I want to tell you three stories about the power of relationships to solve the deep and complex social problems of this century.
我想給大家講三個故事, 關於以人際關係的力量去解決 本世紀深層又複雜的社會問題。
You know, sometimes it seems like all these problems of poverty, inequality, ill health, unemployment, violence, addiction -- they're right there in one person's life. So I want to tell you about someone like this that I know. I'm going to call her Ella. Ella lives in a British city on a run down estate. The shops are closed, the pub's gone, the playground's pretty desolate and never used, and inside Ella's house, the tension is palpable and the noise levels are deafening. The TV's on at full volume. One of her sons is fighting with one of her daughters. Another son, Ryan, is keeping up this constant stream of abuse from the kitchen, and the dogs are locked behind the bedroom door and straining. Ella is stuck. She has lived with crisis for 40 years. She knows nothing else, and she knows no way out. She's had a whole series of abusive partners, and, tragically, one of her children has been taken into care by social services. The three children that still live with her suffer from a whole range of problems, and none of them are in education. And Ella says to me that she is repeating the cycle of her own mother's life before her.
有時候所有的那些困難, 如貧窮、不平等、病痛丶 失業、暴力和毒瘾—— 它們都集中在某個不幸者身上。 所以我告訴大家一位 有這樣遭遇的人。 我打算叫她艾拉。 艾拉住在英國一座城市𥚃, 一個衰敗的住宅區。 那裡商店倒閉,酒館關門, 遊樂場荒廢,沒有遊人, 艾拉家𥚃充滿戾氣, 喧鬧聲震耳欲聾。 只聽見電視機開到最高聲浪。 她的一個兒子正在 跟另㚈一個女兒打架。 另外一個兒子萊恩在廚房 傳來一連串的咀咒聲, 狗狗們被鎖在臥室門後, 并企圖掙脫。 艾拉不知所措。 她在這樣窘境中生活了40年。 她一無所長, 也知道沒有出路。 她曾相處過的所有伴侶。 無一例外都虐待她。 可悲的是,她其中一個孩子 被社會福利機構帶走撫養。 其餘三個孩子仍然跟她同住 受盡種種困苦, 沒有一個孩子在上學。 艾拉告訴我她的人生其實是在 重蹈她母親的覆轍。
But when I met Ella, there were 73 different services on offer for her and her family in the city where she lives, 73 different services run out of 24 departments in one city, and Ella and her partners and her children were known to most of them. They think nothing of calling social services to try and mediate one of the many arguments that broke out. And the family home was visited on a regular basis by social workers, youth workers, a health officer, a housing officer, a home tutor and the local policemen. And the governments say that there are 100,000 families in Britain today like Ella's, struggling to break the cycle of economic, social and environmental deprivation. And they also say that managing this problem costs a quarter of a million pounds per family per year and yet nothing changes. None of these well-meaning visitors are making a difference.
但是我見艾拉時, 她所在的當地政府 為她和她的家人提供了73種不同服務, 這73種不同服務來自於 該市24個不同部門。 這些部門都熟悉 艾拉和伴侶以及她孩子。 但艾拉等人覺得沒有必要 請求社會服務機構 來平息家中的任何一項爭執。 這個家庭以前定時 有很多人來探訪, 包括社工丶青年社工丶 衛生官員, 家教和當地警員。 政府宣稱英國現今有十萬 像艾拉這樣的家庭, 奮力地想打破因貧困帶來的 經濟、社交及居住環境上的惡性循環。 政府同時提到為應付這個問題, 每年在每個家庭上花費25萬英鎊, 然而毫無作用。 沒有一個好心的探訪者 給這些家庭帶來一點點改變。
This is a chart we made in the same city with another family like Ella's. This shows 30 years of intervention in that family's life. And just as with Ella, not one of these interventions is part of an overall plan. There's no end goal in sight. None of the interventions are dealing with the underlying issues. These are just containment measures, ways of managing a problem. One of the policemen says to me, "Look, I just deliver the message and then I leave."
這張圖表是同一座城市我們替另一個 像艾拉一樣的家庭做的。 它顯示了這個家庭30年來 受到㚈界介入的情況。 就如艾拉一樣,這些介入 沒有一個是帶著周詳地計劃來的。 他們缺乏明確地目標。 這些介入都沒有著眼于根本的問題。 只是控制的措施, 應付問題的方法。 其中一名警員對我說: "你看,我只是帶個口信之後便離開。"
So, I've spent time living with families like Ella's in different parts of the world, because I want to know: what can we learn from places where our social institutions just aren't working? I want to know what it feels like to live in Ella's family. I want to know what's going on and what we can do differently.
所以我曾花時間 在世界不同的地方 跟像艾拉一樣家庭生活在一起。 因為我想知道:我們能 從這些我們的社福機構 不起作用的地方學到些什麼? 我想知道艾拉的家庭怎樣生活的。 我想知道接下來該如何做, 可否找到不同的解決方式。
Well, the first thing I learned is that cost is a really slippery concept. Because when the government says that a family like Ella's costs a quarter of a million pounds a year to manage, what it really means is that this system costs a quarter of a million pounds a year. Because not one penny of this money actually touches Ella's family in a way that makes a difference. Instead, the system is just like this costly gyroscope that spins around the families, keeping them stuck at its heart, exactly where they are.
首先我學到了 花錢真是不可靠的想法。 因為當政府宣稱他們每年要花費 25萬英鎊來服務 這些像艾拉的家庭, 其實是這整個福利系統 每年花費了25萬英鎊。 因為實際上沒有分毫 花在艾拉的家庭上 并讓他們發生一點點改變的。 換言之,這個系統就像 䀚貴的陀螺儀, 在這些家庭周圍旋轉, 讓它們困在其中, 原地踏步。
And I also spent time with the frontline workers, and I learned that it is an impossible situation. So Tom, who is the social worker for Ella's 14-year-old son Ryan, has to spend 86 percent of his time servicing the system: meetings with colleagues, filling out forms, more meetings with colleagues to discuss the forms, and maybe most shockingly, the 14 percent of the time he has to be with Ryan is spent getting data and information for the system. So he says to Ryan, "How often have you been smoking? Have you been drinking? When did you go to school?" And this kind of interaction rules out the possibility of a normal conversation. It rules out the possibility of what's needed to build a relationship between Tom and Ryan.
我也曾花時間 跟一線的工作人員相處, 然後明白這情況是不合理的。 湯姆是萊恩的社工。 萊恩是艾拉的14歲兒子, 湯姆用他工作的86%時間 來服務系統: 跟同事開會,填表格, 又加開會議討論表格的問題, 最恐怖的可能是 他用剩餘的14%時間 與萊恩見面的目的 只是為了幫助系統收集訊息。 他問萊恩: "你多久抽一次菸? 你喝酒嗎? 你什麼時候上學?" 這樣的交流阻斷了 正常的對話可能性。 破壞了湯姆跟萊恩 培養感情的機會。
When we made this chart, the frontline workers, the professionals -- they stared at it absolutely amazed. It snaked around the walls of their offices. So many hours, so well meant, but ultimately so futile. And there was this moment of absolute breakdown, and then of clarity: we had to work in a different way.
我們完成這個圖表後, 前線工作人員和專家 無不目定口呆,驚訝不已。 它們被貼在辦公室四周的墻上。 他們滿懷好意,花了不少時間, 到頭來徒勞無功。 這一係統直到在此刻才真正崩潰, 其後才明白: 我們要改變方法。
So in a really brave step, the leaders of the city where Ella lives agreed that we could start by reversing Ryan's ratio. So everyone who came into contact with Ella or a family like Ella's would spend 80 percent of their time working with the families and only 20 percent servicing the system. And even more radically, the families would lead and they would decide who was in a best position to help them. So Ella and another mother were asked to be part of an interview panel, to choose from amongst the existing professionals who would work with them. And many, many people wanted to join us, because you don't go into this kind of work to manage a system, you go in because you can and you want to make a difference.
於是艾拉的當地政府 踏出了勇敢地一步, 同意我們將服務萊恩的時間 與服務系統的時間比例調轉。 於是所有探訪艾拉 或是像艾拉一樣家庭的人, 必須用80%的時間服務家庭, 而只有20%替系統工作。 甚至更具突破性的的是, 那些家庭將做為主導, 他們可以決定誰是 最適合幫助他們的人。 艾拉跟另一位母親 獲邀加入面試小組, 挑選現有的專業人員 將來替她們工作。 其後很多人都想加入我們的隊伍, 因為你不再是為一個系統或機構服務, 你加入是因為你能夠 且希望為他們帶來改變。
So Ella and the mother asked everybody who came through the door, "What will you do when my son starts kicking me?" And so the first person who comes in says, "Well, I'll look around for the nearest exit and I will back out very slowly, and if the noise is still going on, I'll call my supervisor." And the mothers go, "You're the system. Get out of here!" And then the next person who comes is a policeman, and he says, "Well, I'll tackle your son to the ground and then I'm not sure what I'll do." And the mothers say, "Thank you." So, they chose professionals who confessed they didn't necessarily have the answers, who said -- well, they weren't going to talk in jargon. They showed their human qualities and convinced the mothers that they would stick with them through thick and thin, even though they wouldn't be soft with them.
艾拉和另一個母親 問每個進來的人: "如果我兒子開始踢我, 你會怎麼辦?" 第一個進來的人答: "噢,我會找最近的出口, 然後慢慢退出去, 如果吵鬧仍然繼續, 我會打電話給上司。" 然後一眾媽媽說: 你只是系統,滾出去! 跟著下一個進來, 是一位警員,他說: “我會將你的孩子按在地上, 但不確定接下來我會怎麼做。” 兩位母親說:“多謝你。” 於是組員選了一些專業人員。 那些人員坦承自己 未必有什麼辦法, 也不會用專業術語跟家庭說話。 他們顯示個人素養, 因此母親們深信 這些人不管任何時候 都會與他們緊密相連, 即使他們不會溫柔地對待家庭成員。
So these new teams and the families were then given a sliver of the former budget, but they could spend the money in any way they chose. And so one of the families went out for supper. They went to McDonald's and they sat down and they talked and they listened for the first time in a long time. Another family asked the team if they would help them do up their home. And one mother took the money and she used it as a float to start a social enterprise.
這些新團隊和這些家庭 從以前的經費得來一筆錢, 讓他們可以自由地運用。 其中有一個家庭 用來出㚈吃晚飯。 他們到了麥當勞,很久以來, 第一次坐下來互相傾聽對方説話。 另一個家庭要求團隊 替他們翻新房子。 還有另一位母親拿經费 用作流動資金開一間社企。
And in a really short space of time, something new started to grow: a relationship between the team and the workers. And then some remarkable changes took place. Maybe it's not surprising that the journey for Ella has had some big steps backwards as well as forwards. But today, she's completed an IT training course, she has her first paid job, her children are back in school, and the neighbors, who previously just hoped this family would be moved anywhere except next door to them, are fine. They've made some new friendships. And all the same people have been involved in this transformation -- same families, same workers. But the relationship between them has been supported to change.
在很短的時間內, 有些新變化萌芽: 團隊跟隊員建立了關係。 跟著有些令人驚訝的變化出現. 或許這並不意外 艾拉的際遇 曾有過很大的退步 此外也有進步。 但現在她完成了IT培訓課程, 得到一份有薪工作, 孩子都上課去。 以前那些 希望艾拉一家搬的 越遠越好的鄰居們。 也變的和睦, 他們產生了新的友誼。 參與到這場變革中 都是同樣的一群人-- 一樣的家庭,一樣的工作人員。 因為彼此的友誼支持他們求變。
So I'm telling you about Ella because I think that relationships are the critical resource we have in solving some of these intractable problems. But today, our relationships are all but written off by our politics, our social policies, our welfare institutions. And I've learned that this really has to change.
我告訴大家艾拉的故事, 因為我認為 人際關係是解決這些難題 的重要資源。 但今天我們的人際關係 卻遭政治、社會政策 和福利機構毀掉。 所以我知道一定要改變這種情況。
So what do I mean by relationships? I'm talking about the simple human bonds between us, a kind of authentic sense of connection, of belonging, the bonds that make us happy, that support us to change, to be brave like Ella and try something new. And, you know, it's no accident that those who run and work in the institutions that are supposed to support Ella and her family don't talk about relationships, because relationships are expressly designed out of a welfare model that was drawn up in Britain and exported around the world. The contemporaries of William Beveridge, who was the architect of the first welfare state and the author of the Beveridge Report, had little faith in what they called the average sensual or emotional man. Instead, they trusted this idea of the impersonal system and the bureaucrat who would be detached and work in this system. And the impact of Beveridge on the way the modern state sees social issues just can't be underestimated. The Beveridge Report sold over 100,000 copies in the first weeks of publication alone. People queued in the rain on a November night to get hold of a copy, and it was read across the country, across the colonies, across Europe, across the United States of America, and it had this huge impact on the way that welfare states were designed around the globe. The cultures, the bureaucracies, the institutions -- they are global, and they've come to seem like common sense. They've become so ingrained in us, that actually we don't even see them anymore. And I think it's really important to say that in the 20th century, they were remarkably successful, these institutions. They led to longer lifespans, the eradication of mass disease, mass housing, almost universal education. But at the same time, Beveridge sowed the seeds of today's challenges.
那麼我說的"關係"指的是什麼呢? 指的是人類之間單純的感情紐帶, 一種真實可靠的關聯感、歸屬感, 那種令人快樂的情誼, 支撐我們改變, 好像艾拉那般勇敢,勇於嘗試。 所以你知道,那並非偶然 那些管理社福機構的工作人員, 本應支持艾拉和她的家人, 但他們不談人際關係。 因為很明顯地人際關係 被這種起源於英國傳遍世界的 福利模式排除在外。 William Beveridge 第一個福利國家的締造者, 也是「Beveridge報告」的作者, 他同時代的人不相信 擁有七情六慾的普通人。 轉而相信缺乏人情味的系統, 和為此工作的冷漠官僚。 而受Beveridge影響 現代國家怎樣看待社會問題 是不容低估的。 「Beveridge報告」 在出版的第一個星期, 就已賣出十萬本。 人們在一個11月的晚上, 冒著雨排隊去賣這本書。 這本書從國內、 傳到殖民地、歐洲 和美國。 它大大影響到 全球所有福利國家制訂的福利政策。 它所傳達的文化,官僚主義以及福利機構 ——傳遍全球, 它們似乎已經成了一種常識。 根深蒂固印在我們的腦袋裡, 雖然我們其實不曾見過它。 我們必須鄭重地說 在二十世紀年代, 這些福利機構辦得異常地成功。 它們帶來了人均壽命的延長、 根除了傳染病、 大量住房,甚至幾乎全民普及的教育。 但同時間, Beveridge 撒下了今日這些問題的種子。
So let me tell you a second story. What do you think today is a bigger killer than a lifetime of smoking? It's loneliness. According to government statistics, one person over 60 -- one in three -- doesn't speak to or see another person in a week. One person in 10, that's 850,000 people, doesn't speak to anyone else in a month. And we're not the only people with this problem; this problem touches the whole of the Western world. And it's even more acute in countries like China, where a process of rapid urbanization, mass migration, has left older people alone in the villages. And so the services that Beveridge designed and exported -- they can't address this kind of problem. Loneliness is like a collective relational challenge, and it can't be addressed by a traditional bureaucratic response.
讓我告訴大家第二個故事。 你知道比終生吸煙 更致命的因素是什麼嗎? 那是孤獨。 根據政府統計,超過60歳的市民, 每3個人中便有1人 整個星期與㚈界隔絕。 每10個人中便有一個, 也就是有85萬人, 整個月沒有跟別人說過話。 並不是只有我們有這種問題; 整個西方國家普遍都是這樣。 而且在一些如中國那樣的國家, 問題更加嚴重, 因為急速的城鎮化, 大量人民遷徙, 留下老人孤獨地在鄉村過活。 Beveridge 設計和傳遍 全球的福利服務, 它們無法應付這樣的問題。 孤獨就是大眾關係的挑戰, 它無法通過傳統的官僚系統來解決。
So some years ago, wanting to understand this problem, I started to work with a group of about 60 older people in South London, where I live. I went shopping, I played bingo, but mainly I was just observing and listening. I wanted to know what we could do differently. And if you ask them, people tell you they want two things. They want somebody to go up a ladder and change a light bulb, or to be there when they come out of hospital. They want on-demand, practical support. And they want to have fun. They want to go out, do interesting things with like-minded people, and make friends like we've all made friends at every stage of our lives. So we rented a phone line, hired a couple of handymen, and started a service we called "Circle." And Circle offers its local membership a toll-free 0 800 number that they can call on demand for any support. And people have called us for so many reasons. They've called because their pets are unwell, their DVD is broken, they've forgotten how to use their mobile phone, or maybe they are coming out of hospital and they want someone to be there. And Circle also offers a rich social calendar -- knitting, darts, museum tours, hot air ballooning -- you name it. But here's the interesting thing, the really deep change: over time, the friendships that have formed have begun to replace the practical offer.
數年前,我想了解這個問題, 於是我在居住的倫敦南部, 開始跟一群大約60歲的長者相處。 我去購物,玩賓果遊戲, 但主要想觀察和聆聽 他們生活的點滴。 我要知道 我們該如何改變。 如果你問他們,他們會 告訴你兩件事。 他們希望有人爬上梯子 幫忙換燈泡, 又或者有人去接他們出院。 他們要按個人需要 得到實際的支援。 他們想要快樂。 他們想要出來跟志同道合的朋友玩樂, 像一般人在每個人生階段 結識新朋友。 於是我們租了一條電話線 和請了數名雜務員, 展開一項叫"Circle"的服務。 這項服務提供本地會員 免費電話號碼0800 他們有任何需求都可以立即打來。 他們因為無數理由打來。 有的是寵物不舒服, 有的是DVD 壞了,有的是 忘了怎樣使用手提電話; 又或者正要出院 希望有人在去接他。 "Circle"還安排了豐富的社交活動-- 編織、擲飛標,參觀博物館 、玩熱氣球--你想到的都有。 最有趣的是他們生活 有徹底的變化: 經過一段時間,真正的友誼 已經建立,代替了實際的服務。
So let me tell you about Belinda. Belinda's a Circle member, and she was going into hospital for a hip operation, so she called her local Circle to say they wouldn't see her for a bit. And Damon, who runs the local Circle, calls her back and says, "How can I help?" And Belinda says, "Oh no, I'm fine -- Jocelyn is doing the shopping, Tony's doing the gardening, Melissa and Joe are going to come in and cook and chat." So five Circle members had organized themselves to take care of Belinda. And Belinda's 80, although she says that she feels 25 inside, but she also says that she felt stuck and pretty down when she joined Circle. But the simple act of encouraging her to come along to that first event led to a process where natural friendships formed, friendships that today are replacing the need for expensive services. It's relationships that are making the difference.
讓我告訴你貝琳達的故事。 她是"Circle"的會員, 正要入院做關節手術, 她打電話告訴當地的"Circle" 她會離開一陣子。 戴蒙是那𥚃的負責人,他回覆 電話問:"我有什麼可以幫忙?" 貝琳達 説:啊,沒什麼問題-- 喬斯林負責購物, 托尼打理花草, 梅麗莎 和 喬會過來聊天和煮飯。" 5個組員自行分配工作 去照顧貝琳達。 雖然貝琳達已經80歲, 她感覺自己只有25歲。 但她也説 最初加入"Circle"時, 生活困難,心情很壞。 但是會員的小小鼓勵, 讓她參加第一次活動, 在那裡很自然地結識新朋友, 現在友情已經替代了 那些她需要的昂貴服務。 這是人際關係帶來改變。
So I think that three factors have converged that enable us to put relationships at the heart and center of how we solve social problems today. Firstly, the nature of the problems -- they've changed, and they require different solutions. Secondly, the cost, human as much as financial, of doing business as usual. And thirdly, technology.
我認為有3個因素 匯聚一起 才能讓我們把人際關係 用為核心 用來解決今日的社會問題。 第一是問題的本質-- 它們變化無常,需要多種多樣 的解決方法。 第二是經費,就像普通做生意的那樣, 經費越多人手越多。 第三是科技
I've talked about the first two factors. It's technology that enables these approaches to scale and potentially now support thousands of people. So the technology we've used is really simple, it's made up of available things like databases, mobile phones. Circle has got this very simple system that underpins it, enables a small local team to support a membership of up to a thousand. And you can contrast this with a neighborhood organization of the 1970s, when this kind of scale just wasn't possible, neither was the quality or the longevity that the spine of technology can provide.
我已談論了首兩個因素。 因為科技,所以這個方式 能夠發揮到極致, 足以服務現在數以千計的人仕。 我們採用的科技很簡單, 只是由現有的東西組成, 例如數據庫和手機。 正因為"Circle"有一個非常 簡單的系統支援, 才使得當地的小組 可以為上千名會員提供服務。 你可以把它和70年代的鄰里組織 相比較, 這種規模的服務 在當時是不可能的, 更遑論以科技為支柱 讓它變得更優質和長久。
So it's relationships underpinned by technology that can turn the Beveridge models on their heads. The Beveridge models are all about institutions with finite resources, anonymously managing access. In my work at the front line, I've seen again and again how up to 80 percent of resource is spent keeping people out. So professionals have to administer these increasingly complex forms of administration that are basically about stopping people accessing the service or managing the queue. And Circle, like the relational services that we and others have designed, inverts this logic. What it says is, the more people, the more relationships, the stronger the solution. So I want to tell you my third and final story, which is about unemployment. In Britain, as in most places in the world, our welfare states were primarily designed to get people into work, to educate them for this, and to keep them healthy. But here, too, the systems are failing. And so the response has been to try and make these old systems even more efficient and transactional -- to speed up processing times, divide people into ever-smaller categories, try and target services at them more efficiently -- in other words, the very opposite of relational.
所以科技可以鞏固人際關係, 完全改變Beveridge 的模式。 Beveridge 模式是關於 利用有限資源的社福機構, 不具名的管理和投入。 我在前缐工作時, 見到多至80%的資源用在 不停用來把人們拒之門㚈。 專業人員必須要處理 那些日益複雜的行政表格, 其實是用來阻止人們獲取服務 或者管理申請的輪候隊伍。 所以我們設計了Circle 這種感情化的服務, 去顛倒這種邏輯。 它的宗旨是越多人參與, 所建立起的關係就越廣泛, 解決辦法越強。 我想告訴大家第三, 也是最後的故事, 它與失業有關。 英國像世界上大部分地方一樣, 制訂國家福利的宗旨 是要人們就業, 讓他們為此受教育, 讓他們身體保持健康。 但福利制度,在這些方面 也同樣失效了。 而政府的反應只是想把舊有制度 變得更有效率和交易化, 加快處理時間,把申請人 歸入更小的類別, 更有效率地為市民 提供適合的服務, 換言之, 它走到了人際關係的對立面。
But guess how most people find work today? Through word of mouth. It turns out that in Britain today, most new jobs are not advertised. So it's friends that tell you about a job, it's friends that recommend you for a job, and it's a rich and diverse social network that helps you find work. Maybe some of you here this evening are thinking, "But I found my job through an advert," but if you think back, it was probably a friend that showed you the ad and then encouraged you to apply. But not surprisingly, people who perhaps most need this rich and diverse network are those who are most isolated from it.
但猜猜今日大多數人 怎樣找工作呢? 那是經口耳相傳的方法。 最後發現今日的英國, 大部分的新工作並不賣廣告。 全靠朋友告訴你有新工作。 全靠朋友介紹你去見工。 那是多元和豐富的 社會網絡幫你找工作。 或許你們其中有些人今晚會想, "可是我因為看廣告, 才找到這份工。" 但若你回想起來,可能也是 朋友讓你看到那個廣告, 跟著鼓勵你去申請。 毫無意外地, 那些最需要豐富多元的人脈的人, 恰恰是那些被孤立的隔絕者。
So knowing this, and also knowing about the costs and failure of current systems, we designed something new with relationships at its heart. We designed a service that encourages people to meet up, people in and out of work, to work together in structured ways and try new opportunities. And, well, it's very hard to compare the results of these new systems with the old transactional models, but it looks like, with our first 1,000 members, we outperformed existing services by a factor of three, at a fraction of the cost. And here, too, we've used technology, but not to network people in the way that a social platform would do. We've used it to bring people face to face and connect them with each other, building real relationships and supporting people to find work.
知道這個原因以後, 也知道現時制度失敗 和消耗的經費, 我們制以人際關係為重點 訂了新一套新方案。 設計了一種鼓勵 人們聚在一起的服務, 無論人們失業和就業, 都有組織地合作 和找新機會。 這類新制度得來的成果 跟舊制的貿易化模式 這是很難作比較, 看上去我們首個有著1千名會員的小組, 比已存在系統要高效兩倍 卻只花費了一小部分的經費。 而且我們也運用科技, 但不會像社交平台在網絡連繫。 而是利用科技讓人們會面的聯絡, 建立真正的關係, 幫忙會員找工作。
At the end of his life, in 1948, Beveridge wrote a third report. And in it he said he had made a dreadful mistake. He had left people and their communities out. And this omission, he said, led to seeing people, and people starting to see themselves, within the categories of the bureaucracies and the institutions. And human relationships were already withering. But unfortunately, this third report was much less read than Beveridge's earlier work.
1948年,Beveridge 到了 他生命的盡頭, 他寫了第三份報告。 他在報告內提及自己犯了大錯。 忽略了市民和社區的重要。 這種疏漏把政府看待人們, 和人們怎樣看待自己 歸入官僚和機構的範疇。 人際關係已經漸漸凋零。 不幸地,第三份報告 遠不如Beveridge 的早期著作 那樣被人們傳閱。
But today, we need to bring people and their communities back into the heart of the way we design new systems and new services, in an approach that I call "Relational Welfare." We need to leave behind these old, transactional, unsuitable, outdated models, and we need to adopt instead the shared collective relational responses that can support a family like Ella's, that can address an issue like loneliness, that can support people into work and up the skills curve in a modern labor market, that can also address challenges of education, of health care systems, and so many more of those problems that are pressing on our societies. It is all about relationships. Relationships are the critical resource we have.
今日我們要帶領社區和人們 返回我們設計的 新系統和新服務方向。 採用我們稱為"福利關係" 的方式, 我們必須捨棄以往古舊貿易化, 不適合又過時的模式。 而是要採用集體的共識 幫助像艾拉這樣的家庭, 才能關注像孤獨這類的議題, 才能幫助人們就業 和提升技能水平 適應現今的勞工市場, 也可以應對教育、醫療, 和無數壓迫社會大眾的問題。 全部都是關乎人際關係。 人際關係是我們 至關重要的資源。
Thank you.
謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(鼓掌聲)