issue
because we were working from childhood recollections that did not focus on the financial
future of our families. Mostly, we knew that we usually had less material possessions
than our peers, without feeling deprived or impoverished. Some of us had more
financially able relatives who helped our families, and often, we would receive donations
75
or services through the community. In general, the social wealth and love we received at
L’Arche compensated for the few material goods we did not have.
Although it was sometimes difficult as young children to understand and accept
the lifestyle our parents had chosen for our families at L’Arche, we learned a lot about
sharing and giving, and the value of non-material things. It even instilled in some of us
the pride of living simply and being non-consumers.
I just realized that it was not because [my parents] wanted to earn just a little bit,
but because it was really a choice, and there was this political aspect of it also to
not follow everything in the society. So yeah, I think just living in this and seeing
another way of living helped me a lot in my values now. (Catherine)
Another gift of communal living was that our parents were generally more present
in our lives because they had some flexibility in their work. Even though one or both of
our parents often held a position of leadership in L’Arche that demanded a lot of their
time and energy, most of us felt that they were more available to us than if they were
working in a nine-to-five job. Their work environment was often just doors down from
our house; they could easily rearrange their work day to be available to us; and in many
cases, our mothers stayed home to take care of us when we were younger.
While we often understood the unpredictable aspect of community life that
sometimes called our parents away from us, the nature of some of their positions, and
their level of commitment to their “work,” sometimes took them away from us more than
we would have liked. For three of us in particular, this was something difficult to accept
and understand when we were younger. David shared his struggled with his father’s
absences.
I remember that was really tough for me especially. I think because I was
probably at the age where I wanted him around more…. When I was younger, he
and I would have some issues about him not being around. We’d always be
fighting. I didn’t understand why he was gone….. That led to some issues with
76
my father and me, but they’ve long since been resolved…. Part of the solution, I
guess, part of that being better, is me getting older and realizing how important
the work that he did was and, I think now understanding what a difference he
made to a lot of people and on a global level. (David)
With so much of our parents’ and families’ lives invested in L’Arche, many of us
acknowledged its impact on our family life. The values and beliefs that drive L’Arche
played an important role in moulding our family unit into what it is today. In fact,
L’Arche is so much a part of our families that most of us had some difficulty in
untangling what aspects of our childhood were due to L’Arche and which were due to our
parents. The values our parents wanted to instill in us were reinforced and brought to life
daily in the community and at home.
Our L’Arche Connection: Talk about Sense of Community
Living at L’Arche certainly connected us to a network of people within and
around our immediate community, and taught us the importance of community. Our
sense of community and belonging are quite evident when many of us directly refer to
L’Arche as our extended family. The members of our communities played an active role
in our upbringing and they maintain a special place in our lives. Catherine’s
understanding of this constant and special link is clear.
I was always conscious that there was this thing that was special and that I had
some people related around me…. A few times I questioned myself on why I
didn’t have a normal life and so on, but I remember that many times I [saw] the
life of my friends and I was feeling privileged to have a community around me….
[L’Arche] was a place where I could refer and something stable in my life….
Even when I was a teenager, (…) it always stayed. I never [lost] this feeling that I
had a community and really a feeling of belonging to something. And that was
quite strong I think.
We especially remember the presence of many people in our lives at L’Arche.
There was a constant flow of visitors and people with whom we could talk, play, and
from whom we could learn. All the people dropping by would be welcomed into our
77
community with such ease and warmth. For many of us, there is nothing quite like the
sense of welcome that one feels at L’Arche. While some of us have struggled to recreate
the sense of welcome and connection we experienced at L’Arche in our current lives, it is
still something that many of us seek out. We enjoy the presence of others and strive to
create a sense of community around us.
In addition to the sense of welcome that permeated our communities, the
nurturing focus of relationships at L’Arche made many of us feel supported and anything
but alone. I will explore these relationships in greater depth in the following section.
Much of our sense of belonging was cemented through the activities in which we
participated as a community. We had regular community nights, weekends, and miniretreats where our communities would gather to discuss or explore certain issues, pray,
and share a meal together. Birthdays were always highlighted and celebrated, as were the
anniversaries of the community and its members. Our communities each had their own
traditions and special events like winter games or Christmas and Easter celebrations.
Many of us cherish the camaraderie that came out in the crazy pranks that community
members played on each other or the wild water fights in which we engaged. Our
activities not only included members of our community, but also those of other L’Arche
communities, our neighbours, our churches, our school friends, our relatives, and many
friends of L’Arche. As such, our sense of community grew to include all of these people
and welcomed them into our circle.
Just as we welcomed others into our community, so were we received in other
L’Arche communities across Canada and the world. Many of us felt a connection to other
L’Arche communities when we were younger, even if we sometimes thought in our
78
child’s mind that ours was the only L’Arche community. We often visited other
communities as they celebrated important milestones, and met many other members of
L’Arche for regional, national, or international events. We even visited other L’Arche
communities as a family while on summer vacations and trips, stopping at any or all
L’Arche homes on our route.
Many of us experienced this international network first-hand, when we attended
L’Arche renewals in another country, or welcomed assistants and visitors from around
the globe in our communities. Several of us feel that being L’Arche children opened us
up to the world as we are welcome in any L’Arche community. While the majority of us
do not feel as though we would take advantage of this open-invitation, some of us have
worked as assistants abroad or visited international communities in our travels. As
Christina explained, there is a certain familiarity and sense of belonging in all L’Arche
communities that is quite palpable.
I traveled around for a while in Europe. I would just stay at L’Arches wherever I
went….. It was sort of… you almost know what to expect. And everyone is not
living the same experience but there’s still that essence of L’Arche that’s there.
And it’s something familiar to me and I know it.
Today, most of us feel some connection to L’Arche even though we have moved
on in our lives. We all maintain in our own way certain links with the physical places of
our communities, the assistants we knew there, and many of the core members who
remain. Some of us continue to nurture the connection with our communities through
direct contact while others, like Julie-Anne, simply sense it. “I feel a connection. I
wouldn’t say it’s close. I wouldn’t say it’s involved, but it’s there” (Julie-Anne). The link
between L’Arche and us is so omnipresent that we sometimes forget it is there, all the
while carrying it with us. I cannot ignore the recurring mentions that L’Arche is a safe
79
place for many of us, that it is a familiar place, and a constant place when we need it.
When I asked Jean-Frédérick if he still felt connected to L’Arche, his response really
resonated with me:
Oh yeah! I could walk back in there tomorrow. And, you know, I often think of
that. I can go out and do all of these things in the greater world. And if I ever
needed a place of recluse, if I ever needed to step back from the world, if I ever
have a breakdown, I know where I’d go. I’d go to L’Arche…. Life would be
taken care of. I don’t ever have to worry about pushing the envelope because I do
have this. Even if my parents were gone, I know where I can go.
Building Strong Relationships at L’Arche
In addition to strengthening our sense of community, L’Arche’s emphasis on
mutual relationships contributed to our personal growth. The presence of so many varied
people provided us with a unique opportunity to develop relationships and friendships
with people with whom we might not ordinarily have crossed paths.
Assistants. Some of the most memorable relationships we remember having as
children at L’Arche were with the assistants in our communities. Generally speaking,
assistants were those to whom we were closest in the community. They were a group of
individuals ranging in age from those in their late teens to those probably well into their
seventies. The young adults were closest in age to us so they were often quite fun,
exciting, and “very cool” in our eyes. The older assistants had their charm as well,
whether it was wisdom, humour, or incredible life experiences that drew us to them. A
fair amount of the assistants who came through our communities were from different
countries and cultures, which made them all the more interesting and appealing to us.
Assistants were then like big brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles, even friends to
some of us. We remember many good times spent with assistants, talking, playing sports,
being babysat, having pillow fights, and so much more. Some assistants even took on
80
significant roles in some of our lives by attending to our psychological and emotional
needs and offering assistance during our struggles, especially during adolescence. We
loved many of our assistants, because they talked and listened to us, taught us new and
exciting things, and made us feel important and special. Of course we were not friends
with or did not like all the assistants who came through our communities. Sometimes
assistants took their frustrations out on us and made things difficult for us, even if that
was not usually the norm.
Other families and children. Other significant relationships that many of us
remember are those with families and children at L’Arche. Although some of our families
were the only ones in our community, many communities had two or more families in
them. When these other children were close in age to us, we usually spent a lot of time
together and developed some strong friendships. Other friendships also developed when
we went to L’Arche events and met children from other communities. We often had a lot
of fun together at these events. We did not discuss our lives at L’Arche amongst each
other then – we were just children who wanted to play and enjoy ourselves. As we have
grown, many of us have lost touch with each other, but a few of us have maintained links,
not only with other L’Arche children, but sometimes also with the parents of other
L’Arche families.
Our ties to core members. L’Arche is about living with people with disabilities
but interestingly enough, several of us felt that our relationships with core members were
not the most important relationships we developed as children at L’Arche. Though this
lack of depth to our relationships with core members may surprise all of us, as Shelagh
explained, it is a reality that many of us faced.
81
The thing that wasn’t there, which actually surprised [my sisters and me], was the
relationship to core members. That’s not anything that stayed with me. So I think
that’s fascinating. Like I mean, I did have relationships, but that’s not sort of what
I hold in my heart, you know…. When I was living in the community, there were
certain core members that I gravitated towards and were very special to me and I
had fun with, but I don’t think necessarily that was the gift of community living.
Without these being the most significant relationships we had at L’Arche, some of us did
develop special friendships with certain core members in our communities. These were
often developed when we were younger and adopted core members as our playmates
because they took the same pleasure as us in play and make-believe. Generally speaking,
our relationships with core members were often quite limited and were based more on a
familiarity of seeing each other at community events. “I don’t think that I necessarily
interacted with the handicapped people all that much to start with. But at the same time I
mean, they’re present and so I think that impacts on us” (Stéphanie).
The core members in our community especially impressed us with their “joie-devivre.” Their ease to smile and laugh and enjoy life, in its smallest details and pleasures
marked many of us, especially when we knew that some of them came from terribly
violent and unloving backgrounds. Of course, core members were not always smiling and
they were not always appealing to us. Some of them were scary looking and mean, some
could not speak or see; many were able-bodied enough to walk around and take care of
themselves, but others were paralyzed in odd positions and needed to be fed and changed.
We took all of this strangeness in and learned, for the most part, to accept core members
as they were, for who they were, even though there were certain challenges along the way
for many of us.
There were core members I remember not liking. I remember needing to be
reminded that, you know, I had to accept them. And I think that was a very
important experience for growing. For example, I remember not liking [a core
member] because she always burped…. And I remember some core members
82
having bad breath and that being really annoying…. But also, becoming aware of
the fact that that’s not really what’s important. (Inouk)
In spite of their different appearance and behaviour, a few of us shared that, as
young children, we did not really see the difference between core members and
ourselves. After all, for many of us, living with them was all that we had ever known.
Maybe we were also young enough that we did not yet subscribe to society’s rejection of
difference. For a few of us, the line between core member and assistant was blurred
because we remember being cared for by both. Like assistants, some core members were
our babysitters or our old aunt/uncle who looked out for us. We appreciated the easy way
that they related to us and made us feel important. Today, many of us are touched that
core members we knew as children still remember us, and even ask our parents how we
are doing. It seems really important to us to be remembered and to have a place in their
lives and their memories, just like they have one in ours.
So although some of us surprised ourselves by the more minimal role
relationships with core members played in our childhood at L’Arche, their presence did
leave an impression on us. I think in the past I sometimes felt guilty for not having
developed meaningful friendships with the core members in my community, especially
when I witnessed the special friendships assistants and my parents had with them. But
speaking with my L’Arche peers and reflecting on the subject has made me realize that
we did not choose to take this path, to live with people with disabilities and enter into
relationships with them; our parents did. So while we children did not actively seek out
these friendships ourselves, I think that we learned a great deal from our parents’
relationships with core members.
83
Our encounters with core members were not the only ones we had with people
with disabilities during our childhood at L’Arche. Through our siblings, family friends,
classmates, and even strangers, who lived with a disability, we repeatedly witnessed how
society accepts or rejects people on the basis of a disability. For some of us, these
encounters made the reality of the core members in our community more tangible. It also
made some of us realize how L’Arche cares for core members and made us proud to be
part of our community. Finally, many of us found that our relationships with core
members opened us up to these other relationships and encounters in our lives with
people with a disability.
Growing up “Goddi”: Religion & Spirituality at L’Arche
When I first asked Jean-Frédérick to participate in this study, he and I exchanged
a few e-mails where he asked me a lot of questions about who I was, what I was doing,
why I was doing it, and how I would do it. One of his great questions was: “Will you
consider the title ‘GROWING UP GODDI’?10” Growing up in L’Arche was, of course,
all about the God-father.
We all agree: Religion and spirituality permeated our childhood at L’Arche.
Every event, celebration, and gathering had some spiritual component to it, no matter
how big or small. Not surprisingly, as children our favourite religious celebrations at
L’Arche were Christmas and Easter. Some of our fondest memories of L’Arche are from
these celebrations full of fun, spiritual awe, and special community traditions. But for us,
religion and spirituality at L’Arche were not only reserved for these two Christian
holidays, as was often the case for our friends at school. We prayed together before
10
A play on words referring to the reality television show “Growing up Gotti” that follows the life of the
mobster’s family.
84
meals, before meetings, during retreats; some of our communities even had their own
prayer nights and masses. Some of our communities had chapels and even live-in priests
who led our celebrations. In some communities, we were sometimes baptized or given
first communion by our priest. The priests and nuns who were members of our
community were often special people with whom we had warm relationships.
Most of us went to church every Sunday with our family, which was often the
same church the rest of our community attended. While the presence of religion and
spirituality in our daily lives had a fairly neutral or positive effect on many of us, a few of
us really struggled to accept this part of our lives. Many of us recognized that this aspect
of L’Arche was clearly more important and appealing to our parents than to any of us. It
did not always fulfill our needs, and even made some of us uncomfortable.
When I asked my L’Arche peers what was more appealing – going to a “regular”
church for a religious service or attending a spiritual celebration at L’Arche – we usually
preferred L’Arche. For us, L’Arche approached spirituality in a simple, intimate and
relaxed way. As children, we were allowed to move around, we did not have to listen to
very complicated talk, and we were included in the celebrations. Even those of us who
were uncomfortable with any kind of religion or spirituality were able to find positive
aspects to the practice of religion and spirituality at L’Arche.
My parents are really, really, really religious and we had to go to mass every
Sunday and I hated that, really a lot. It was quite difficult to deal with that. But
the only thing that I appreciated a little bit more was when it was at activities with
L’Arche, because a mass with L’Arche (…) is more simple…. I know that it was
really easier for me to accept the fact that my parents were obligating us to follow
all the religious things. I realize it more now that L’Arche helped me to [get
through] that. (Catherine)
L’Arche not only helped some of us get through our parents’ need for religion in
our family life, but it also helped some of us live through the death of loved ones. A few
85
of us lost family members while at L’Arche and our community rallied around us with
prayers and support. Occasionally, we lost core members and assistants in our
communities as well. Sometimes, because of our age, we did not really know these
people and were not directly affected by their death, but other times their death had a
deep impact on us and it was comforting grieve with our community. Christina, who
faced the death of several people while at L’Arche, including a newborn sister, explained
the importance of facing death with a community who recognizes and shares your grief.
L’Arche is so good at celebrating what came before and remembering. So even
now, whenever there’s some sort of ceremony, (…) they’ll say my sister’s name
and all the core members who’ve died…. I guess the thing is that it sort of really
addressed it and they don’t hide anything. I’ve talked to people who have had
family members die, and they weren’t allowed to go to the wake or whatever,
because kids can’t really handle that stuff. And it’s sort of like when you’re in
L’Arche you really face that.
Though we are not all active in a religious or spiritual sense today, we remain
touched by our experience at L’Arche. Some of us seek out spiritual avenues that have a
similar spirit or approach as the one we experienced at L’Arche, although it is sometimes
challenging to connect with our peers on the same spiritual level as we did at L’Arche.
Becoming: L’Arche’s Role in Forming our Identity
Throughout our lives, we have carried parts of L’Arche in us and they have
contributed to the persons we have become. It was important for many of us to
acknowledge in our stories the role that L’Arche played in our development. L’Arche
exposed us to a host of different people and life opportunities from which we were able to
learn. One of the most significant lessons that L’Arche has taught us is to have an open
heart and mind. We all mentioned this aspect in our stories, whether it was about
accepting people of different cultures, physical ability, mental ability, outer appearance,
or life experience. At L’Arche, we learned by example what great things happen when
86
you are vulnerable and open to any possibility. Seeing caring and respectful interactions
between core members and other community members challenged us to develop the same
level of respect for all human beings. Indeed, our childhood at L’Arche seems to have
made it more natural to accept (and even to welcome) diversity, and to adapt to people’s
varying needs and abilities without judging or rejecting. Interacting daily with core
members and with assistants from countries such as: Japan, England, Austria, India,
Rwanda, Romania, France, etc., showed us that there are many ways to live, think, and
do, and that none is necessarily better than the other. In addition, we also learned a lot
about welcoming others into our lives.
I think growing up in L’Arche has done a lot to shape who I am. To not include
somebody, to not talk to somebody just because they’re disabled is totally
ludicrous to me. But for so many people, it’s just something they avoid. And I
think that’s one great thing that I’ve learned through growing up in L’Arche (…)
Don’t exclude people. Everyone has something to offer everyone. (David)
This respect for diversity has made many of us sensitive to discrimination and
intolerance in our environment. We cannot easily ignore conflict and injustice: We have a
strong social conscience that inspires us to live purposefully and take significant action.
For Christina,
…maybe it’s not so much like making a difference or being socially involved, but
sort of taking an active role in the world or something. I guess you can’t really let
things just sort of go by you. I think it’s more difficult when you’ve been in this
active place.
This need to lead purposeful lives stems mostly from L’Arche’s influence on our
personal values. We continue to value sense of community, respect, mutuality, simple
living, and diversity in our daily lives, even though we do not necessarily live them as
intensely or consistently as we did at L’Arche. Each of us appears to have a favourite
L’Arche value that we particularly cherish and emphasize in our lives. “The value that I
87
keep the most is this aspect of simplicity and this way of taking time to live your life, and
taking time to do the small things and all that, and not the performance always”
(Catherine).
Of course L’Arche has not only affected our identity in positive ways. Those of us
who had a more difficult time during our childhood, because we were stigmatized
socially or because we experienced violations of our personal safety and space, have
worked hard to overcome the obstacles that challenged our sense of self. The work has
not been easy as Shelagh explained.
I think that [growing up at L’Arche is] something that, on one hand, has really, I
guess, enriched my life or deepened it, or really formed me to be the woman that I
am. But on the other hand, there is definitely lots of hurt, lots of pain around
living that kind of life as a child…. And you know, I kind of struggled with it…
just sort of trying to understand my childhood in L’Arche.
I think that no matter the positive or negative experiences, we all have to take the time to
examine our childhood at L’Arche and all of its accompanying realities at some point in
our life if we are to truly know ourselves. This thesis is my way of examining my
childhood at L’Arche, of looking back and reflecting on where I came from, so that I can
prepare myself for where I am going and know what I am bringing with me.
Another Perspective: Key Stakeholders Reflect on the Experiences of L’Arche Children
After completing the thematic analysis of my narrative interviews with former
L’Arche children, I sent a copy of this section to three key stakeholders in L’Arche. Our
interviews were discussions about their responses to, thoughts about, and experiences
with, the themes that dominated the childhood experience of my L’Arche peers and
myself. What follows is my analysis of these interviews. Much like the previous section
pertaining to narrative participants, I have included quotations from the key stakeholders,
88
and have edited them as little as possible. Quotations by Jean-Christophe have, however,
been translated by me (and approved by him) as we conducted our interview in French.
In this section, I will touch on the following:
1. A Brief overview: Who are the key stakeholders?
2. Early L’Arche: Learning by trial and error
3. Shedding light on important aspects of our counterculture
4. Finding a healthy place for families and children in L’Arche
5. Commenting on relationships with L’Arche children
6. Ruptures with L’Arche: A painful part of our history
7. Final thoughts
A Brief Overview: Who are the Key Stakeholders?
I conducted my interviews with three long-time L’Arche members (one single
woman and two married men), whose combined experience at L’Arche totals 97 years.
All three key stakeholders were present during L’Arche’s early years in Canada and have
an extensive knowledge of L’Arche’s history and evolution here.
Jean-Christophe has been at L’Arche for 32 years. It is at L’Arche that he met and
married his wife, and where together, they raised their three children. During these 32
years, Jean-Christophe has lived and worked in a L’Arche community in France and three
other communities in Canada. He has occupied a variety of positions at L’Arche, many of
authority and leadership. Today, Jean-Christophe is still an active member of L’Arche.
Sue has been at L’Arche for 33 years. She has lived in two Canadian L’Arche
communities and has occupied a variety of leadership roles for L’Arche during this time.
Although she is now retired and no longer in an active position at L’Arche, Sue still lives
in a L’Arche community and maintains close contacts with L’Arche and its members.
89
Joe has been at L’Arche for 32 years. He also met and married his wife at
L’Arche and raised three children there. Joe is the father of one of the narrative
participants in this research project. Over the years, Joe has lived in two L’Arche
communities and has occupied a variety of roles at L’Arche, including many leadership
positions. Joe is still an active member of L’Arche today.
Early L’Arche: Learning by Trial and Error
According to Jean-Christophe, Sue, and Joe, the utopian setting that many
children described when talking about their childhood at L’Arche was quite accurate. Not
unlike many young adults in the late Sixties and early Seventies, our parents were
searching for deeper meaning in their lives. The charisma of Jean Vanier and the mission
and vision of L’Arche drew them in and gave them hope for a better, deeper life.
However, as Jean-Christophe shared,
I believe we were naïve because we were learning as we went. There was no one
towards whom we could turn to know what to do. And L’Arche was quite young
as well… it was discovering itself. There weren’t any benchmarks, no blueprint,
no plan. We had to discover as we went, we had to invent as we went. And so in
this sense, it’s true that we were naïve because we were learning by trial and
error.
Sue also thought that our parents, like many others at the time, were not looking ahead
towards the future needs of their families. After all, most of them came to L’Arche as
individuals for personal reasons. People falling in love, getting married, and having
children at L’Arche was unplanned and situations had to be dealt with as they developed.
In the early Seventies, this trial by error growth was somewhat complicated by a quick
expansion of L’Arche communities throughout the world (i.e., 47 L’Arche communities
were founded worldwide between 1969 [when L’Arche first appeared in Canada] and
1979 inclusively; Vanier, 1995). Joe thought this huge expansion in such a short time
90
greatly contributed to the obstacles many of the first families in L’Arche had to overcome
as L’Arche struggled to respond to their needs. There was not yet a clearly defined vision
uniting all L’Arche communities and giving a common structure to their daily life.
Important structures regarding safety, sexuality, and violence were in fact lacking
in L’Arche’s first decade in Canada. As such, none of the key stakeholders were
surprised by the instances of abuse, intrusion, and violence that former L’Arche children
shared with me, although they were very saddened by them. What did surprise them was
the generous forgiveness that the two narrative participants who survived sexual abuse
extended to L’Arche11. Even if they have come to this attitude through many years of
healing and therapy, Jean-Christophe still believes they would be more than justified in
blaming L’Arche and their parents for the abuse. In one of his leadership roles within
L’Arche, Jean-Christophe had to deal with certain minor issues surrounding sexuality,
but admits he often heard about incidents of abuse 10 or 15 years after the fact.
According to him, one of the reasons abuse was very difficult to deal with in the early
years is because parents were often in dual roles. A lot of our fathers were not only the
parent of the victim, but also responsible for the abuser as they were community director
or occupied a leadership role in L’Arche. This ambiguity of role and the usual difficulty
in dealing with the delicate issue of abuse were compounded by the inexistence of clear
guidelines from L’Arche. It took L’Arche a long time to acknowledge and face this
shadow side according to Joe. Jean-Christophe confirmed this by saying that very basic
and still quite timid guidelines only started to emerge in the late Eighties or early Nineties
to address issues such as abuse and sexuality in L’Arche communities. Without excusing
the abuse, all three key stakeholders also pointed out that L’Arche’s difficulty in dealing
11
Natasha came forward with her story of abuse after I conducted my key stakeholder interviews.
91
with abuse and sexuality in its communities was very much a product of the general
culture then. Today, they say that L’Arche has very clear guidelines surrounding issues of
sexuality and abuse. These guidelines have stemmed from both, a greater societal
awareness and discussion about abuse, and government-imposed regulations.
Jean-Christophe and Joe also pointed out in their interviews that violence in
L’Arche communities was another issue that took some time to address. At the
beginning, Jean-Christophe said that L’Arche welcomed many core members who had
double diagnoses (i.e., mental health issue and disability), especially in North America.
Most of these people were coming from institutions and desperately needed a place to
live if they were not to be left homeless. As such, L’Arche often welcomed people
without a complete knowledge of their background, without considering whether or not
their personality and needs were compatible with those of communal life, and without yet
knowing the limits of the care they could provide or handle. As was shown in the stories
of former L’Arche children in this study, L’Arche communities slowly, and sometimes
painfully, learned from these mistakes.
So this phrase of “controlled chaos,” you know, there’s a lot of truth to that…
some days, not always. But I can see from the perspective of a child how that
could be the feel. And particularly for children who lived in a L’Arche home with
their family, as a number of the ones you interviewed did…. Some of those kids
were more at risk than they need have been or should have [been]. (Joe)
Shedding Light on Important Aspects of Our Counterculture
When we discussed the impact that living in a counterculture had on the former
L’Arche children in this study, each key stakeholder had ideas about the factors that
contribute to the gap dividing L’Arche from mainstream culture. Sue explained that we
L’Arche children sometimes felt different or awkward in our interactions with our peers
outside of L’Arche because life at L’Arche calls for fewer masks than life in mainstream
92
society. As such, we were raised to present our true selves at home and in community,
but went to school and interacted with others in an environment that encouraged and
demanded that we wear a social mask. Joe also thought that society’s fear of difference
was an important factor in the cultural divide between L’Arche and Western society.
After all, we were raised at L’Arche, a place that welcomed and embraced diversity at a
time when society was resisting de-institutionalization and having to live in close
proximity to people who are different. As for Jean-Christophe, he posited that many of us
had, and still have, difficulty explaining our childhood at L’Arche because of the distinct
vocabulary used at L’Arche. The words we use at L’Arche, and the way we use them, are
quite unique. Although this vocabulary is well understood amongst members of L’Arche
worldwide, it is foreign to non-L’Arche members, and makes it difficult to convey the
L’Arche experience in words.
Finding a Healthy Place for Families and Children in L’Arche
Sue, Joe, and Jean-Christophe agreed with narrative participants that L’Arche’s
initial membership of single assistants was a contributing factor to L’Arche’s difficult
transition into communities that include married couples and children. Once again, they
said, L’Arche was learning by trial and error, which made it especially difficult for
founding families to find their place in L’Arche communities. According to Sue, single
assistants or community leaders did not always understand the reality that parents faced
at home and resented their demands for extra time and space away from the community.
Additionally, there was conflict and tension surrounding the role of children in the
community, how to involve them, and who should care for them. Were they members of
L’Arche or not? Jean-Christophe, Sue, and Joe said it took a long time to clarify this
93
question. Today, Sue says children are not considered members of L’Arche until they
request membership as adults. As for the involvement and care of children in the
community, there were often crying babies or bored children running around disrupting
meetings, angering community members, and frustrating parents in the early years of
L’Arche. Parents were asking for support so that they could attend meetings and
participate in community life without having to worry about the care of their children.
There was no easy answer and individual communities were often left to find solutions
and compromises on their own. When there were several families in one community, it
was often easier for parents and children because the families could support each other;
they could also demand more from their community. Sometimes, Joe said, families
demanded too much and communities were overtaxed. According to Jean-Christophe,
L’Arche is more explicit about its limits and what demands it can meet: Today, children
are the responsibility of parents.
While families sometimes demanded too much of L’Arche, the opposite was also
certainly true. Community life involves many important activities in the evenings and
weekends, which often conflicts with the needs of a family. According to my key
stakeholders, parents often felt split between meeting the needs of their family and those
of their community. This often led to stress, exhaustion, and burnout. Joe explained that
families, like his own, usually paid a price for trying to please both community and
family because there were no clear boundaries. However, setting clear limits and
boundaries, he said, is not the easiest thing to do “when you live in L’Arche: a culture
that doesn’t do it.” When I asked Sue what she thought contributed to a healthy balance
between family and community life, she replied:
94
So much depends upon the inner maturity of the parents…. And I think if the
parents were able to establish and hold to their priorities then it didn’t get mixed
up. But there was, and is, a tremendous attraction in L’Arche to do almost
everything: to be present in all places, to be kind to everybody, to make the
celebrations happen, to welcome all the visitors, and to enjoy a normal family
life. Sometimes parents may not have enjoyed enough inner freedom to set the
boundaries even though it’s really a wonderful work. They forgot or didn’t grasp
that the first priority was the family and everything else had to be worked around
that reality to provide security for the children. That’s why I keep talking about
the mothers…. They were really fantastic and they gave a lot of support to their
children, at the expense of not being able to be fully part of the larger community,
which they also wanted to do.
Jean-Christophe also shared that, from his own experience, it was important for parents to
be true to their vision and to live it out, but to do so without imposing it on their children.
It emerged from our interviews that when a healthy balance was found, families
and children were a really important part of L’Arche communities. Indeed, Joe, JeanChristophe, and Sue all used the word “gift” to describe what families and children are to
a community. They especially highlighted the beauty of the relationships children share
with core members and single assistants who will not have children of their own. JeanChristophe and Sue also praised the disruptive side of children who turn things upside
down, ask questions, and can teach adults important life lessons. Today, the key
stakeholders agree that there are few families living at L’Arche in North America in the
way that we, in this study, did. It appears that society, and L’Arche along with it, are
changing. Not only are there fewer families at L’Arche here today, but there are also
fewer single assistants. Sue says that this shortage of assistants possibly stems from a
general lack of commitment today, and our love of a comfortable life. Nevertheless, she
insists L’Arche should remain open to families because of their great contribution to
community.
95
Finally, neither Sue, Jean-Christophe, nor Joe are surprised that few former
L’Arche children have chosen, thus far, to commit to a life at L’Arche. In fact, they all
expressed to me that they would be quite troubled if too many L’Arche children stayed at
L’Arche forever.
I’d be really worried if all the kids in L’Arche ended up being little L’Archies
(laughs). The system’s too closed if that’s the basic expectation…. To stay in
L’Arche, it has to be a free choice; it has to be a healthy choice. And to be a
healthy choice, you have to always have to have the option to leave – really have
the option to leave. And then the choice to stay is a good one if that’s what you
want. (Joe)
While Jean-Christophe, Joe, and Sue encourage children to leave L’Arche and gain
different life experiences, they do believe that some may return later and greatly
contribute to L’Arche through leadership positions. For now though, seeing L’Arche
children take a path that leads elsewhere, to them, means that parents and communities
have achieved balance, as well as openness and respect for the needs and dreams of their
children.
Commenting on Relationships with L’Arche Children
Like most members of L’Arche, these three key stakeholders have great affection
for L’Arche children and there was much warmth in the way they spoke of us. They felt
privileged to witness and participate in raising children in their communities. They are
especially proud of the great openness, spirituality, love, and social conscience that we
L’Arche children carry with us. As parents, Joe and Jean-Christophe also appreciated the
strong bonds their children developed with assistants at L’Arche. These special
relationships provided much support to parents and provided children with quality role
models other than their parents; something for which they are very grateful. As for the
relationships between core members and children, Jean-Christophe and Sue were a little
96
surprised that they were not always the most cherished part of some of our childhood
experiences because they witnessed our warm relationships and continue to see affection
and care between us, even with the distance of time and space. Jean-Christophe did
candidly admit though that maybe he was simply surprised because this admission of
ours counteracts his ideal dream for L’Arche.
Ruptures with L’Arche: A Painful Part of our History
The ideal of L’Arche was again contradicted by the ruptures that some of our
families experienced with L’Arche. Although this came as no surprise to my key
stakeholders, it was one of the more difficult topics for them to discuss because it brought
up sad memories. For Joe, these ruptures meant learning the hard way that not all is good
just because people love each other and care for each other at L’Arche; and that dealing
with conflict and confrontation is one of L’Arche’s shortcomings. While the schisms that
formed between certain community members and L’Arche are complex and difficult to
explain in a general sense, Sue, Jean-Christophe, and Joe were able to explain to me how
some ruptures with founding members were precipitated.
When L’Arche communities were first founded in Canada, most community
members believed they would stay where they were forever. However, over time, it
became clear that the founders’ charisma and ability to shoulder all of the decisions were
no longer what their communities needed. Additionally, Jean Vanier, L’Arche’s founder,
set a high ideal for other founders to live by when he stepped down from his position of
International Coordinator of the Federation of L’Arche in 1975 (Vanier, 1995), and as
leader of the Trosly Breuil community in 1981 (L’Arche Internationale, 2003c). The
pressure to live out this ideal and to relinquish one’s authority conflicted with some
97
founders’ desire to stay in communities they had created, and to which they felt a
vocational call. Despite various efforts and alternate arrangements, it became clear that
some founders could not stay in their community without new leaders feeling threatened
or undermined. As such, these founders were left with two options: move to another
community or leave L’Arche entirely.
Sometimes I think that we’re too idealistic. For example, if one works in a
corporation and steps down from leadership, that person doesn’t often remain in
the company. Rather, that person is given a “package” and leaves to find work
somewhere else. Also, corporations welcome the individual and not the family,
and certainly not the children…. So I often think we try to do too much. But I still
wish we could do it…. We’re trying to live that ideal…. We’re trying to do
something that is good for us at one level, but I think [we need] to recognize the
fact that we really can’t do it all and try to accept that. (Sue)
This attempt to do it all at L’Arche has thus led to many painful ruptures that have
scarred L’Arche and both its current and former members.
It’s obvious that this was a historic let down in L’Arche. And in a certain number
of situations there were reconciliations, I think. But for a lot, there is still an open
wound. And if I take this as an example, if we were to write something on
L’Arche and conflicts, our track record is not very good. (Jean-Christophe)
Today, with 36 years of experience behind it, L’Arche Canada has learned from some of
its mistakes; my key stakeholders told me that leaders now receive clear mandates from
L’Arche. Jean-Christophe also said that L’Arche is now increasingly encouraging
mobility in its members. Of course this is quite incompatible with the stability and
security needs of its families. Therefore, it remains to be seen how this difficult issue of
transition and leadership will continue to affect L’Arche and its families.
Final Thoughts
Sue, Joe, and Jean-Christophe were very pleased and interested in hearing the
stories of L’Arche children: both the light and shadow sides. They felt it was important
for L’Arche to hear and learn from our stories. Jean-Christophe did however wonder if
98
we were still not too enamoured by L’Arche to objectively discuss its failings and
shortcomings. Before being forgiven, L’Arche needs to be challenged. But there is a time
for everything, he said, and “Maybe we are still too close to all of this, or maybe we are
too emotionally linked to all of this [to do so]. Maybe outsiders will be able to perform a
[more] critical evaluation.”
Discussion
As the previous analysis sections have shown, my interviews with narrative
participants and key stakeholders have brought forth a wealth of information. Within the
many similarities of our childhood L’Arche experiences lay several unique elements and
differences. I believe our combined stories effectively communicate the diversity of what
it means to be a child of L’Arche. Some of us had a truly happy and nourishing childhood
at L’Arche, while others experienced much hurt and sadness, and others still were
exposed to both the light and shadow sides of L’Arche. So while my study is in some
sense limited by my small sample of L’Arche children (11 including myself), I believe
the diversity of the experiences captured here compensate. I was happily surprised by the
easy connection and almost instant feeling of comfort that was created between
participants and me during our telephone interviews (no doubt my status as a former
L’Arche child and our common acquaintances and experiences greatly contributed here).
However, from my past experience with members of L’Arche, I assume that this
connection would have been more powerful had I been able to interview participants in
person. Furthermore, I believe I could have increased the depth of my study had it been
possible to bring together narrative participants to discuss my analysis of their stories and
to include my key stakeholders in the discussion. Regardless of these limitations, I am
99
confident in the strengths of this study. The visible gradations in our perceptions of
L’Arche, our joy and sadness, our conflict and unity, our pleasure and pain, have
combined into what I had hoped for: a polyphonic narrative in which our stories stand
alongside each other in harmony.
In this section, it is my intention to explain the meaning and importance of the
themes that surfaced in the analysis of my interviews. While I regularly refer to other
research to strengthen my interpretations, they are influenced by who I am and I invite
you to consider alternate (or complementary) explanations. Many of the themes featured
in our stories are interconnected as they encompass or mutually influence each other. As
such, I find it best to focus my discussion on four overarching topics that guide our
understanding of what it means to be a child of L’Arche. These are: (a) sexual abuse; (b)
difference; (c) sense of community; and (d) narratives, stories, and identity. To better
explain how our childhood experiences were constructed at multiple levels, I approach
these themes from an ecological perspective. In this section, I also explore how our
stories compare to the stories of other community members, within and outside of
L’Arche. Finally, I propose an application for this knowledge: seven basic principles that
contribute to a healthy childhood in intentional communities, and I discuss the
implications of this research for L’Arche and parents of L’Arche children.
Common Threads: Stories That Validate Our Experiences
In sharing their perspective and experiences at L’Arche, the three key
stakeholders in this study have acknowledged and confirmed our stories of friendship,
stigma, choice, abuse, spirituality, and family at L’Arche. There are also several other
sources from which to draw validation for our stories.
100
Several years ago, a L’Arche couple sent questionnaires to 49 children who were
raised in L’Arche communities in France and wrote an informal report about the
childhood experiences of the 28 who responded (de la Selle, 1998). In this six-page
report, our French counterparts expressed many of the same joys (i.e., community
celebrations, feeling part of an extended family, rich values) and struggles (i.e., absent
parents, naïveté, clash between L’Arche and the outside world, difficult adolescence,
ruptures with the community) that we have shared here. In the Letters of L’Arche, Egan’s
(1987) detailed exploration of the history and evolution of families in L’Arche explained
how the organization’s evolving structure and initial focus on celibate individuals created
tension in the lives of families and communities. Egan highlighted many of the issues we
brought up; how this evolution caused stress for our parents and sometimes took them
away from us; how L’Arche had to learn that families have different material and space
needs than celibate individuals; and how families and communities need to find a place
for children in L’Arche. Many of these issues echoed what Lenon (1975), another father
at L’Arche, expressed in a brief personal account of his family’s struggles and successes
within L’Arche.
Jean Vanier (1995) admitted himself that in the history and evolution of L’Arche,
there have been many crises within communities which are painful for all. Directors were
not always supported and not all assistants were meant to be at L’Arche. Vanier admits
he and other founders faced the huge demands of founding with a lack of experience and
much idealism. As such,
The story of L’Arche is both a beautiful and painful story…. L’Arche remains,
and will always remain a sign of contradiction; a place where joy and sadness,
crises and peace intermingle. Our story is built on both successes and failures; the
101
cross and the resurrection, sin and grace, fear and confidence are all closely tied
to it. (Vanier, 1995, pp. 106-107)12
Academic papers written about L’Arche also lend validity to our experiences by
highlighting L’Arche’s great sense of community (Dunne, 1986; Sumarah, 1987b) and its
emphasis on openness to diversity (Cushing, 2003; Sumarah, 1987b). The mutual
relationships between assistants and core members at L’Arche are admired for their deep
respect and reciprocity (Cushing, 2003; Sumarah, 1987b). These friendships are
nourished by humour, shared life passages and stories, attention to each other’s needs,
and an ability to find common ground in the midst of difference (Pottie & Sumarah,
2004). While these relationships resemble, in part, some of the important relationships we
had as children with assistants or core members, they also illustrate the powerful models
we had for developing friendships and mutual relationships. Our strong feeling of
connection to community members, and numerous memories of celebrations, are further
echoed in articles like Sumarah’s (1987b) who said of L’Arche celebrations: “These are
times when one senses very strongly what is silently voiced by each member of the
community: ‘It is good to be together’” (p. 169). Finally, in his article on L’Arche, Dunne
(1986) showed us that L’Arche children are not the only ones who are sometimes
disappointed by the disconnect between the ideal and the reality of L’Arche. New
assistants especially, “must reconcile themselves to a realistic sense of what it is they are
involved in, accepting the community’s shortcomings as well as their own” (Dunne,
1986, p. 47).
From a story-based point of view, there are many similarities between our
childhood stories and that of a L’Arche core member, Paul, which Sumarah (1987a)
12
My translation from French.
102
presented. Like Paul, much of our L’Arche stories center around memories of fun trips,
parties, and community celebrations. We also cherished at least one important friendship
with a community member who made time for and listened to us. Like Paul, we needed
and enjoyed having our own space and outside activities. Finally, when Paul said about
life at L’Arche, “There were some hard times too but they were mostly great” (Sumarah,
1987a, p. 88), he could have been speaking for many of us.
There are also many similarities between our stories and those of L’Arche
assistants. Like us, assistants simultaneously admire core members and struggle to accept
them as they are (Moore, 1989). They also strive to find balance in the chaos of
community life (Sumarah, 1988) and grow as individuals. After all, L’Arche teaches
them much about responding to the needs of others and adapting to them through
flexibility and collaboration (Moore, 1989; Pottie & Sumarah, 2004).
When I looked outside of L’Arche at the stories of children who grew up in other
intentional communities around the globe, I was surprised to find, yet again, so many
common threads in our diverse experiences. In the 1994 Fall Edition of Communities:
Journal of Cooperative Living (Johnsen), the special feature “Growing up in
Community” was filled with the stories of children who had similar tales of bliss and
sorrow to share, whether they were raised in back-to-the-land, hippie, co-op, or spiritual
communities; Christian sects; kibbutzim; communal households; or egalitarian incomesharing communes. Like us, many of them cherished the intense sense of belonging in
their community, the multiple adult role models, the carefree atmosphere, the freedom
and beauty in their rural settings, the relationships with other children, and the strong
values they carry with them. However, like us, they also sometimes felt unprepared for
103
the “outside” world, were stigmatized by their peers, embarrassed, conflicted,
experienced difficult adolescent transitions, feared unstable community members, were
neglected by their parents who were overly invested in their communities, and were
sexually or physically abused by family or community members.
Explanations from an Ecological Perspective
Our childhood experiences of community, like those of all community members,
did not take place within a vacuum. What makes them interesting, rich, and complex is
that they were created within the context of our reciprocal relationships with the
individuals, groups, organizations, cultures, and societies around us. As such, I find it
useful to interpret our stories from an ecological perspective, one that puts our individual
experiences within a social context. In community psychology, we consider five different
levels of analysis when seeking to understand a person in context: individual,
microsystems, organizations, localities, and macrosystems (Dalton, Elias, &
Wandersman, 2001). These are the levels I will consider in my discussion of what it
means to be a child of L’Arche (see Figure 2).
As Figure 2 illustrates, within the context of this study, the microsystems in a
L’Arche child’s life, those smallest units with which we interact closely on a regular
basis (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), are our family, L’Arche community, peers, and classroom.
Organizations are groupings of microsystems. For the purpose of this study, the main
organization we interact with is our school. Sets of organizations combine into localities.
As such, at the localities level, the L’Arche child is influenced by the L’Arche regions
and zones that make up the International Federation of L’Arche and include our
community. We are also affected by the rural communities or cities we live in and the
104
provinces that contain them. Finally, at the macrosystems level, society, culture, and
governmental institutions take part in shaping our stories. For L’Arche children, Western
culture (which celebrates individualism, materialism, rejection of difference, etc.), the
hippie movement, normalization, deinstitutionalization, and Christianity, all play a
significant role in shaping our experiences.
Sexual Abuse at L’Arche
In this research project, sexual abuse has emerged as a topic that will not be
denied, that must be discussed. I believe that within this discussion, there are two
questions that need to be addressed from an ecological perspective: (a) Why did the abuse
take place?; and (b) How did L’Arche address the problem?
Multi-level factors contributing to the sexual abuse (Why?). Many factors
contribute to the problem of sexual abuse within L’Arche. At the individual level, if we
begin with core members who abuse, several have a history of being sexually abused
themselves. In fact, research reports find that 1 in 3 individuals with a developmental
disability will be sexually abused before the age of 18 (Perlman & Ericson, 1992).
Although individuals with a developmental disability started to be publicly recognized as
victims of abuse in the nineteen eighties, Thompson (2000) claims that it was only in the
nineteen nineties that British society, for example, started to realize the elevated risk men
with developmental or learning disabilities posed with regards to sexually abusing others.
In fact, in the Seventies and Eighties, when most of us were growing up in L’Arche,
people with a disability were still overcoming the general societal belief that their
disability somehow made them asexual. The surrounding ambiguity and misinformation
often resulted in the denial of their sexual needs, which then manifested themselves in
105
socially inappropriate ways. In his book Man and Woman He Made Them, Jean Vanier
(1985) addressed many of the difficult issues surrounding sexuality that individuals with
a disability, and the people or institutions that are charged with their care, must face. No
easy answers or ready-made formulas were presented, not even for L’Arche, which
Vanier admitted welcomed core members with attractions to children. For Vanier (1985),
finding the root of the various sexual manifestations expressed by core members is a
priority, because it allows L’Arche assistants to find healthy and supportive ways in
addressing sexually inappropriate behaviours.
At the organizational level, the beliefs of staff and the philosophies of
organizations caring for individuals with a disability dictate how their sexual behavior
and sexual relationships are addressed (Thompson, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that
within a context of ambiguity and inconsistency in beliefs (both organizational and
societal), families and institution staff did not share information about the sexual
preferences or deviancies of certain core members with L’Arche, thinking they were not
sexual, or that it would be rude or embarrassing to discuss such things. It is also possible
that community leaders did not warn assistants of the attraction certain core members
have for children because this attraction was viewed as child-like curiosity and
innocence; not something that posed a threat or should be acted upon.
At the macrosystems level, the normalization and deinstitutionalization movement
which were at work during our childhood were transforming the way organizations
perceived and cared for individuals with a disability (Wolfensberger, 1999; Flynn &
Nitsch, 1980; Vanier, 1995). Caregivers and group home personnel were striving to
accord more freedom and independence to people with a disability so they could be
106
treated like other “normal” members of society. Within the context of normalization, to
overly supervise or to disclose/discuss the sexual behaviours of individuals with a
disability could breach their right to privacy and autonomy. However, as experience has
shown, too little supervision breached the safety of others. Abusers also suffer from their
actions when they are removed from positive environments, like L’Arche, and put into
more restrictive or punitive facilities. Consequently, history has shown that dealing with
sexual abuse among individuals with a disability requires a fine balance.
Skilled work in the field of learning disability involves maximizing people’s
opportunity to control their own affairs…. The “skill” is to strike an appropriate
balance between protecting people from the dangers of inappropriate choices
which may cause them or others harm and allowing people to grow and learn
from the consequences of their actions. (Thompson, 2000, p. 33)
In the momentum of trying to return freedom and dignity to individuals with a disability,
it is highly possible that our communities failed to ensure this necessary balance.
In terms of assistants abusing children at L’Arche, individual and systemic factors
were again at play. At the individual level, Davenport-Moore, Lamphear, & Johnsen
(1994) explained why many people who are drawn to community, like L’Arche
assistants, come as broken individuals.
I have a really deep-seated belief from my personal experience about the types of
people who are drawn to community…. A lot of times people are in an
unrecovered space. They join in community with some deep personal hurts and
holes, then try to fill them with this community. So that’s another part of the
abuse and neglect issue that has to be addressed. (p. 62)
Weakness is in fact an acknowledged part of the L’Arche narrative. “Weakness and
vulnerability in a person, far from being an obstacle to union with God, can foster it. It is
often through weakness, recognized and accepted, that the liberating love of God is
revealed” (L’Arche Internationale, 1993, p. 3). However, weakness is not always
recognized and dealt with appropriately. As such, in the past, L’Arche often welcomed
107
broken individuals without a proper awareness of the dangers they posed and sometimes
put blind trust in them. At a greater level, when we were growing up in L’Arche, neither
the provincial government nor L’Arche required that people living or working with
children (or individuals with a disability) be subject to a police or registered sex offender
check, as is the norm today. Consequently, as the combination of the above-named
factors illustrates, L’Arche children were vulnerable to sexual abuse in many ways and
on many levels.
Multi-level factors affecting L’Arche’s response to abuse (How?). Although
L’Arche does not deny the existence of abuse within its walls, I believe it has not given
the issue enough attention and serious discussion within its communities and at the
Federation level. Again, many factors are at play in this dynamic. At the individual level,
sexual abuse was not always revealed shortly after it happened, which made it difficult
for L’Arche to address. As Natasha shared with us, she repressed the memory of her
abuse until she was 19 years old. However, when stories of abuse were discovered or
disclosed in a timely manner, our parents often found themselves in conflicts of interest
by being in positions of responsibility over both victim and abuser. At the organizational
level, L’Arche had no overarching policies regulating appropriate (and inappropriate)
sexual behaviour and touch in the early years we were raised there. Furthermore, JeanChristophe explained that even by the early Nineties L’Arche’s abuse policies were
weak. Part of the problem is that we live in a society that keeps such incidents secret and
taboo. Sexual abuse was hidden for many decades in families, schools, institutions,
workplaces, and even in the Church (Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004). Indeed, being a
108
faith-based community, it is possible that L’Arche was influenced by the Roman Catholic
Church’s response to its own incidents of sexual abuse.
From a macrosystems perspective, the Catholic Church’s silence around sexuality
in general, as well as its denial of the importance of sexuality in an individual’s
development and physical and spiritual life, inevitably influenced L’Arche (Loftus, 2004;
Gonsiorek, 2004). To a certain extent, the Church’s position has made it more difficult
for Christians and faith-based communities, like L’Arche, to openly acknowledge the
sexuality of its members and dialogue about its place in their lives.
In recent years, much has been written and researched about the sexual abuse
crisis and cover-up in the Catholic Church (for a thorough examination on this subject,
see Doyle, 2003). Many studies have identified factors that contribute to the widespread
sexual abuse in the Church and the shroud of secrecy that surrounds it. Several such
factors can be applied to other organizations dealing with sexual abuse (Gonsiorek, 2004;
Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004). The Church’s perception of scandal as a great harm that
must be avoided at all costs (manifested in its canon), is an important factor that fed the
culture of secrecy surrounding sexual abuse (Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004; Doyle,
2003). Admitting that priests sexually abused children would create a scandal for the
Church whose priests would be relegated to the realm of the ordinary (Doyle, 2003): It
would make them just as fallible in the face of temptation as the faithful from whom they
were set apart (Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004). L’Arche’s quiet removal of core
members and assistants who sexually abused children contains elements of this fear of
scandal. Jean Vanier (1985) admitted it himself when he wrote
In our communities, there are also men who have been attracted by children,
either to touch them sexually or to show their genital organs to them. These
109
situations are rare, but they do exist and call for enormous vigilance. We must
protect children from such traumatic experiences and we must help the person
with a handicap to find real healing. We must also protect the community, for
these situations could create a scandal with the neighbours and a court action
against the community. (p. 69)
The Church’s promotion of pastoral solutions in its canon law (e.g., therapy for
the offender, mediation and out-of-court settlements in cases of abuse) and its emphasis
on forgiveness “for the good of the Church” (Doyle, 2003) is closely linked to its
avoidance of scandal and its culture of silence (Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004); it is an
important part of the Church’s narrative.
Therapy rather than punishment: The well-being and future ministry of the
offending cleric are key. Other considerations are not excluded, but they are not
primary. Bishops who thought and acted this way were acting in accord with an
institutionally expressed preference for pastoral solutions. (Kochansky &
Herrmann, 2004, p. 315)
I believe a parallel can be drawn here between the Church and L’Arche’s narrative.
Vanier’s (1985) statement (quoted above), illustrates the preference L’Arche’s narrative
accords to its own well-being and growth, and to that of its core members, society’s most
rejected whom L’Arche has placed at the heart of its communities (L’Arche
Internationale, 1993; Vanier, 1989). While the Church was attempting to protect its
power and the well-being and future of its priests by silencing stories of abuse and
scandal (Kochansky & Herrmann, 2004), I believe L’Arche was trying to protect its
fragile existence and the well-being of its core members.
Today, L’Arche has made some progress towards change but still has work to do
in preventing and addressing sexual abuse in its communities. In 1998, L’Arche’s
International Council approved a guideline document called The Fundamental Principles
for Community Life. It is meant “to be a tool for reflecting and learning,” on which
L’Arche communities worldwide can rely for general (and adaptable) guidelines for
110
community living. In this document, L’Arche has included a section on relationships and
sexuality within its communities (see Appendix Q). This section focuses on core
members and assistants, and the importance of sexuality, intimacy, dignity, and safe
touch in their relationships. Although it is stated that “Each community must abide by
legal norms and standards regarding reporting and investigating allegations of sexual
abuse” (p. 5), the document continues with a warning that assistants are not to engage in
sexual relations with core members under any circumstances. Nowhere are children
mentioned nor are concerns about welcoming or supervising core members with a known
attraction to children. Among the questions for reflection in this section are: “How are
new assistants orientated to the community’s values and policies around sexuality and
relationship?” and “What are the commonly understood procedures for reporting and
investigating allegations of sexual abuse?” (p. 6). While it is encouraging to see L’Arche
ask these questions, I find it disappointing that the International Federation of L’Arche
has not taken responsibility for creating one policy and procedure document for all of its
communities that is flexible but firm on the issue of sexuality and abuse.
Difference: Dealing with a Bi-Cultural Existence
While sexual abuse is not an experience we all share, the issue of difference
manifested itself in several ways in all of our stories.
From an ecological standpoint, it is easy to see how our bi-cultural existence (i.e.,
our integration in two cultures: that of L’Arche and mainstream society) amplified our
feelings of difference. Most significantly, our L’Arche communities were embedded in a
society that rejects and persistently devalues difference, weakness, and consequently,
people with a disability. These important macrosystemic values were communicated to us
111
daily through the negative portrayal of difference, weakness, and disability in the media.
Daily, we were exposed to these values through our classrooms in public schools where
children with a disability were partially or completely segregated and mocked by other
children, and through the averted eyes and avoidance that adults engaged in when they
came face-to-face with people with a disability. The invisibility of people with a
disability in our daily life outside of L’Arche perpetuated these societal values:
Difference was to be hidden away in group homes and institutions, far from daily reality
and the possibility of contact. Yet at home and in our L’Arche community, we were
encouraged to embrace diversity, to recognize that weakness is an inherent and valuable
part of humanity, and to believe that everyone has value. The massive divide between
these two mentalities, these two worlds, inevitably differentiated us, made us vulnerable
to criticism, fear, and rejection from our peers and society. The unique language we use
at L’Arche, in all its emotionality, symbolism and religious references; as well as our
membership in a faith-based community; and our status of “outsider” in small rural
communities, where everyone is somehow related, further highlighted our deviance from
mainstream culture.
Consequently, from an ecological standpoint, the problems and challenges
presented by our bi-cultural existence are an expression of the absence of synergy
between our micro- and macrosystems. The clash between mainstream Western society’s
values and our L’Arche values inevitably translated into confusion, frustration, feelings
of naïveté, difference, and hurt. We were confronted daily with choices between what to
believe in, what to do, and how to fit in, at home and in the world.
112
Nevertheless, while there are many challenges to living in a countercultural
community embedded in mainstream culture, I believe it is better to live a bi-cultural
existence than to live closed-off from society. In fact, unlike many children who grew up
in other communes and intentional communities (Johnsen, 1994), we attended school in
our local communities from the very beginning and generally participated in various
activities outside of our communities (e.g., sports, scouts, art classes). I find the benefits
of this bi-cultural existence far outweigh the drawbacks when one hears the stories of
community children who were raised in very insular communities; living, learning, and
playing only within the walls of their intentional community. They were rocked to the
core when, inevitably, they were faced with the world outside their community (Johnsen,
1994), unlike we who confronted it daily. While this bi-cultural existence may have
challenged and sometimes hurt us, I believe it is also what has made us more openminded, committed to our values, conscientious, and more socially and self-aware.
Sense of Community
If our bi-cultural existence is an important contributor to the creation of our selves
and our stories, sense of community is essential to their interpretation and understanding.
McMillan and Chavis (1986) define sense of community as: “a feeling that members
have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a
shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together”
(p.9). Usually, communities are classified by locality (based on proximity) or by relation
(based on interpersonal relationships). L’Arche is unique in the sense that it provides both
types of community: Individual L’Arche communities are defined by locality, but
113
members are also part of a relational community that extends to the International
Federation of L’Arche communities.
From an ecological perspective, sense of community for L’Arche children was
developed primarily within our family, L’Arche community, and circle of friends. At a
greater level, we also belonged to the extended family of L’Arche through our
membership in the different L’Arche regions and zones. Our membership in L’Arche also
influenced our sense of community at the microsystems level (i.e., family,
neighbourhood, and peer group) by including members of these units in community
activities or celebrations. Finally, while our community was embedded in a greater
mainstream culture of alienation and individualism, we L’Arche children benefited from
a rich sense of community and place of belonging that few people possessed.
To further understand how sense of community was strengthened within our
L’Arche communities and how it influenced many of our experiences there, I find it
useful to refer to McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) four elements of psychological sense of
community: (a) membership, (b) influence, (c) integration and fulfillment of needs, and
(d) shared emotional connection.
Membership represents the personal investment an individual has put into a
community to the extent that he or she feels they belong. There are five attributes that
contribute to a sense of membership. At L’Arche, our boundaries are clearly defined by
the properties we lived on, or the houses that belong to the community. It is also clear
who belongs to the group because they share the same purpose or vocation; to live
according to the Beatitudes with people with a disability. Emotional safety is assured by
the respectful and open atmosphere in our communities, which encourages and values
114
self-disclosure and the sharing of stories. The warm welcome and the assignment of roles
in L’Arche provides members with a sense of belonging and identification. Members are
personally invested in our communities by seeking membership, thereby committing to
the L’Arche Covenant (L’Arche Internationale, 2003a), and by participating in
community activities. L’Arche has a very powerful common symbol system, including its
own language, religious imagery/symbols, and meaningful names and logos for each
community (e.g., L’Arche itself is named for Noah’s Ark).
Influence denotes the influence (or control) that individual members and the
community feel they can exert over each other. This is achieved in L’Arche through the
use of participatory and collaborative approaches within a structure of authority (i.e.,
community director, L’Arche regions and zones, and the International Federation of
L’Arche).
The third element, integration and fulfillment of needs, highlights the importance
of members being rewarded (or reinforced) for their membership in the community. The
shared values of L’Arche members contribute greatly to the fulfillment of individual
needs by providing a place where like-minded people support each other physically,
emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually through meaningful friendships and a shared
lifestyle. For assistants, there is a certain reward for being able to give a home to core
members who might otherwise be living in an institution. Through daily activities and the
philosophy of L’Arche, core members are recognized as contributing members of the
community, which gives meaning and purpose to their lives as well. Finally, “in a divided
world, L'Arche wants to be a sign of hope. Its communities, founded on covenant
relationships between people of differing intellectual capacity, social origin, religion and
115
culture, seek to be signs of unity, faithfulness and reconciliation” (L’Arche
Internationale, 1993). Such a vision makes membership in L’Arche a rewarding
experience in itself.
Shared emotional connection is achieved when members connect with the history
and the important events of a community. This element of sense of community is one of
L’Arche’s greatest strengths. There is much emphasis in L’Arche communities on the
founding story of L’Arche, the narratives of each community, and the stories of their
individual members. Community members share a very strong spiritual bond with each
other through the telling of their stories, the numerous celebrations, and spiritual or
community rituals (L’Arche Internationale, 1993; Vanier, 1989). Finally, L’Arche
gatherings focus on positive and meaningful interactions between members, further
heightening their connection.
As can be grasped in the above analysis, sense of community influenced and was
influenced by most aspects of our daily life in L’Arche. I believe the energy of this sense
of community explains the potency of our blissful childhood memories; our sense of
uniqueness and importance in the world; our solid values; our quiet spirituality; our way
of relating to others and the world; our pride; our sadness in leaving prematurely; our
desire to return as assistants to experience it again, but differently; and our seemingly
unbreakable ties, no matter how far we travel. Although this is certainly a long and
meaningful list attesting to the positive outcomes of our sense of community, many of
our struggles as children within L’Arche can also be linked to certain elements of
McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) concept of sense of community. For example, L’Arche’s
lack of a clearly defined role for children within its communities (during our childhood
116
there) has led to confusion, frustration, and sadness, for many who at one time or another
(often during adolescence) have felt lost, out of place, or unwanted within our own
communities.
Today, L’Arche Canada is trying to clarify the issue by creating a membership
document. A draft of the Zone Membership Document (Zone Membership Taskforce,
2004) states that:
There are several categories of people who are in relationship to the community
and important to it, but do not have any form of membership. These categories
are: (...) Children of community members. Children may request an appropriate
category of membership when they reach 18 years of age. (p.7)
Although it would be difficult for children to be recognized as full-fledged members of a
community, without choosing the lifestyle for themselves, and without being able to
contribute in the same way as their parents, I question this categorization. To maintain a
strong sense of community, one must feel he or she belongs to the community and can
make a valid contribution to it (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). What does this L’Arche
Canada Zone membership definition say about children at L’Arche? Can we really be put
in the same category as non-member employees, volunteers, donors, and guardians or
relatives of community members (Zone Membership Taskforce, 2004)? How is our
contribution to the community acknowledged by this definition? While it is important to
see L’Arche taking steps towards clarifying our role or our place in the community, I do
not think it has yet acknowledged our stories and the inextricable nature of our presence
in its narrative.
In a logical next step, one can see that another weakness in our sense of
community as children of L’Arche has been L’Arche’s inability to meet certain basic
needs of ours. The “be all and end all” culture of L’Arche failed, at times, to respond to
117
our needs for personal and family space, a balanced lifestyle, parental presence, and
independence by overtaxing its resources. More importantly, our needs for safety,
security and stability were not made a priority. In the end, many aspects of L’Arche’s
culture and structure combined to create a sense of community from which we both
profited and lost.
Narratives, Stories, and Identity
A final key concept that is essential in our understanding of L’Arche’s influence
on us is the interaction between narratives, stories, and identity. In the analysis of our
stories, I compiled all the ways in which we saw our identity influenced by life at
L’Arche. Now I will consider whether L’Arche’s narrative also influenced our stories and
our identities. Mankowski and Rappaport (2000) explain that narratives (a community’s
collective stories)
…function as psychological resources, available to community members to be
used to understand and interpret their experiences and guide the construction of
their personal identity or life story…. Narratives are also a resource for the
community, as they help create collective identity, build cohesion, and recruit
new members (as well as excluding others).” (pp. 486-487)
One of L’Arche’s strengths is certainly its emphasis on narrative. The narrative of
L’Arche, detailing its founding history, its struggles, successes, lessons learned, and the
common experiences of its members, is continually told and shared between community
members. Among the more formal channels of communication are numerous books
written about L’Arche by its founder (e.g., Vanier, 1989, 1995) and other community
members (e.g., Nouwen, 1988; Mosteller, 1996). L’Arche also publishes its own
magazine called The Letters of L’Arche “To share the richness and diversity of what is
lived in L’Arche throughout the World” (L’Arche Internationale, n.d., Toolbox, Letters
of L’Arche, To subscribe). Individual communities, as well as regions and zones, also
118
share the narrative of L’Arche through their many websites and various newsletters.
Finally, at all of these organizational levels, L’Arche’s narrative is retold and relived
almost daily in celebrations, prayers, meetings, renewals, and gatherings.
This omnipresent community narrative has influenced the identity of L’Arche
children in several ways. First, as mentioned previously, the vocabulary used in sharing
L’Arche’s narrative is very distinct and has certainly influenced the way we speak of our
spirituality, community, and values. Second, research has shown that spiritual
communities help individuals find meaning and direction in their lives, a key factor in
developing ones identity (Mankowski & Rappaport, 2000; Maton & Wells, 1995). A way
that spiritual communities do this is by their constant communication of narrative,
especially through meaningful ceremonies or rites (Mankowski & Rappaport, 2000).
L’Arche lends itself well to this theory with its focus on spirituality, a well-developed
and communicated narrative, and strong traditions rooted in symbolism and celebration.
Third, it is possible that the tendency several of us have of focusing on the positive
aspects of our childhood experiences and minimizing the negative ones is due to our
internalization of L’Arche’s narrative. That is, L’Arche’s narrative has a strong focus on
finding hope, forgiveness, and personal growth through weakness, hurt, and errors.
Forgiveness is at the heart of community life. We hurt each other, and we feel
hurt so easily. To forgive means accepting these hurts and to choose, each day, to
continue walking together. To forgive someone is to recognise that what unites us
is deeper than what can divide us or hurt us. It is to believe also in the possibility
of evolution, to believe that each person can be transformed, beginning with
myself. (L’Arche Internationale, 2003b, n.p.)
With such a potent narrative of forgiveness (Sumarah, 1987b) and growth
(Vanier, 1989), it is highly possible that L’Arche’s narrative manifests itself in the
willingness many of us show in forgiving L’Arche for the harm it has caused us and to
119
focus instead on personal growth and celebrating its positive contributions. Many of us
were shocked and had a hard time understanding the magnanimous forgiveness of two of
our narrative participants who survived sexual abuse at L’Arche. Yet when we consider
L’Arche’s narrative, it seems a fairly natural response on their part; a response that is
valued and encouraged in L’Arche.
Another way in which community narratives influence our personal stories and
identity is through their interaction with sense of community. While a strong sense of
community is often deemed a positive influence on identity, researchers are discovering
that negative or neutral sense of community can also be healthy in certain circumstances
(Loomis, 2004). In particular, a negative or neutral sense of community is beneficial
when one seeks to effect meaningful change within himself or herself, because it helps
one dissociate from her or his current community and find a community whose narrative
supports a new identity (Mankowski & Rappaport, 1995; Rappaport, 1995). It is very
difficult to effect and maintain a significant change in a person’s identity when her or his
community does not support it through its narrative. “Everyone needs a community
narrative in order to support one’s personal life story, especially if that life story is being
newly created” (Rappaport, 1995, p. 804). Evidently, adolescence is a time where a life
story is being created and meaningful change is taking place in one’s identity. As such, it
is probable that many of us struggled with our membership in L’Arche during
adolescence (e.g., feeling out of place, viewing L’Arche more negatively, gradually
creating space between the community and ourselves, or drastically cutting all ties),
because we were searching for an identity that was not bound by L’Arche’s narrative.
120
As these examples indicate, L’Arche’s narrative greatly influenced our personal
stories. Furthermore, it is clear that the narrative approach lends itself well to the
ecological approach because “[it] spans levels of analysis. It explicitly recognizes that
communities, organizations and individual people have stories, and there is a mutual
influence process between these community, organizational and personal stories”
(Rappaport, 1995, p. 796). Having explored how our L’Arche communities influence our
stories and identity, I propose a way in which the stories of L’Arche children can
influence L’Arche’s narrative.
L’Arche has recently completed a three-year, three-stage identity and mission
process. In the first stage, community members explored the elements that characterize
L’Arche (International Reflecting Group, October 2003); in the second stage, they looked
at the obstacles that prevent L’Arche from being true to its identity (International
Reflecting Group, June 2004); and in the third stage, they named the mission and the
calls for L’Arche today (International Reflecting Group, March 2005). In this second
phase of the process, naming and owning responsibility for its major obstacles and
weaknesses, L’Arche members expressed that L’Arche does not yet have a clear
understanding of its founding story (see Appendix R), that it has tendency to idealize the
foundation, which prevents L’Arche from learning from its mistakes. Indeed, it is
important for a community to know and to share its history with its members so they may
understand its origin, transformations, and strengthen their sense of community through
processes of identification and belonging (García, Giuliani, & Wiesenfeld, 1999).
Consequently, the first contribution L’Arche children can make to L’Arche’s narrative is
to add their voice to it, thereby bringing more detail and accuracy, as well as an
121
additional perspective to L’Arche’s founding history. Our stories illustrate the many ways
in which L’Arche’s successes come not only from cooperation and love, but also from
hurt and mistakes.
In its identity and mission process, L’Arche also acknowledged that, while
relationships are central to the daily life of L’Arche, they are not always loving and
honest (International Reflecting Group, June 2004). This results in hurt, abandonment,
and lack of forgiveness. Again, our stories of abuse and community conflict have much to
contribute to the subject if L’Arche is willing to hear and learn from them.
Now What? Applications of Knowledge
The stories shared with me in the course of this research project have brought
forth a richness of experience from which children, parents, and community members
(within L’Arche and in other intentional communities) can benefit. Based on this
knowledge, I propose seven principles that, when adopted by parents and communities,
can contribute to a healthy and positive childhood in intentional communities.
1. Making member safety a priority
Clear limits and boundaries are formally expressed and enforced in the
community as to appropriate (and inappropriate) behaviours between and towards all
community members (children must not be left out of this). Certain dangerous or
secluded buildings/areas of the property, especially members’ bedrooms, are restricted to
children. Parents assume primary responsibility for the supervision of their children.
Parents begin to sensitize their children to issues of abuse and misconduct as early as
possible in an age-appropriate manner. Parents and communities make informed
decisions about the members they welcome into their communities: They consider
122
whether their needs and personality are compatible with those of the community, and
whether the benefits of their membership outweigh the risks they pose to all community
members, including children.
2. Allowing children the freedom to be
Children are cherished by other community members simply for being children.
Nothing more is expected of them. When communities make a clear place for children
and accept them for who they are and for what they bring to communities (the joys and
challenges, the benefits and responsibilities), children will be secure in the knowledge
that they belong and will be able to grow freely into the individuals they are meant to be.
3. Allowing children the freedom to choose
Although children typically are not involved in the decision to join a community,
children must be allowed as much freedom as their age and circumstances will allow in
their choice to participate in the community and its activities. As such, parents provide
their children with the option to stay home or to not partake in community activities, as
much as possible. Children understand that once they reach an age of independence they
are free to leave the community and that no one expects them to become full members of
the community.
4. Promoting healthy relationships with adults
When children are able to engage in healthy, respectful relationships with several
adults other than their parents, they benefit from having multiple role models. The adult
members of a community embody diversity, increase children’s self-esteem, and act as
valuable resources for knowledge and support. Therefore, creating a safe environment for
123
mutual relationships between children and other community members exposes children to
rich interpersonal learning experiences within the context of a community.
5. Supporting adolescents
Communities recognize the added challenges that adolescence brings to children
living in intentional communities. They are committed to responding to the needs of
adolescents, whether allowing them to take on more responsibility in the community (if
they ask for it), adapting events and activities to their interests, or giving them the space
they need to step back from the community. Communities are willing to listen to
adolescents and accord them the respect they deserve as emerging adults who are no
longer children.
6. Encouraging and nourishing balance
Communities recognize the special needs of families for space, time, financial
security, and stability. Families live in their own house and have clear limits about
visitors. Parents put their families first and their communities second. Communities
understand and support this. Children are not cocooned within their community: They
study, play, and interact in milieus outside of it, and non-members are welcomed into the
community. Children are exposed to mainstream culture on a regular basis and are
supported in their understanding and handling of how it differs from their community’s
culture.
7. Making room for connecting and reflecting
Children who live in intentional communities need opportunities to connect with
other community children. During adolescence or early adulthood, children of intentional
communities need to be able to distance themselves from their community experience to
124
gain perspective on their childhood in the community and to process the impact it has had
on their identity.
Implications for L’Arche and L’Arche Parents
In conclusion, although L’Arche had to learn by trial and error how to
accommodate us in its vision and daily reality, it still has to acknowledge our presence in
its communities and history. As such, L’Arche must continue to clarify its position on
children. Furthermore, L’Arche needs to acknowledge our contribution to community life
and, for better or for worse, L’Arche must accept its role and responsibility in our
childhood. This acknowledgement of responsibility includes an open and honest
discussion about the sexual abuse of children that has taken place in L’Arche
communities. Finally, both parents and L’Arche must seek to understand how children’s
lives are affected by communal life, and they must strive to maximize the benefits and
minimize the damage that result from our presence in the community.
Conclusion
There is much to be learned from the stories of L’Arche children and I consider
my study simply to be the first step in a long journey of systematic inquiry. In this first
step, we learned that L’Arche children have specific needs (for space, safety, support,
freedom, nurturing relationships, a place within their communities, etc.) and offer their
communities a special gift by their presence. We have also learned that the stories of
L’Arche children can fill certain gaps in the narrative of L’Arche. By listening to their
stories and applying the acquired knowledge (e.g., the seven guidelines I propose),
communities can foster healthier environments for all of its members, not just children.
125
As I mentioned in my discussion section, I believe that this study could be
improved by gaining more depth in the stories of L’Arche children through in-person
interviews and focus groups. To come full-circle in the exploration of the stories of
L’Arche children and their place within L’Arche, I also believe that parents and other
community members need a forum to discuss their hopes, dreams, and struggles as they
raised children in their communities. It would be wonderful to see L’Arche explore the
stories of all its children and families worldwide and to give them a privileged place in its
narrative.
The strength of this study lies in the diversity of the stories captured and in its
ability to give voice to the stories of L’Arche children. My participants represent the
essence of diversity that makes L’Arche what it is. Their willingness to share their stories
and their time to assist me in making this a true polyphonic narrative speaks to their need
to vocalize their stories and to the important role L’Arche has played in their lives.
Several participants have already shared that their participation in this study has touched
them and helped them better understand their story within its context. For some, this
study has piqued curiosity and initiated a process of reflection. It has even opened up a
pathway for discussion within certain families. Again, I hope that this is only the
beginning of a long process.
In an attempt to do my part, to act constructively on the outcomes of this study,
and to make use of this newfound knowledge, I commit myself to the following:
1. I will contact the Letters of L’Arche (L’Arche’s main forum for discussion and
communication among its communities) to explore the possibility of converting
my thesis into an article for the many international members and friends of
126
L’Arche who read this publication. My goal is to make the stories of L’Arche
children accessible to those who stand to learn and benefit the most from them.
My intention is to incite L’Arche and its members to act on my findings.
2. I will continue to discuss, with my participants and members of L’Arche, ways by
which L’Arche children can meet or reconnect to discuss their experiences. Most
of my participants were excited by the possibility of an organized reunion and
some also offered assistance in planning one. I would also like to explore the
ways that L’Arche children can reach each other online (maybe through the
websites of L’Arche Canada or L’Arche Internationale).
3. I will continue to distribute copies of my thesis to members of L’Arche who are
interested in the stories of its children and who wish to know more.
127
Epilogue
When I wrote the proposal for this thesis project, I named it Becoming: Stories of
L’Arche Children because two of Jean Vanier’s quotes resonated with me.
Community is a place of belonging, a place where people are earthed and find
their identity. (1989, p.13)
¸
Belonging is for becoming. (1989, p. 22)
At the time, I felt L’Arche was the place we children were earthed, felt we belonged, and
started the process of becoming ourselves. I still think this is true, although I now know it
may not have been the place where we all wished we were or where we always felt we
belonged. Yet as I near the end of this long process that is my thesis, I realize that
Becoming is still a fitting title. By its very nature, becoming is a non-static state: It
embodies constant change and evolution. Through the sharing of our stories and the
assembly of a polyphonic narrative, we the children of L’Arche are recreating an identity
for ourselves and are carving our place into the identity of L’Arche. We are becoming.
128
Appendix A
Fundamental Principles of L’Arche13
1. Whatever their gifts or their limitations, people are all bound together in a common
humanity. Everyone is of unique and sacred value, and everyone has the same dignity
and the same rights.
2. If human beings are to develop their abilities and talents to the full, realizing all their
potential as individuals, they need an environment that fosters personal growth.
3. People with mental handicap often possess qualities of welcome, wonderment,
spontaneity, and directness. They are able to touch hearts and to call others to unity
through their simplicity and vulnerability.
4. Weakness and vulnerability in a person, far from being an obstacle to union with
God, can foster it.
5. In order to develop the inner freedom to which all people are called, and to grow in
union with God, each person needs to have the opportunity of being rooted and
nourished in religious tradition.
13
From: L’Arche Internationale (1993). Charter of the communities of L’Arche. Retrieved August 11,
2005, from http://www.larche.org/
129
Appendix B
Script for Telephone Narrative Interview
This is an interview about the story of your childhood at L’Arche. I’m asking you to play
the role of storyteller about this time in your life. Telling your story is a way to pass on
parts of yourself to others, and of making sense of who you are. My goal today is to try
and capture what it has meant to you to be a child in a L’Arche community. Although I
have lived at L’Arche and know and understand many aspects of life at L’Arche, I do not
know everything. You are an expert on your experience and its accompanying thoughts,
feelings, and memories. Therefore, it may be easier for you to pretend that you are talking
to someone who has no prior knowledge of L’Arche. In telling me your story, you do not
need to tell me everything that has ever happened to you while at L’Arche. A story is
selective. Think back to the key events, people, themes, and relationships that you
identified/remembered when you looked through your old pictures. I am interested in
both the positive and negative aspects of your experience so it is up to you to tell me what
you think is important and representative of your experience at L’Arche.
This interview can last between 1.5 and 3 hours. We can take a break anytime you feel
you need one. With your permission, I will tape-record the interview so that I can
accurately capture what you have said. Please be assured that your participation in this
study is voluntary and that you can withdraw your participation at any time without
penalty. You can also refuse to answer any question along the way. I will protect your
privacy and confidentiality in the manner identified by you in the consent form you
signed. You will have the opportunity to review the transcript for this interview before I
use any data from it. Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin?
1. Introduction
Please tell me about yourself.
(Probe for age, occupation, education, family)
2. L’Arche Story
Now I’d like you to share your story of life at L’Arche. You can take your time in doing
this and give as many details as possible, because everything that is important to you is of
interest to me. I will not ask any questions while you share your story, and will only
interrupt if necessary. It may feel a bit awkward, not like a regular conversation
(especially over the telephone) because you will be doing a lot of talking in this part of
the interview. However, try to let go of the discomfort and concentrate on making your
experience as clear and vivid as possible. When you feel that your story is complete, I
will move to a more active role. I will ask you to clarify and elaborate on themes that you
have mentioned (or not) in your story.
So (participant’s name), tell me your story of growing up in L’Arche. I want to
know: What was it like for you to be a child in a L’Arche community?
130
3. Narrative Inquiries (in no specific order)
Choice
In much of the literature on L’Arche there is an emphasis placed on choice. Communal
life, especially life at L’Arche, is said not to be for everyone. Therefore, it is important
that assistants and core members alike choose to be a part of the community.
What role (if any) has choice played in your story?
Probe for choice in:
- Joining/leaving community (what are the associated emotions?)
- Participating in community activities
- Career and life decisions (are they linked to or guided by the values of L’Arche?)
Countercultural Values
L’Arche is regularly referred to as a countercultural movement because it opposes the
individualistic focus of Western society. When you were at L’Arche, did you recognize
this countercultural aspect? If so, did it affect you in any way?
Probe for:
- Where did participant feel he/she belonged (or not)?
- Did he/she feel different? (Give example of situation)
- Did he/she sense tension between the world of L’Arche and the “outside world”,
like at school or with friends? (Give example of situation)
Family
How do you think your family life was affected by being in a L’Arche community?
Probe for:
- Flexibility and demands
- Community aspects/rules carried over into family life
- Visitors and guests
- Closeness
- Definition of family
- Alone time for family
Sense of community
How would you describe your connection (or lack thereof) to your community?
Probe for:
- Sense of belonging
- Personal validation
- Shared values
- Shared history
- Fulfillment of needs & support
What about a connection to L’Arche as an International Federation of people who share
common values?
How would you define “community”?
131
Spirituality
L’Arche is described as an ecumenical Christian organization that encourages its
members to deepen their spirituality, whatever their faith. What was your spiritual
experience like at L’Arche?
Probe for:
- Spiritual/religious events and celebrations (church, prayer, vigils, etc.)
- Personal beliefs? Definition of spirituality/religion in present day life?
Relationships
There is great emphasis placed on mutual relationships in L’Arche. Recognizing and
valuing interdependence, as well as engaging in reciprocal exchanges strengthens
relationships and helps individuals grow. What relationships/friendships (if any) have
you had at L’Arche that exemplified this? What relationships/friendships at L’Arche (if
any) have touched you or made you grow as a person, and how?
Probe for relationships with:
- Core members
- Community assistants
- Visitors/friends of the community
4. Ending the Interview
Identity
Summarize how L’Arche seems to have influenced who the participant is (through what
he/she has said).
Is my summary accurate? What would you add to this list?
Can probe for the following themes:
- Sense of agency
- Desire to be of help
- Need for independence
- Recognition/acceptance of strengths and weaknesses
- Sense of justice
- Value of diversity
Is there anything else that you feel you want to say about your experience at L’Arche?
How do you feel about this interview? Did you feel comfortable sharing your story with
me and discussing the themes I brought up? Is there anything that I could change about
the interview to make it better?
Are there any questions that you would like answered or do you need any clarification
regarding the research process?
Thank you for your participation in this interview. I really appreciate you sharing your
story and experience with me.
132
Appendix C
Script for Key Stakeholder Interviews
The purpose of this interview is for you to share your experience and knowledge
regarding children at L’Arche. I am interested in hearing your insights about this topic as
I believe that you can provide me with a unique perspective on children at L’Arche.
I anticipate that this interview will last approximately 60 minutes. We may take a break at
any time you feel you need one. With your permission, I will tape record the interview so
that I can accurately capture what you have said. Please be assured that your participation
in this study is voluntary and that you can withdraw your participation at any time
without penalty. You can also refuse to answer any question along the way. I will protect
your privacy and confidentiality in the manner identified by you in the consent form you
signed. You will have the opportunity to review the transcript for this interview before I
use any data from it. Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin?
1. Introduction
- Review Consent Statement
- Please tell me briefly about your work experience at L’Arche.
(Probe for years of service, different roles taken on, different communities, any years
away from L’Arche)
2. Questions based on thematic analysis of narrative interviews
L’Arche: A place in time
- Do you think that certain members of L’Arche (especially in the early 1970s)
were maybe somewhat naïve about what life at L’Arche would mean for them and
for the children raised there?
- What was your reaction to the safety issues that were brought up by some of the
L’Arche children? Were you surprised?
- What has your personal/professional experience been with safety in your
community?
- What has your personal/professional experience been with inappropriate sexual
behaviour and/or sexual abuse at L’Arche? How does/has L’Arche approach or
address these issues?
- What is your reaction to claims by some children that the utopian atmosphere at
L’Arche made them naïve and vulnerable in the “outside world”? Do you think
that is possible?
Living in a counterculture
- Some of the children I interviewed were stigmatized by association for being in
L’Arche. Have you witnessed the contagion of stigma in children in your
community?
133
-
Did you know that many L’Arche children find it difficult to explain their life at
L’Arche? Why do you think that is?
Choosing L’Arche
- L’Arche emphasizes the importance of choosing to be part of a community for
both core members and assistants. What do you think of the lack of choice
available for children who are raised in L’Arche?
- What has been your experience of choice and availability of appropriate
activities/opportunities for involvement for children in your community?
- What has been your experience with families leaving L’Arche? Are the departing
reasons identified by my narrative participants the usual ones you have
encountered? Are you aware of this idea that founding members should not be
permanent members? If so, can you explain the reasoning behind it?
- Would you agree that the usual reasons for returning to L’Arche as an assistant
are: 1) familiarity; 2) opportunity to travel; and 3) unique job?
- Why do you think that many L’Arche children become short term assistants but
rarely remain in the long term?
Children in L’Arche
- What do you think is the role of, or the place for, children in L’Arche? Has your
perspective changed over the years? Is this L’Arche’s perspective (as an
organization)?
Families grounded in L’Arche
- What has been your experience with the issue of balancing family life and
community life? (physical space, intrusions/demands, parent away on L’Arche
business…)
- What is L’Arche’s perspective on families in its communities? Is it moving away
from its initial focus on celibate individuals?
- What did you think of the financial issues brought up by my narrative
participants?
- Are there many families living in L’Arche today the way my participants and
myself did?
- What do you think is the future of families in L’Arche? Is there one?
Our L’Arche connection: Talk about sense of community
- What did you think of my narrative participants’ sense of community &
connection with L’Arche communities and people?
Building strong relationships at L’Arche
- Were you surprised by the lack of deep relationships between children and core
members?
- What do you think is important in the relationship between assistants and L’Arche
children?
134
Growing up “Goddi”: Religion and spirituality in L’Arche
- Why do you think that, despite its positive and simple approach, L’Arche religion
and spirituality did not generally appeal to L’Arche children?
Becoming: L’Arche’s role in forming our identity
- How have you seen L’Arche shape the children in your community?
3. Ending the interview
Is there anything else that you feel you want to say about children at L’Arche?
How do you feel about this interview? Did you feel comfortable sharing your experience
with me and discussing the themes I brought up? Is there anything that I could change
about the interview to make it better?
Are there any questions that you would like answered or do you need any clarification
regarding the research process?
Thank you for your participation in this interview. I really appreciate you sharing your
knowledge and experience with me.
135
Appendix D
Informed Consent Statement
Becoming: Stories of L’Arche Children
Caroline A. Currie, B.A., Principal Researcher
Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., Thesis Advisor
Dear Prospective Participant,
My name is Caroline Currie and I am a Masters student in community psychology at
Wilfrid Laurier University. I am also a “L’Arche child,” having spent the first eleven
years of my life living in the L’Arche community La Caravane (Glen Roy, ON) with my
family.
I am writing to invite you to participate in the above-named research project; my masters
thesis. The purpose of this study is to gather the stories of former L’Arche children to
share the experience of what it is like to grow up in a L’Arche community. Through my
story and the stories of other L’Arche children like you, I hope to bring together a group
of varied experiences within L’Arche and show how communal life has shaped (or not)
who we are.
Information
The principal method of investigation in this research project is in-depth interviewing.
Due to the time constraints involved with transcription and translation, I will conduct all
interviews in English only. However, should participants or stakeholders need to revert to
French on occasion to better express themselves, I am open to this as I am fluently
bilingual. In total, I plan to interview 10 former L’Arche children for this study.
Participants are considered eligible for this project if they meet the following criteria:
- Adult living independently from L’Arche (Paid L’Arche assistants qualify)
- Aged 20 to 35 years old
- Have lived in a L’Arche community for a minimum of 2 years during their middle
childhood or adolescence
I will also be including my own story, and interviewing 3 key stakeholders (e.g., a
L’Arche parent, a L’Arche coordinator, other community member) for their experience
and views related to children at L’Arche.
Should you choose to participate in this research project, this is what I would ask of you:
- Interview preparation. Look through your photo album(s) from L’Arche. Choose 2
to 3 pictures that are representative of, or meaningful to you about your childhood
at L’Arche. Write a brief explanation of the photographs’ meaning. This exercise
will help you remember feelings and memories of your childhood at L’Arche. So,
as you look through your pictures, you may also find it helpful to write down key
events, relationships, themes, and memories you feel are an important part of your
story. If you wish, you may share the 2 or 3 pictures and accompanying text with
me, to be used for analysis and/or presentation in my final document.
136
- Narrative interview. I will conduct a narrative interview with you. In this interview
I will ask you to share your story of life at L’Arche, and together we will explore
certain themes related to your experience. This interview will last approximately
1.5 to 3 hours and, with your consent, will be recorded using a tape recorder.
Should you prefer not to have the interview recorded, I will take notes of our
interview. This interview will be conducted by telephone or in person, depending
on my ability to travel to your city/province. In-person interviews will be conducted
at a location chosen by you.
- Document review. I will ask you to review your interview transcript for accuracy.
You may add, omit, or modify information as judged necessary. I will also ask you
to review a summary of your story and my final analysis to ensure that you are
comfortable with the material related to you, and my interpretation of this study’s
findings.
Risks
A foreseeable risk or discomfort that you may experience from participating in this study
is that you may become upset by certain memories evoked. You may also feel that
revealing such personal information about your experience jeopardizes your privacy, and
that of your family or other community members. Your parents or siblings may be
especially affected by what you say about them in your story, so it is important that you
consider their feelings as well as your own when making decisions about privacy and
confidentiality. Please note that I am committed to protecting your emotional well-being
and privacy. What you reveal in interview is entirely up to you, and the confidentiality
measures discussed further below are geared towards ensuring the protection of your
privacy and confidentiality.
Benefits
As a participant in this study, you may benefit by giving voice to your story, and having
it heard by others. You may also gain a clearer perspective on your experience at
L’Arche, and a greater self-knowledge. Finally, you may also contribute to the creation of
sense of community or connectedness among L’Arche children. This study will benefit
L’Arche communities and the scientific community by providing the first narrative
account of the L’Arche experience from the perspective of children. Though there are
many community members who have written about and shared their stories of L’Arche,
no children have ever done so.
Confidentiality
I will ensure your privacy and confidentiality in whatever way you judge necessary.
Through the attached consent form you are able to indicate to me whether or not you
wish to be identified by first name, community name, and/or geographic region.
Furthermore, it is entirely up to you whether or not your childhood pictures and quotes
from your interview are included in my final document.
All audio tapes, interview transcripts, pictures, and any material linked to you will be
kept in a locked-cabinet. My thesis advisor, Dr. Richard Walsh-Bowers, and I will be the
only people with access to the interview material. If you grant permission for audio-
137
taping, no audio tapes will be used for any purpose other than to do this study, and will
not be played for any reason other than to do this study. Once interviews are transcribed,
tapes will be destroyed or returned to you, if so requested. You will be given a copy of
your story’s summary (as written by myself) to read and edit before my final document is
made available to others. Upon completion of this study, I will send all participants a
summary report of my research. I will also be sharing the knowledge generated from this
study with the International Federation of L’Arche through a written article or report, and
with the academic community through my final thesis document. Please be assured that I
will not include personal information or quotations concerning you in any form of
communication without first requesting your permission. Please note that you may also
request, at any time during the research process, that certain material shared in your
interview be excluded from my research.
Contact
If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures (or you experience
adverse effects as a result of participating in this study), you may contact me, the
principal researcher, Caroline Currie, at (902) 859-3202 (curr1886@wlu.ca) or my thesis
advisor, Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., Professor of Psychology, at (519) 884-0710,
extension 3630. This project has been reviewed and approved by the University Research
Ethics Board. If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this
form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of
this project, you may contact Dr. Bill Marr, Chair, University Research Ethics Board,
Wilfrid Laurier University, (519) 884-0710, extension 2468.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without
penalty. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time
without penalty. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your
data will be returned to you or destroyed. You have the right to omit any
question(s)/procedure(s) you choose.
Feedback
Feedback about the study will be sent to you by mail upon completion of the study, no
later than September 2005.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the attached consent
forms and return one copy to me in the enclosed envelope.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline A. Currie, M.A. Candidate
Community Psychology Program
Wilfrid Laurier University
138
Appendix E
Informed Consent Statement
Becoming: Stories of L’Arche Children
Caroline A. Currie, B.A., Principal Researcher
Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., Thesis Advisor
Dear Key Stakeholder,
My name is Caroline Currie and I am a Masters student in community psychology at
Wilfrid Laurier University. I am also a “L’Arche child,” having spent the first eleven
years of my life living in the L’Arche community La Caravane (Glen Roy, ON) with my
family.
I am writing to invite you to participate in the above-named research project; my masters
thesis. The purpose of this study is to gather the stories of former L’Arche children to
share the experience of what it is like to grow up in a L’Arche community. Through my
story and the stories of other L’Arche children, I hope to bring together a group of varied
experiences within L’Arche and show how communal life has shaped (or not) who its
children are.
Information
The principal method of investigation in this research project is in-depth interviewing.
Due to the time constraints involved with transcription and translation, I will conduct all
interviews in English only. However, should participants or stakeholders need to revert to
French on occasion to better express themselves, I am open to this as I am fluently
bilingual. In total, I plan to interview 10 former L’Arche children for this study. I will
also be including my own story through auto-ethnographic writing. Finally, in order to
situate the stories of L’Arche children gathered in this study I will interview 3 key
stakeholders. Stakeholders are identified and recruited because of their extensive
experience with L’Arche, personal family experience, and/or particular knowledge that
they may contribute about the experience/role of children in L’Arche communities.
Should you choose to participate in this research project as a key stakeholder, this is what
I would ask of you:
- Semi-structured interview. I will conduct a semi-structured interview with you. In
this interview, I will ask you to share your experience with children in L’Arche
(whether they are your own or those of fellow community members), your thoughts
on their role in the community, and your perspective on key themes that have
emerged in the stories shared with me. This interview will last approximately 45-60
minutes and, with your consent, will be recorded using a tape recorder. Should you
prefer not to have the interview recorded, I will take notes of our interview. This
interview will be conducted by telephone.
- Document review. I will ask you to review your interview transcript for accuracy.
You may add, omit, or modify information as judged necessary.
139
Risks
A foreseeable risk or discomfort that you may experience from participating in this study
is that you may become upset by certain memories evoked. You may also feel that
revealing personal information about your experience jeopardizes your privacy, and that
of your family or other community members. Your children or spouse/partner may be
especially affected by what you say about them, so it is important that you consider their
feelings as well as your own when making decisions about privacy and confidentiality.
Please note that I am committed to protecting your privacy. What you reveal in interview
is entirely up to you, and the confidentiality measures discussed further below are geared
towards ensuring the protection of your privacy and confidentiality.
Benefits
As a participant in this study, you may benefit simply by having your thoughts about
children in L’Arche heard, and by being an integral part of this research. This study will
benefit L’Arche communities and the scientific community by providing the first
narrative account of the L’Arche experience from the perspective of children. Though
there are many community members who have written about and shared their stories of
L’Arche, no children have ever done so.
Confidentiality
I will ensure your privacy and confidentiality in whatever way you judge necessary.
Through the attached consent form you are able to indicate to me whether or not you
wish to be identified by first name, job title, community name, and/or geographic region.
Furthermore, it is entirely up to you whether or not quotes from your interview are
included in my final document.
All audio tapes, interview transcripts, and any material linked to you will be kept in a
locked-cabinet. My thesis advisor, Richard Walsh-Bowers, and I will be the only people
with access to the interview material. If you grant permission for audio taping, no audio
tapes will be used for any purpose other than to do this study, and will not be played for
any reason other than to do this study. Once interviews are transcribed, tapes will be
destroyed or returned to you, if so requested. Upon completion of this study, I will send
all participants a report of my research. I will also be sharing the knowledge generated
from this study with the International Federation of L’Arche through a written article or
report, and with the academic community through my final thesis document. Please be
assured that I will not include personal information or quotations concerning you in any
form of communication without first requesting your permission. Please note that you
may also request, at any time during the research process, that certain material shared in
interview be excluded from my research.
Contact
If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures (or you experience
adverse effects as a result of participating in this study), you may contact me, the
principal researcher, Caroline Currie, at (902) 859-3202 (curr1886@wlu.ca) or my thesis
advisor, Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., at (519) 884-0710, extension 3630. This project
140
has been reviewed and approved by the University Research Ethics Board. If you feel
you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a
participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may
contact Dr. Bill Marr, Chair, University Research Ethics Board, Wilfrid Laurier
University, (519) 884-0710, extension 2468.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary; you may decline to participate without
penalty. If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time
without penalty. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your
data will be returned to you or destroyed. You have the right to omit any
question(s)/procedure(s) you choose.
Feedback
Feedback about the study will be sent to you by mail upon completion of the study, no
later than September 2005.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the attached consent
forms and return one copy to me in the enclosed envelop.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline A. Currie, M.A. Candidate
Community Psychology Program
Wilfrid Laurier University
141
Appendix F
Consent Form for Participation in the Research Study Entitled:
Becoming: Stories of L’Arche Children
Caroline A. Currie, B.A., Principal Researcher
Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., Thesis Advisor
I have been informed of the purpose, methods, and the requirements of participation
associated with the above named study. I understand that I am free to withdraw my
participation at any time without penalty, and that I do not have to answer any question. I
am aware that the principal researcher is legally responsible to report any past or current
child abuse that is disclosed during the interview. I understand that the researcher will
provide me with a typed copy of the interview transcript, a summary of my story, and a
summary of her data analysis for approval and/or editing. All data linked to me will be
stored in a locked cabinet and disposed of following the completion of the study to
protect my confidentiality.
Participant’s Name: ____________________________
Participants’s Signature: ____________________________ Date __________________
Researcher’s Signature: ____________________________ Date __________________
 I have read and understand the information from the informed consent letter and I
have received a copy for my records. Yes
No
 I agree to participate in an interview for this research. Yes
 I agree to have the interview tape-recorded. Yes
No
No
 I give permission to the researcher to use direct quotes from my interview after I have
had a chance to review and edit the interview transcript. Yes
No
 I give permission to the researcher to use pictures provided by myself for her final
thesis document. Yes
No
 I give permission to the researcher to identify me by:
ƒ
First name Yes
No
(If no, I would like to use the following pseudonym: ______________________)
ƒ
L’Arche community name Yes
No
(If yes, please provide community name: ________________________________)
ƒ
Geographic region of my L’Arche community Yes
No
142
If yes, please check the applicable region below
Western Canada
Ontario/Quebec
Eastern Canada
 I may be reached by the principal researcher to schedule an interview:
By phone at (
) ___________________
The best day/time to reach me is ______________________________________
By e-mail at _______________________________
143
Appendix G
Consent Form for Participation in the Research Study Entitled:
Becoming: Stories of L’Arche Children
Caroline A. Currie, B.A., Principal Researcher
Richard Walsh-Bowers, PhD., Thesis Advisor
I have been informed of the purpose, methods, and the requirements of participation
associated with the above named study. I understand that I am free to withdraw my
participation at any time without penalty, and that I do not have to answer any question. I
am aware that the principal researcher is legally responsible to report any past or current
child abuse that is disclosed during the interview. I understand that the researcher will
provide me with a typed copy of the interview transcript for approval. All data linked to
me will be stored in a locked cabinet and disposed of following the completion of the
study to protect my confidentiality.
Key Stakeholder’s Name: ____________________________
Key Stakeholder’s Signature: _______________________ Date __________________
Researcher’s Signature: ____________________________ Date __________________
 I have read and understand the information from the informed consent letter and I
have received a copy for my records. Yes
No
 I agree to participate in an interview for this research. Yes
 I agree to have the interview tape-recorded. Yes
No
No
 I give permission to the researcher to use direct quotes from my interview after I have
had a chance to review and edit the interview transcript. Yes
No
 I give permission to the researcher to identify me by:
ƒ
First name Yes
No
(If no, I would like to use the following pseudonym: ______________________)
ƒ
Job title at L’Arche Yes
No
(If yes, my role at L’Arche is: ________________________________________)
ƒ
L’Arche community name Yes
No
(If yes, please provide community name: ________________________________)
ƒ
Geographic region of my L’Arche community Yes
If yes, please check the applicable region below
No
144
Western Canada
Ontario/Quebec
Eastern Canada
 I may be reached by the principal researcher to schedule an interview:
By phone at (
) ___________________
The best day/time to reach me is _______________________________________
By e-mail at _______________________________
145
Appendix H
Catherine’s Story
Catherine is a 20 year old student in her second year of anthropology at
L’Université de Laval in Québec City. Catherine’s parents met and married at L’Arche in
Haïti more than 20 years ago. A few years after her older brother was born, Catherine’s
father was asked to be director of L’Arche Calcutta in India and her family moved there.
It was in this L’Arche community that Catherine and her two younger sisters were born.
Catherine loved the community in Calcutta, because she felt very integrated into the
community. While in Calcutta, Catherine’s family lived on the second floor of an
apartment building whose first floor was occupied by core members and assistants. This
living arrangement put Catherine in very close contact with the community members and
she spent a lot of time with them, routinely sharing meals together.
Catherine especially loved the assistants in her community because they were
very much like older siblings who took care of her and played games with her. The core
members in Catherine’s community were also an important presence in her daily life
because she was constantly interacting with them. However, while she grew close to an
older man in her community, Catherine’s relationships with core members were not as
deep as they would later be.
When Catherine was nine years old, her parents decided to move her family back
to Canada: Her brother was having a difficult time adjusting to life in Calcutta and at
L’Arche. While her parents also thought that all four children would benefit from an
education in Canada, Catherine was not happy with their decision.
146
I was really, really, really, really sad to leave the community cause I was very
happy at that time. I remember my nine first years like something really great and
everyone was happy and life was nice and all that. So yeah, I remember that it
was really hard and I had this memory of [this core member] crying because I was
leaving. He took me in his arms and all that. And I think it’s the first time that I
felt sadness.
Catherine’s integration into her new community in the province of Québec went
fairly well, even though there were many changes to which she had to adapt. In addition
to no longer living in such close proximity to her new community members, Catherine
had to adjust to the core member in her new community. Not only were they much older
than the mostly adolescent core members in Calcutta, but they also had different
disabilities. In Calcutta, Catherine had essentially been oblivious to the disabilities of the
core members because she had been raised with them from birth and just accepted their
disabilities as a normal part of who they were. In her new community however, Catherine
was confronted with new manifestations of disability and realized for the first time how
an individual’s disability could be a barrier when you first met them. Catherine though
quickly broke through these barriers and learned to appreciate her new community and its
members.
In fact, in Calcutta and Canada, L’Arche took on a role of extended family for
Catherine, because her own aunts and uncles and cousins lived far away. Catherine
appreciated the assistants who took care of her, babysat her, took her shopping or helped
with her homework. She also developed a close relationship with a core member in her
new community who sought Catherine out as a friend. Although this woman was often
shouting or crying loudly, which scared Catherine, she liked Catherine and smiled more
when the young girl was around. Not long after Catherine’s arrival in Canada, this core
member started inviting Catherine regularly for meals at her home and they began to
147
really enjoy each other’s company. Unfortunately, this core member died within
approximately one year of Catherine’s arrival and deeply saddened her. Today, Catherine
still has a picture of this core member on her wall and appreciates how she reached out to
her in friendship.
I think that I will always remember this woman because (…) the first time I was
afraid of her and I was not really appreciating her but she tried to have a
relationship with me…. I was privileged to have this relationship and I think that
marked me a lot.
In her early teens, Catherine started feeling less enthusiastic about her life at
L’Arche. Now that she was older, assistants paid less attention to her and there were no
longer activities specifically geared towards someone her age – she was bored and
uninterested. By the age of 15, Catherine no longer felt like she had a place in L’Arche.
When she was 16 years old, Catherine accompanied her father on a trip to her
former community in India. At first, the visit was difficult because she no longer spoke
Bengali fluently, the assistants she once knew were gone, and she experienced culture
shock. However, a 16 year old core member with Down Syndrome soon befriended
Catherine: They spoke English together and had much fun. This friendship opened
Catherine’s eyes to the vision of L’Arche and inspired her to take a new place in L’Arche
as an assistant.
I really saw that you could have a lot of fun with handicapped people and they
were not just handicapped people. This guy was just fun and I forgot that he was
mentally handicapped and I was just really happy to see him and all that. It’s at
this moment in India, at 16, that I said: “Oh! Okay, I want to be an assistant too at
L’Arche because it’s a nice thing that you can have.” It’s really because of this
guy that I chose to become an assistant at L’Arche.
Since her return from India, Catherine has worked as an assistant for three summers in
her Canadian L’Arche community. This has led her to rediscover L’Arche, and the core
members she knew as a child, in a whole new way. Although Catherine does not see
148
herself working at L’Arche for the rest of her life, she does anticipate being an assistant
for another year or two. Catherine also knows that her experience as an assistant at
L’Arche, more than her childhood there, is what will inspire her to maintain contact with
L’Arche in the future. As for what her childhood at L’Arche has taught her, Catherine
says that she is a more open person and that she sees the importance of having values that
guide your life. She especially cherishes the value of simplicity which L’Arche instilled
in her.
149
Appendix I
Jean-Frédérick’s Story
Jean-Frédérick is a 38 year old artist and entrepreneur skilled in sculpture and
boat building. He is currently director of research and development for a large art and
technology company in Las Vegas. Jean-Frédérick lives part-time in Las Vegas and parttime in New York city.
In 1969, Jean-Frédérick’s parents founded Daybreak, in Richmond Hill Ontario,
the first L’Arche community in Canada. Not long after, Jean-Frédérick was born into the
Daybreak community, making him the first Canadian L’Arche child. During their first
few years at L’Arche, Jean-Frédérick, along with his younger sister and parents, lived in
a community house with core members. Shortly after its founding, assistants and other
families arrived from around the country and the world to visit or stay at Daybreak. As
the community grew over time, Jean-Frédérick’s family moved into an apartment in
another community house and finally their own little bungalow on the Daybreak
property. Jean-Frédérick loved his life at L’Arche. He enjoyed the company of all the
people who would come in and out of the community, and he loved spending time with
his father working on the farm.
Jean-Frédérick developed close and warm relationships with the core members in
his community. Years after having left L’Arche, he realized that one special core
member, the first in the community, was a blood relative of his. Indeed, it was his greataunt who had inspired his parents to start a L’Arche community so that she could live in a
home rather than an institution. To Jean-Frédérick, most core members were like family
150
members anyway and he felt loved and spoiled by them, even if they sometimes told him
what to do.
Being in the first Canadian L’Arche community made for a hectic and demanding
life. Jean-Frédérick’s parents were incredibly busy with meeting the demands of a
burgeoning community. Nonetheless, Jean-Frédérick’s mother made a real effort to create
a close-knit family unit and he always had at least one parent present. Although JeanFrédérick loved his life at L’Arche, he realized that he had an abnormal life and he was
sometimes confused by the whirlwind around him. In addition to living in a
counterculture with people who are rejected by society, Jean-Frédérick’s life was
juxtaposed to that of the children in the neighbouring orphanage with whom he went to
school. Here, yards down from the Daybreak community where society’s rejected were
accepted with loving arms, lived orphans who were also unwanted by society. In the
midst of these worlds, Jean-Frédérick felt safe and special at L’Arche. “I just remember
that I knew that my place in the world was definitely not ordinary.”
One of Jean-Frédérick’s special memories from L’Arche is a pilgrimage his
community made, along with other L’Arche communities, from Lourdes to Canterbury.
He remembers the pride he felt to be a part of this group that was recognized by society,
and even cheered-on by bystanders on the pilgrimage route. It was an exciting trip and
Jean-Frédérick was swept up in the excitement with his fellow community members.
While the safe and warm environment at L’Arche was wonderful for JeanFrédérick while he was there, he feels it was so nurturing that it left him ill-equipped for
the harsh world outside of L’Arche. He did not feel tough enough to handle the rougher
world and struggled to catch up.
151
When he was nine years old, Jean-Frédérick’s family left L’Arche. His parents
had taken a sabbatical to write a research paper but never returned to their community. It
was a difficult decision that Jean-Frédérick thinks was motivated by the notion that as
founding members, his parents did not have the appropriate skills or gifts to help operate
an established community. Jean-Frédérick was sad and did not understand this change in
his life.
I was very confused about the whole thing because that was really, you know, it’s
what you know…. I remember being not sure why that whole change had taken
place. I think it was traumatic. But traumatic (…) as any change for a kid that
age…. There were conversations behind closed doors that I don’t know anything
about…. There was definitely something lacking for a short period of time….
because [L’Arche] was really the raison-d’être for my parents. Like if you can
imagine living with a race car driver and then there’s no cars anymore, he’s kind
of lost his purpose. And I remember that it seemed that way for a while within our
house.
Since leaving his community, Jean-Frédérick’s contact with L’Arche has been
limited. However, he did return for celebrations of L’Arche’s thirtieth anniversary and
had an opportunity to re-connect with core members from his community. This was a
special occasion for Jean-Frédérick and the warm welcome he received reminded him of
the ease of relationships at L’Arche and the need to have an open heart to connect with
others.
Even though Jean-Frédérick lives and works in a world fairly far removed from
his childhood, he holds a special place for L’Arche in his heart. According to him, the
especially omnipresent spirituality and countercultural feel of his childhood has in fact
made a significant contribution to his present life and career in art.
[The L’Arche attitude of finding] people who have fallen between the cracks [of
mainstream society and recognizing they] have something to offer… I think that
has been one of the things that has spurred my interest in art. I was drawn to
artists and art teachers who had this intense spiritual and philosophical mindset
that was lived out in their artwork. And so, [L’Arche] definitely sent me on this
152
journey… really definitely sent me on this journey. And that it would end up in
Las Vegas is very, very funny.
153
Appendix J
Krista’s Story
Krista is a 27 year old physiotherapist who currently lives and works in North
Bay, Ontario. Krista entered L’Arche Daybreak in Richmond Hill, Ontario when she was
two years old. Her parents had previously founded L’Arche Bouake, a community on the
Ivory Coast in Africa, and returned to Canada when Krista’s mother was pregnant with
her older brother.
During their first year at L’Arche, Krista’s family lived in a Daybreak home with
core members and assistants. Her family had their own three-bedroom apartment on the
upper level of the home but they shared in all the meals and activities of the community.
Krista only has a few memories of this time because she was so young. A year later,
when Krista was three years old, her family moved into a house of their own on the
Daybreak property. It was also this year that Krista’s parents adopted her younger sister
Lisa, who has Down Syndrome, because they wanted to share the gifts of family and
L’Arche with someone who needed them. While Krista’s father took on a role as assistant
director at Daybreak, Krista’s mother raised Krista and her two brothers and sister.
Krista’s memories of Daybreak are focused on the fun and positive parts of her
childhood at L’Arche. She remembers the picnics on the community property, the games
and activities that she shared in with the other children, the skits, the celebrations, and of
course, the shared meals. Krista’s family attended many L’Arche gatherings and
activities. According to her, L’Arche provided many unique opportunities to learn and
discover new things.
154
In addition to participating in many community and L’Arche activities, Krista’s
family made family time a priority as well.
I think, looking back, that my parents had always a good balance between (…)
community life and family life. I mean we tried to spend time together as a family
without any involvement in the community, in terms of either going for walks, or
we had our own cottage and spent a lot of time there, which was nice.
In Krista’s eyes, having to define their own family space within L’Arche, all the while
being able to incorporate L’Arche’s positive values and rituals into their daily family life
(e.g., sense of welcome, celebration, sense of community ), has brought her family closer.
Krista has always felt welcomed in L’Arche and connected to its members. In
sharing her story, Krista expressed that the members of her community were like her
extended family. What she remembers most is the comfort and joy she received from
their presence.
At the age of 14, Krista’s family moved to L’Arche Antigonish, Nova Scotia
where her father took on the role of director. Krista was less involved in this community
than when she was at Daybreak because she was starting to shape her own life. Although
Krista now focused more on her own interests and activities, she continued to enjoy and
attend regular community nights in Antigonish.
Krista’s positive experience at L’Arche as a child attracted her to assistantship
and she worked one year, between high school and university, as an assistant in the
L’Arche community of Cuise in France. Krista also worked at L’Arche every summer of
her bachelor’s degree (twice in L’Arche Vancouver and once in L’Arche Hamilton).
Being an assistant opened Krista’s eyes to the realities of community life and helped
nuance her childhood vision of L’Arche as a perfect place. This was not an easy
realization for Krista.
155
I worked in [a community] and they were having a tough time. (…) So that was a
very hard summer, in terms of realizing “Oh my gosh, L’Arche isn’t always this
perfect place.” That was difficult that summer. I think that was my hardest
experience ever with L’Arche – just realizing that not everyone is here for the
core members. That was difficult.
Although she struggled with the difficulties of communal life as an assistant, Krista is
grateful for the opportunity to have experienced L’Arche in a new light and has taken this
new knowledge with her.
While Krista left her home at L’Arche Antigonish at the age of 23, she still carries
many parts of her childhood at L’Arche with her today. She particularly cherishes the
atmosphere of welcome and celebration at L’Arche and strives to recreate this in her life
by surrounding herself with friends and family. The biggest mark that L’Arche seems to
have left on Krista is her ability to look beyond difference and accept individuals as they
are. L’Arche exposed Krista to people of various abilities, cultural and experiential
backgrounds, which taught her to be respectful of different people and ways of doing
things. This serves her well in her career as a physiotherapist and in her personal life as
well.
Krista is not currently involved with any L’Arche community although she has
previously contacted the North Bay community and attended a few community nights
there. Krista does not see herself working directly in L’Arche in the future, but admits
that that does not mean L’Arche is out of her life. “I think that I will always have
L’Arche in my life…and I think I want that. Not that I think that I should have it, but I
just… I need it almost (laughs) and also would like to have it in my life.” One day, Krista
might even consider being a board member for a L’Arche community, further stretching
the limits of her experience within L’Arche.
156
Appendix K
Stéphanie’s Story
Stéphanie is a 25 year old Canada Border Services employee who lives in
Gatineau, Québec with her five year old daughter. Stéphanie’s parents met at L’Arche
more than 30 years ago and raised their four children (one boy and three girls) in the
Québec communities of Le Printemps (St-Malachie) and L’Agapé (Gatineau).
When her family moved from Montreal to go live in the St-Malachie community,
Stéphanie was two years old. Her father was director of the community while her mother
raised Stéphanie and her siblings. St-Malachie is such a small village that most of its
residents were somehow always involved in the L’Arche community and Stéphanie felt
part of a close network of people.
What Stéphanie enjoyed most about being in L’Arche were the gatherings where
she could play with other L’Arche children. She and her siblings often loved to plan their
attendance at various L’Arche events and anticipated the fun to be had. Stéphanie thought
of the children she met at L’Arche gatherings as special friends outside of school and she
always enjoyed spending time with them. In fact, one of Stéphanie’s fondest memories of
L’Arche stems from the retreat her family went to in Scotland when she was six years
old. She was with a special group of children during the day, and while her parents
participated in the adult activities, she and the other children had all kinds of interesting
and exciting activities of their own. One day, the children even took over the castle in
which they were having the retreat. They threw all the adults out and claimed the castle
for their own by waving a flag they had made with the L’Arche logo.
157
It was around the time of this retreat that Stéphanie’s family moved to Gatineau
where she continued her relationship with L’Arche. While her father took on a job in the
disability field outside of L’Arche, Stéphanie’s mother started work in the L’Agapé
community when her younger sister started school.
Stéphanie really appreciated the presence of others at L’Arche. Her social nature
drew her to her fellow community members and she enjoyed the constant presence of
people. Although her closest relationships at L’Arche were with other children, Stéphanie
especially benefited from her mother’s close friendship with a core member in Gatineau.
It is as an adult though that she better understands and appreciates the presence and the
role of this core member in her life.
When Stéphanie finished high school, she moved to Montreal to go to cégep. At
this time in her life, she decided to break all ties with L’Arche. It was important for her to
become her own person and to live her own life. In order to accomplish this, Stéphanie
withdrew from the only life she had ever know, that of her community. The break was
good for Stéphanie and when she returned four years later to Gatineau, she felt able to
slowly return to L’Arche by accompanying her parents to a few events. Today, Stéphanie
thinks that it is important to bring her daughter with her to L’Agapé’s monthly “souper
partage”14 and to share the L’Arche experience with her. Stéphanie is happy to see her
daughter’s excitement about going to L’Arche events and making new friends. She is also
glad that L’Arche can help her teach her daughter to have an open mind about people and
different ways of life.
What Stéphanie is most grateful for from her own childhood at L’Arche is that her
parents always emphasized that it was her choice to participate in the community. “I
14
Potluck supper.
158
think that a lot of what I lived through in L’Arche was always a choice. That was always
sort of really important for me.” Stéphanie’s parents always extended her the option to
get involved or not in the daily activities and religious celebrations of the community and
respected the choices she made. The freedom that this provided Stéphanie is something
that she clearly extends to her own daughter and that she feels is important for all parents
who raise their children in or around L’Arche.
In the short-term, Stéphanie plans to continue attending various L’Arche
celebrations in L’Agapé, unless her daughter decides that she would rather not. As for the
long-term, Stéphanie is waiting to see. She carries into the future what L’Arche has
taught her as a child: the importance of having an open mind about people and things, of
communicating openly, of sharing with others, and of finding joy in daily life. Stéphanie
says that through all the hardships, L’Arche has taught her to enjoy the small things in
life just as much as the big ones. This stems from the importance accorded to laughter in
all aspects of community life at L’Arche, and from L’Arche’s ability to transform almost
every event into a celebration.
159
Appendix L
Inouk’s Story
Inouk is a 27 year old professional theatre person who takes on the various roles
of director, actor, stage manager, or lighting designer in theatre productions.
Inouk is the second eldest child in a family of five (three boys and two girls). His
parents came to L’Arche as hippies looking for a meaningful and spiritual life in the midto late Seventies. Inouk was one or two years old when his parents brought him to
L’Arche La Caravane in Glen Roy, Ontario. As he grew up, Inouk came to love the open
space available to him in his rural L’Arche community and he gained a true appreciation
for nature and animals. The strong sense of community that developed at La Caravane
enveloped Inouk and he felt close to the members of his community.
We were very loved as children in L’Arche. Everyone loved me…. I think maybe
that’s also why it was so special [at L’Arche] – because I had sooo many friends
and such a large circle of people who cared for me…. It’s such a positive
environment in which to grow up.
While Inouk felt a part of La Caravane, he was rejected by his peers and did not
fit in at school. Inouk would often get ridiculed and teased by his classmates when he
tried to explain L’Arche to them. It was difficult for him to understand why other
children did not accept him for who he was. Afterall, he was taught to accept others at
L’Arche.
I guess I did feel like a social outcast…. I never really fit in socially with the rest
of my classmates…. They attacked me on the grounds of, you know: “Oh you
live with the handicapped people. You live with the retarded people.” That was
hard. I didn’t know how to explain and how to express that that’s not quite how it
was and why…. I felt always inadequate trying to explain that to them.
Another difficulty Inouk encountered during his childhood was his father’s
frequent absences. In addition to being director of La Caravane, Inouk’s father was also
160
the coordinator for North-East L’Arche communities in Canada for several years.
Although Inouk found his father’s travel schedule hard to accept at times, he understood
that it was important for his father and for L’Arche and special family time and trips
compensated for the demands of community life. Inouk especially benefited from the
renewal his family attended in France and Belgium one summer. L’Arche gatherings
such as these were always fun for Inouk who loved to play with other L’Arche children
and travel.
In his community, Inouk enjoyed the company of certain core members who
became his playmates.
I have this amazingly warm memory of [a core member] playing cops and robbers
with us, cruising up and down the road on his bike and, you know, doing the siren
sounds, and he had this little bell on his bike and he would ring at us and then
we’d hide, and it was just really great fun. What I remember as a child was
having this friend who was always willing to play and that was a great
introduction, I think, to people with disabilities.
Certain assistants were also wonderful people in Inouk’s life and he was a witness to
many of them finding their calling in life and following it. This really impressed Inouk
and encouraged him to seek out his own calling, to open himself up to it.
Inouk’s parents left their own calling at L’Arche 11 years after their arrival when
his father burnt out from the demands of community life. Inouk believes that financial
stresses about his family’s future and his parents’ retirement also contributed to his
family’s departure from La Caravane. However, at the time of his family’s departure,
Inouk was not aware of any of this and he was confused and saddened by the change, all
the while happy that he would be able to make a fresh start in a new school.
Today, Inouk is very appreciative of the experiences he had at L’Arche and
stresses the pivotal part it has played in his development as a person. “L’Arche is sooo
161
important to me and who I am. It’s funny because often I don’t think of it until I talk
about it. Then I realize how many things are attached to it.” In fact, Inouk attributes his
open-mind, sensitivity to difference, and non-materialistic and non-competitive senses to
L’Arche. Most of all, Inouk feels that his values are very much strengthened by his
childhood at L’Arche.
162
Appendix M
Julie-Anne’s Story
Julie-Anne, 23 years old, has just recently obtained her degree in theatrical
production and is currently working on several theatre productions in Montreal where she
lives. Julie-Anne is the eldest of four daughters in a very L’Arche oriented family. Her
parents were at L’Arche in their twenties but left when Julie-Anne’s mother was pregnant
with her. When Julie-Anne was seven years old, her parents returned to L’Arche, moving
the family from Montreal to North Bay. There, Julie-Anne’s father took on the role of
director while her mother raised the children and engaged in volunteer work for the
community (She returned to active work in L’Arche when Julie-Anne was 16 years old.)
Although Julie-Anne was not born at L’Arche, her family’s move into the North
Bay community was quite natural for her. While in Montreal, her father had worked with
adults with a disability and Julie-Anne had regular contact with them when she visited
her father’s workplace. Her entry into L’Arche was further facilitated because JulieAnne’s family moved into a house of their own in North Bay and did not have to share
accommodations with core members and assistants. For Julie-Anne, the most visible
difference between her previous life and her new one at L’Arche was L’Arche’s
pronounced emphasis on spirituality. As Julie-Anne grew and learned more about
L’Arche, this difference kept surfacing as an issue for her. Julie-Anne was very
uncomfortable with the intense daily spirituality at L’Arche, even if she recognized its
importance to others.
I’ve always had this outside look on religion and on God and for me it’s very hard
to believe in that aspect. And it just felt as though it didn’t make sense with what
I believe in…. People [at L’Arche] who believe in God and in love and stuff, it’s
a perfect way of living [their values]. But for me, sometimes it didn’t make any
163
sense…. I think at the same time I see other groups of people who live together in
a community but it’s too cold. I think what the spiritual side of L’Arche brings is
warmth. That I find is great. But it’s the spiritual part that bothers me.
In fact, while two of Julie-Anne’s sisters have been assistants at L’Arche (as have her
aunt, uncle and cousins), Julie-Anne feels that it is the religious facet of L’Arche that
keeps her from being an assistant.
In spite of her discomfort with L’Arche spirituality, Julie-Anne enjoyed her
childhood at L’Arche. She took pleasure in laughing and talking with core members in
her community and especially in spending time with assistants. In fact, when Julie-Anne
was 12 years old, her family moved to L’Arche Ottawa and it was in these pre-teen and
teenage years that she became particularly attached to assistants. Julie-Anne looked up to
the assistants in her community and now feels that she benefited greatly from their
multiculturalism.
The older she got, the more Julie-Anne feels she understood L’Arche and the
beliefs on which it was founded. At the same time, she also realized that L’Arche was not
for her and her place was not there.
I never felt a sense of belonging to L’Arche. My family does, but not me as an
individual…. Yes I was raised [there], but I never said I was in L’Arche as such. I
was raised in L’Arche I guess, but I was not… of L’Arche.
Consequently, from the age of 16 and onwards, Julie-Anne gradually started to distance
herself from her community until she was almost not involved in its activities. Her parttime job and school work were convenient excuses for her to create this space between
herself and the community, as was her objection to the spiritual side of L’Arche. When
Julie-Anne was 19 years old, she finally left home and her L’Arche community to study
theatre at the University de Québec à Montréal.
164
Today, Julie-Anne moves forward in her new life and career in Montreal knowing
that, even though L’Arche was not her place, she learned much from the experience.
L’Arche taught Julie-Anne to be open-minded and showed her how to see the world in
shades of grey; making her a better person and binding her family closer together. So
what are her final thoughts on L’Arche?
Well I think, as some people say, [L’Arche] is not for everyone. But at the same
time, growing up in L’Arche gives you a sense of… It gives you something that
you might not find somewhere else…. I am glad that I grew up in L’Arche. At the
time, I might not have said so, but now, looking back on it, it is special, yeah.
165
Appendix N
David’s Story
David is a 23 year old student at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
He completed his degree in teaching physical education last fall and plays on the
University volleyball team. David’s parents met and married at L’Arche more than 30
years ago and David and his two younger brothers were born into L’Arche Daybreak.
Although David’s father was director of the Daybreak community in Richmond
Hill when he was growing up, his family lived in Toronto and commuted to Richmond
Hill for community activities. David remembers spending a lot of time at Daybreak on
the weekends and on some weeknights for birthdays and meetings, and various
community gatherings. L’Arche events were always fun and he enjoyed the atmosphere
and the people in his community. David especially enjoyed the L’Arche renewal his
family attended in England when he was 12 years old and got to spend the summer with
other L’Arche children.
During eight years, David’s father was an international coordinator for L’Arche,
in addition to being director of Daybreak. The demands of these two jobs, and the travel
that was necessary for the coordinator position, kept David’s father away from home for
long periods of time. David wanted his father to be present to him during these years and
he did not understand why his father was always away from home. In fact, his father’s
absences were very difficult for David to accept and he and his father fought a lot about
them. This issue was finally resolved between them when David grew older and started to
understand why his father was away and what his work entailed. David thinks that this
awakening first started at the funeral of Henri Nouwen, Daybreak’s priest (and an
166
internationally renowned spiritual guide/author) who was a close family friend. As core
members and people from all over the world started speaking about Henri and what he
had meant to them, David said:
I think that was one of the first times when it started to really sink in that I was
lucky to be a part of L’Arche and that it is really a special place, and a unique
place, and that it does a lot of good. That was the first time that I started to
understand that. That was when I’d be even more proud of what my parents had
done and what my dad did.
While David’s dad was away from home on L’Arche business, many assistants
from the community spent time with David and helped his mother at home. These
assistants took on a special role in David’s life by being present to him when he needed it
and the strong bonds that they forged back then remain strong today.
David’s relationship to core members was especially nourished through the close
friendship he observed between his father and a core member from Daybreak. David also
remembers being reminded by his father that core members and people with disabilities
were no less human because of their disability, and that he should not treat them as
though they were deaf or invisible. David’s childhood at L’Arche has left a lasting
impression on him in terms of respecting people, and he is often reminded in his daily life
how this differentiates him from some of his peers.
Now that David is nearing the end of his time at university, he realizes that he is
at a point in his life where he will need to decide what his future involvement with
L’Arche will be. While he does not yet know the answer to that, he does not see L’Arche
ever not being a part of his life, because it is such an important part of his childhood and
who he has grown to be. Even if he is only peripherally involved with L’Arche, David
knows that there are many things he can do that will keep the spirit of L’Arche alive in
him.
167
In the past couple of years, I’ve said that I think I want to adopt a child with a
disability at some point…. It would be something positive that I could do with my
life…. My dad would say that L’Arche is something that’s in your heart and that
if I would do that, that it’s like being part of L’Arche…. So that’s a way that I
could somehow stay connected [with L’Arche] without maybe being directly
involved or doing something like my dad does.
Regardless of the place that David chooses for L’Arche in his future, its influence will
follow him in his empathy, strong sense of self, and understanding of the needs of others.
168
Appendix O
Our Pictures
Catherine, L’Arche Calcutta
This picture was taken during a community celebration for the birthdays of Catherine and
two other community members.
Catherine, a L’Arche community in Québec
Catherine invited several core members to her birthday party. They made cards and
brought small gifts for her.
169
L’Arche gatherings – picture sent by Inouk.
Playing and spending time with core members in my community (La Caravane)
The above pictures were taken when we lived in the Oasis home with core members and
assistants.
170
Brochure from L’Arche La Caravane.
171
Pictures of me with core members in my community.
172
My baptism in the Caravane house.
My first communion in the Caravane house.
173
Children participating in the 1983 L’Arche renewal in Spokane, Washington.
Jean Vanier speaking with children at the Spokane renewal.
174
Appendix P
Natasha’s Story
I am a child of L’Arche. I grew up in community from the age of one until I left
home at 18 years. It’s interesting sitting here reflecting on my childhood because I know
that it was not the normal childhood that most adults have. From the beginning, I only
knew that growing up in a large household full of all sorts of people was normal. I only
new that sharing my dinners with five handicapped men and a few assistants was normal.
I knew that helping to make people’s lunches and helping out with the household chores
was a part of my life. I knew that after dinner when the weather was nice I could go over
to the playground and twirl around on the monkey bars because that was one of my
favorite things to do. But was it normal that I was sexually abused at the age of four by
two L’arche assistants? No.
This is one of my experiences of growing up in L’Arche and the one that has
affected me the most.
My parents left my two sisters and me in the care of a L’Arche couple while they
went overseas to a L’Arche event. I believe my parents really trusted them to take care of
us. The man of the couple and his brother sexually abused me during the period my
parents were away.
I don’t want to go into the details of the abuse. The only thing I do want to
mention is that they scared me so much that I didn’t tell my parents when they came
home. When my parents did return home, my sisters and I were emotionally exhausted. I
physically showed signs that something had happened and my mother even took me to
the doctor to have me checked. No one thought that someone from our family could be
175
hurt in this way. It was something that happened in “Bad” families. In retrospect, my
parents said that they didn’t have the awareness about sexual abuse that people have
today. I believe they did the best they could with what they were confronted with at the
time.
Gradually, the abuse started to take the emotional toll of something that is hidden
deep within. I started to believe that it never happened. At the age of five, I started to
have a recurring dream of killing my mother with a knife. I used to love telling this
dream. I now know, after studying my dream with a therapist, that it was about the abuse
that I was keeping secret. I was so angry with mother for leaving me, but at five years of
age, could not verbalize this. Instead, our relationship became very strained. I started to
forget and then eventually I suppressed the abuse.
Not until a few years ago have I really put both feet forward in dealing with all of
this. I started to have memories of the abuse when I was 19 and the decisions (both good
and bad) that I had made in my life began to make sense.
But until I met my husband, who then was my boyfriend, I had only partially dealt
with these issues. With the support of my family and my husband I found the
encouragement to take bigger steps. Eventually, I went into intense therapy and really
dealt with it. It’s funny though because even with all this therapy it was still lurking
around the corner.
Now that I have a beautiful son of my own, I see that there is more work to do. I
guess having a child of has put quite a few things into perspective for me. I know that I
don’t want to transfer any of this on to him and I know that he needs a mother who is
emotionally clear. Trust me, its hard and so much work. I am currently going back to
176
therapy, but in a different way. I see it more as a place to grow, to become grounded in
the reality of who I am now. I am a child of L’Arche, I was sexually abused, I have
family and friends who love and support me, and I am a survivor.
Natasha
August 2005
177
Appendix Q
Fundamental Principles for Community Life
Relationship and Sexuality Section15
Relationships and sexuality
Since the deepest need of a human being is to love and to be loved, each person has a right to
friendship, to communion and to a spiritual life...If human beings are to develop their abilities
and talents to the full, realising all their potential as individuals, they need an environment that
fosters personal growth. They need to form relationships with others within families and
communities. They need to live in an atmosphere of trust, security and mutual affection. They
need to be valued, accepted and supported in real and warm relationships...Unity is founded on
the covenant of love to which God calls all the community members. This implies welcome and
respect for differences. Such unity presupposes that the person with a handicap is at the centre
of community life.
Charter of L'Arche
Home life, centred on relationships of mutuality and fidelity, is at
the heart of l'Arche. Our mission is to create and maintain homes
where each person, especially core members, can find acceptance
and love in their gifts and in their vulnerability. This way of life is
intense and calls us to be particularly attentive to issues of
relationship and sexuality. The quality of our relationships is at the
heart of our community life. Our human relationships are rooted in
our relationship to God. We are called to discover together how
community life in l'Arche with its celebrations, relationships of
friendship, and its emphasis on forgiveness and covenant helps
each of us to grow toward wholeness. Likewise, we are called to be
responsible in the ways that we build intimacy with one another.
We consider that sexuality is part of every relationship. There is a
deep and fundamental link between sexuality, creativity and
spirituality. A denial or distortion in one aspect will affect the
others.
home is
at the centre
call to growth
fundamental link
Members commit to be a living example of what we most deeply
believe and profess about the nature of love and faithfulness.
Members will strive for personal integrity and corporate unity,
being conscious of the negative effects of double messages or
double standards.
living example
We are an ecumenical and interfaith Federation. As faith
respect for
15
This is an exact copy of pages 5 and 6 of the following document:
L’Arche Internationale. (1998, October). Fundamental principles for community life. (Available from
L’Arche Internationale, 10, rue Fenoux, 75015, Paris, France.)
178
communities we welcome people from diverse spiritual traditions.
Within the context of relationship and sexuality, matters of faith
and individual conscience will be protected and respected.
individual
consciences
Intimacy, including touch, is vital to growth and healing. We are
committed to maintaining a common vision and practice of "safe
touch". Some members of our communities require physical care.
This demands sensitive training in providing personal care. It also
means ongoing formation and sensitivity about how we greet,
physically touch and express affection for one another We all need
to feel safe, emotionally and physically. The strong affective
relationships that are the fruit of sharing life together will be
supported and protected by this practice of safe touch.
safe touch
In order that the dignity of all community members be
safeguarded, consistent guidelines about sexual behaviour,
regardless of sexual orientation, must be articulated. Each member
has a responsibility to learn from and listen to the other, and to
avoid imposing on the other his or her own viewpoint. Likewise,
everyone has a responsibility to ensure that personal convictions,
opinions and behaviour do not hinder or undermine what has been
accepted as community policy and practice. All members agree to
not sleep together or engage in sexual relations in homes of
l’Arche.
dignity
Each community must abide by legal norms and standards
regarding reporting and investigating allegations of sexual abuse.
All assistants must understand that under no circumstances will
sexual relations with core members be allowed. Communities will
provide education and training to foster competence and to ensure
that personal care is given respectfully.
sexual relations
Sharing life as we do, the relationships between members of a
household can take on special significance. Our experience is that
when two individuals within a household develop an intimate
romantic relationship, the energy of the entire household is
affected. Couples will require privacy as well as support in order
that these relationships may grow in love and fidelity. As
community members, our desire is to both honour those personal
relationships and to ensure the harmony of our homes. Although it
may seem paradoxical, it is usually best to help individuals in such
relationships to live or work in different places. Dialogue with the
community leader or appropriate Coordinator will be needed to
work out the best possible arrangement when a move is
appropriate.
education
All members will be encouraged in their personal growth
recognising that growth and development do not proceed in a
integration
sexual abuse
romantic
relationships
179
linear fashion but in rhythms of ebb and flow. Wholeness is about
integration, not perfection.
Questions for Reflection
1. How are new assistants orientated to the community's values and policies around
sexuality and relationship?
2. What is the procedure for training new assistants to provide personal care?
3. What forums for ongoing education and discussion are in place to ensure that there
are opportunities to deepen our understanding of this aspect of community life?
4. What are the commonly understood procedures for reporting and investigating
allegations of sexual abuse?
5. What are the concrete ways we acknowledge the need for private time and space for
all community members?
6. How is the communal life structured to foster the development of meaningful
relationships with others within the community and outside the community?
180
Appendix R
L’Arche Identity & Mission Stage II16
International Reflecting Group
Wepion – June 2004
The Second Stage
In the First Stage of the Identity & Mission process, we reflected on our life together
in L’Arche. It brought us much joy. Throughout the Federation, we saw how God has
been present in L’Arche from the beginning. We named relationships, transformation
and sign as key elements of our Identity.
The Second Stage of the Identity and Mission Process was the time to talk about
what prevents L’Arche from being totally true to it’s identity; to name the obstacles,
the pitfalls and all the ways in which we have failed to live L’Arche fully – and to
accept personal responsibility. We were invited to look at what has “gone wrong”,
but to do so in light of what we had already discovered during the First Stage, in
light of all the grace that had been given throughout the years.
Name our
weaknesses, yes, but while remembering how our lives have been transformed.
Though often a difficult emotional experience, the Second Stage was, at the same
time, a rewarding one. For many, there was a sense of a newly discovered maturity
in being able to objectively talk about problems; to enter into reconciliation and then
be ready to continue the journey together. The honest naming of problems, without
judgment, the admission of our faults and weaknesses was a source of peace,
encouragement and hope.
To discern the results of the Second Stage, an International Reflecting Group met in
Belgium. The group was composed of the International Steering committee, the
leaders of National Reflecting Groups and delegates from each Zone.
The method of discernment used by the group was the same “spiritual conversation”
that facilitators have been using in all the local and national reflecting groups during
Stages One and Two. Each day was filled with periods of personal prayer, sharing
and discussion in small groups, followed by large group sessions.
There was a feeling of deep unity in the discernment group and gratitude for the
experience of such unity in spite of all our differences and diversity. We had a sense
that our roots are very strong. As one person said: “I am filled with the realisation
that I am not alone in what I live. This gives me confidence and a great deal hope.”
As the discernment group began to work, naming our weaknesses was a source of
consolation. It was done sincerely and in truth, desiring only what is best for
16
This is an exact copy of the following document:
International Reflecting Group. (2004, June). Identity and mission stage II: The second stage.
Correspondence addressed to Zone coordinators, Regional coordinators, Community leaders,
Local reflecting Group leaders and facilitators, National Reflecting Group leaders and facilitators.
181
L’Arche. It was the experience of that kind of joy that comes with admitting the
truth: we are not all powerful; we are not perfect; we are in reality poor and
vulnerable and limited. We need the grace of God. It was liberating.
The major obstacles
The International Reflecting Group named the following major obstacles that prevent
us from fully living our Identity and fulfilling our Mission in L’Arche. These points are
not in an order of priority. They are the result of a discernment process on the
international level of L’Arche. It would be expected that each community, region and
Zone would have other points that would be different and particular to their own
culture and reality.
1. Our difficulty in recognizing and naming God as central to our life
together – and living this out in our daily lives.
During Stage One, we looked back on our history and expressed our fundamental
belief that God called L’Arche into being and has always remained faithful and
engaged in L’Arche, particularly in fragile and difficult situations.
In communities, however, we have difficulty naming God as central to our life
together and living this out in our daily life. We lack conviction about being
communities of faith. The search for God’s will is rarely at the heart of the process
for making community decisions. The domain of faith tends to remain a personal
and private journey rather than a shared communal experience.
2. We do not have sufficient clarity and understanding of the founding story
of L’Arche.
We need to own the founding story of L’Arche together and be able to transmit it
to others.
Insufficient knowledge and understanding of our founding story
limits our flexibility, creativity, vision and our sense of identity. We tend to
idealize the time of the foundation and as a result, we are not able to appropriate
important values and formative experiences of the story and integrate them into
our personal journey. This also limits the potential power of the founding story
to challenge and to transform us. This is equally true for other founding stories
at national and community levels.
3. Our present structures in L’Arche do not effectively develop or sustain
commitment, vocation and membership.
We have institutionalized the manner of living L’Arche within one predominant
model of home and community. As a result, we have not always listened intently
to the needs of people with disabilities and to assistants, in order to adapt or
change. We have not sufficiently taken into account the impact of cultural
change on L’Arche. We have cultivated a climate of resistance to change, rather
than one of openness and hope.
A climate of resistance does not invite
“commitment”.
We do not have a structure to harmonize and unify community life, faith
community and service provision, as a result, they are developing independent
182
identities, especially the 'professional' aspect of service provision. We are not
clear about the place and identity of faith community, or community life in
general in relation to service provision. There is a lack of “balance” between
these three aspects – with service provision (agency) tending to dominate
because the demands are increasingly more clear and more urgent. As a result,
the meaning and importance of membership is equally unclear.
There are many deeply committed members who have not always received the
support (human, spiritual, material) appropriate and necessary to sustain their
vocation.
4. The role of authority in L’Arche is not clear. We are also ambivalent
about giving authority to those in leadership roles.
There is a lack of clarity concerning authority and responsibility in L’Arche. The
present structures of authority are complicated and do not facilitate decision
making. There is confusion about where the final authority lies for many
questions, including, for example: membership and vocation.
We mandate people, or groups, to take authority in L’Arche, and then we
undermine them when they take it, particularly if we do not agree with them.
5. Our difficulty in recognizing and admitting our limits.
Throughout L’Arche we saw that communities can be places of transformation
and growth but we have also developed a culture of “busy-ness” and we do not
maintain healthy boundaries in daily life. Our lives are often out of balance,
allowing no time for self and no time for others. We tend to become victims of
pride, believing that we can do all things. We have difficulty admitting our limits.
As a result, we can diminish, or fail to admit the gravity of certain situations such
as the negative effect of the chronic lack of assistants.
6. Too often, individuals and groups in communities do not experience
loving and honest communication resulting in personal hurt and broken
relationships.
Relationships are at the heart of the identity of L’Arche.
We know that
relationships have the potential to transform us. At the same time, there are also
painful relationships in communities.
We hurt one another, sometimes
grievously.
Too often, members of L’Arche may feel abandoned and
unappreciated; too often, we relate to one another solely through our roles.
There is also a lack of pardon and reconciliation; hurts and misunderstandings
remain unresolved and cause damage to community life.
Wepion – June 2004
183
References
Angrosino, Michael V. (2003). L’Arche: The phenomenology of Christian
counterculturalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(6), 934 – 954.
Arnold, Eberhard. (1967). Why we live in community. Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing
House of the Woodcrest Service Committee.
Atkinson, Robert. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bogliolo, Karin, & Newfeld, Carly. (2002). In search of the magic of Findhorn.
Findhorn, Scotland: Findhorn Press.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Chase, Susan E. (2003). Learning to listen: Narrative principles in qualitative research. In
Ruthellen Josselson, Amia Lieblich, & Dan P. McAdams (Eds.), Up close and
personal: The teaching and learning of narrative research (pp. 79 – 99).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Church, Kathryn. (1995). Forbidden narratives: Critical autobiography as social
science. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Church, Kathryn. (2002). The hard road home: Towards a polyphonic narrative of the
mother/daughter relationship. In Arthur P. Bochner, & Carolyn Ellis (Eds.),
Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetic (pp. 234 –
257). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
Cole, Ardra L., & Knowles, J. Gary. (1995). Extending boundaries: Narratives on
exchange. In Ruthellen Josselson and Amia Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting
184
experience: The narrative study of lives (vol. 3, pp. 205 – 251). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cosgrove, Lisa, & McHugh, Maureen C. (2000). Speaking for ourselves: Feminist
methods and community psychology. [Special issue]. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28(6), 815 – 838.
Cushing, Pamela J. (2003). Negotiating power inequities in caregiving relationships.
Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 10(1), 83 – 91.
Dalton, James H., Elias, Maurice J., & Wandersman, Abraham. (Eds.). (2001).
Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Davenport-Moore, Susan, Lamphear, Nina, & Johnsen, Kirsten Ellen. (1994). Families of
origin. In Kirsten Ellen Johnson (Guest Ed.). [Special feature]. Communities:
Journal of Cooperative Living, 84, 58 – 62.
de la Selle, Jean, & de la Selle, Anne-Marie. (1998, May). Enquête auprès des jeunes qui
ont vécu dans une communauté ou proches d’une communauté, en France,
Unpublished.
Doyle, Thomas P. (2003). Roman Catholic clericalism, religious duress, and clergy
sexual abuse. Pastoral Psychology, 51, 189 – 231.
Dunne, John. (1986). Sense of community in L’Arche and in the writings of Jean Vanier.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 41 – 54.
Egan, Joe. (1987, March). Families in L’Arche. [Reprint]. Letters of L’Arche, 51, 1 – 9.
185
Elliot, Robert, Fischer, Constance T., & Rennie, David L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for
publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215 – 229.
Ellis, Carolyn. (1997). Evocative autoethnography: Writing emotionally about our lives.
In William G. Tierney and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text:
Reframing the narrative voice (pp. 115 – 139). Albany, NY: State University of
New York.
Ellis, Carolyn, & Bochner, Arthur P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative,
reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733 – 768). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ezzy, Douglas. (2000). Illness narratives: time, hope and HIV. Social Science and
Medicine, 50, 605 – 617.
Fellowship for Intentional Community. (1995). Communities directory: Directory of
intentional communities. Langley, WA: Fellowship for Intentional Community.
Flick, Uwe. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flynn, Robert, & Nitsch, Kathleen. (Eds.). (1980). Normalization, social integration, and
community services. Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press.
García, Isabel, Giuliani, Fernando, & Wiesenfeld, Esther. (1999). Community and sense
of community: The case of an urban barrio in Caracas. Journal of Community
Psychology, 27(6), 727 – 740.
Gish, Arthur G. (1979). Living in Christian community. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
186
Gonsiorek, John C. (2004). Barriers to responding to the clergy sexual abuse crisis within
the Roman Catholic Church. In Thomas G. Plante (Ed.), Sin against the innocents:
Sexual abuse by priests and the role of the Catholic Church (pp. 139 – 153).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Guba, Egon G., & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 105 – 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harper, Douglas. (1994). On the authority of the image: Visual methods at the
crossroads. In Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 403 – 412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, George. (1987, February). L’Arche: Homes for people who are mentally retarded.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 322 – 324.
Hogeland, Debora. (2000). Widening the circle: Inspiration and guidance for community
living. Presscott, AZ: Hohm Press.
International Reflecting Group. (2003, October). The elements that characterise L’Arche.
A brief summary of the results of stage one of the mission and identity process.
Correspondence addressed to the Reflecting Group Leaders.
International Reflecting Group. (2004, June). Identity & mission stage II: The second
stage. Correspondence addressed to Zone coordinators, Regional coordinators,
Community leaders, Local Reflecting Group leaders and facilitators, National
Reflecting Group leaders and facilitators.
International Reflecting Group. (2005, March). The mission statement and the calls for
L’Arche today. Identity & mission stage III. Correspondence addressed to to Zone
187
coordinators, Regional coordinators, Community leaders, Local Reflecting Group
leaders and facilitators, National Reflecting Group leaders and facilitators.
Janzen, David. (1996). Fire, salt, and peace: Intentional Christian communities alive in
North America. Evanston, IL: Shalom Mission Communities.
Jerome, Judson. (1974). Families of eden: Communes and the new anarchism. New
York: Seabury Press.
Johnsen, Kirsten Ellen. (Guest Ed.). (Fall 1994). [Special feature]. Communities: Journal
of Cooperative Living, 84, 25 – 63.
Josselson, Ruthellen, & Lieblich, Amia. (Eds.). (1993). The narrative study of lives (Vol.
1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kinkade, Kat. (1994). Is it utopia yet? An insider’s view of Twin Oaks community in its
26th year (2nd Ed.). Louisa, VA: Twin Oaks Publishing.
Kochansky, Gerald E., & Herrmann, Frank. (2004). Shame and scandal: Clinical and
Canon Law perspectives on the crisis in the priesthood. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 27, 299 – 319.
L’Arche Canada. (2001). L’Arche-at-a-Glance, in Facts & stats about L’Arche Canada.
Retrieved August 13, 2005 from http://www.larchecanada.org/glance1.htm
L’Arche Internationale. (1993). Charter of the communities of L’Arche. Retrieved August
11, 2005, from http://www.larche.org/
L’Arche Internationale. (1998, October). Fundamental principles for community life.
(Available from L’Arche Internationale, 10, rue Fenoux, 75015, Paris, France.)
L’Arche Internationale. (2003a, February 14). The Covenant. Retrieved August 12, 2005
from http://www.larche.org/
188
L’Arche Internationale. (2003b, February 15). The community: A place of forgiveness
and celebration, in Forgiveness. Retrieved August 11, 2005 from
http://www.larche.org/
L’Arche Internationale. (2003c, March 23). Founders, in Jean Vanier. Retrieved August
13, 2005 from http://www.larche.org/
L’Arche Internationale. (2004a, July 6). The Federation, in The functioning of the
Federation, The International Federation. Retrieved August 13, 2005 from
http://www.larche.org/
L’Arche Internationale. (2004b, August 30). Inter-religious Ecumenism. Retrieved
August 13, 2004 from http://www.larche.org/
L’Arche Internationale. (n.d.). Toolbox, Letters of L’Arche, To subscribe. Retrieved
August 11, 2005, from http://www.larche.org/
Leafe Christian, Diana. (2002). Creating a life together: Practical tools to grow
ecovillages and intentional communities. Gabriola Island, British-Columbia: New
Society Publishers.
Lenon, Pat. (1975, Summer). Families living with their children in a foyer. [Special
Edition]. Letters of L’Arche, 9, 22 – 24.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., & Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Lockley, Andrew. (1976). Christian communes. London: SCM Press.
Loftus, John Allan. (2004). What have we learned? Implications for future research and
formation. In Thomas G. Plante. (Ed.), Sin against the innocents: Sexual abuse by
priests and the role of the Catholic Church (pp. 85 – 96). Westport, CT: Praeger.
189
Loomis, Colleen. (2004, Summer). Sense of community. What social scientists know
(and don’t know). Voices Across Boundaries, 29 – 31.
Mankowski, Eric, & Rappaport, Julian. (1995). Stories, identity, and psychological sense
of community. In Robert Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 8, pp.
211 – 226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mankowski, Eric, & Rappaport, Julian. (2000). Narrative concepts and analysis in
spiritually-based communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 479 –
493.
Maton, Kenneth I., & Wells, Elizabeth A. (1995). Religion as a community resource for
well-being: Prevention, healing, and empowerment pathways. Journal of Social
Issues, 51(2), 177 – 193.
McAdams, Dan P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story. In Lawrence A. Pervin
and Oliver P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.,
pp. 478 – 500). New York: Guilford Press.
McAdams, Dan P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology,
5(2), 100 – 122.
McMillan, David W., & Chavis, David M. (1986). Sense of community: Definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6 – 23.
Meltzer, Graham. (2005). Sustainable community: Learning from the cohousing model.
Victoria, British-Columbia, Canada: Trafford.
Mercer, John. (1984). Communes: A social history and guide. Dorchester, Dorset,
England: Prism Press.
190
Metcalf, Bill. (1996a). Intentional communities are…Everywhere. Communities, 93, 16 –
17.
Metcalf, Bill. (1996b). Shared visions, shared lives: Communal living around the globe.
Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Press.
Miller, Timothy. (1990). American communes, 1860-1960: A bibliography. NY: Garland.
Miller, Timothy. (2000). The 60s communes. Hippies and beyond (Peace and conflict
resolution). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Moore, Jeff. (1989, Fall). Making no apologies for our differences. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 12(3), 5 – 11.
Mosteller, Sue. (1996). Body broken, body blessed: Reflections from life in community.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Novalis.
Nirje, Bengt. (1980). The normalization principle. In Robert Flynn & Kathleen Nitsch
(Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services (pp. 31 – 49).
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Nouwen, Henri J.M. (1988). The Road to Daybreak: A Spiritual Journey. NY:
Doubleday.
Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Qualitative evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perlman, Nitza, & Ericson, Kristine. (1992). Issues related to sexual abuse of persons
with developmental disabilities: An overview. Journal on developmental
disabilities, 1(1), 19 – 23.
Pottie, Colin, & Sumarah, John. (2004). Friendships between persons with and without
developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 42(1), 55 – 66.
191
Rappaport, Julian. (1993). Narrative studies, personal stories, and identity:
Transformation in the mutual help context. Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, 29(2), 239 – 256.
Rappaport, Julian. (1995). Empowerment meets narrative: Listening to stories and
creating settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 795 – 807.
Reinharz, Shulamit. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. NY: Oxford University
Press.
Rubin, Herbert J., & Rubin, Irene S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schehr, Robert C. (1997). Dynamic utopia: Establishing intentional communities as a
new social movement. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Schwartz, Dona. (1989). Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 119 – 154.
Smith, William L. (1996). The contemporary communal movement. Research in
Community Sociology, 6, 239 – 261.
Sumarah, John C. (1985). The therapy of L’Arche: A model of shared living. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sumarah, John. (1987a). International L’Arche from the inside out: A personal sense of
agency and community. International Journal of Special Education, 2(1), 81 – 98.
Sumarah, John. (1987b). L’Arche: Philosophy and ideology. Mental Retardation, 25(3),
165 – 169.
192
Sumarah, John. (1988). L’Arche from a participant observer’s perspective: The creation
of universal community. International Journal of Special Education, 3(2), 185 –
196.
Sumarah, John. (1989). On becoming a community: A married couple’s journey to
L’Arche. Hantsport, Nova Scotia, Canada: Lancelot Press.
Talmon, Yonina. (1972). Family and community in the Kibbutz. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Thompson, David J. (2000). Vulnerability, dangerousness and risk: the case of men with
learning disabilities who sexually abuse. Health, Risk & Society, 2(1), 33 – 46.
Tutty, Leslie M., Rothery, Michael A., & Grinnell Jr., R.M. (1996). Qualitative research
for social workers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vanier, Jean. (1985). Man and woman he made them. London: Darton, Longman and
Todd.
Vanier, Jean. (1989). Community and growth (Rev. ed.). London: Darton, Longman and
Todd.
Vanier, Jean. (1995). L’histoire de L’Arche. Des communautés à découvrir. Outremont,
Québec, Canada: Novalis.
Walker, Andrew L., & Moulton, Rosalind Kimball. (1989). Photo albums: Images of time
and reflections of self. Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 155 – 182.
Weiss, Robert S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. NY: Free Press.
Wolfensberger, Wolf. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human
services. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
193
Wolfensberger, Wolf. (1999). A contribution to the history of Normalization, with
primary emphasis on the establishment of Normalization in North America between
1967-1975. In Robert J. Flynn & Raymond A. Lemay (Eds.), A quarter-century of
normalization and social role valorization: Evolution and impact (pp. 51 – 116).
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Wright, Richard B. (2001). Clara Callan. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Harper Collins.
Xingjian, Gao. (2000). Soul Mountain. NY: Harper Collins.
Zone Membership Taskforce. (2004, February 13). [Draft]. L’Arche Canada Zone
Membership Document.
194
Figure 1. Triangulation of Sources in the Study of Childhood L’Arche Experiences.
195
Figure 2. Elements Influencing the Experience of a L’Arche Child at Five Ecological
Levels of Analysis.