
by John Hitchin
Mary Ann Sieghart has written a piece in the Indy today about the shifting understandings of gay marriage – amongst other things to do with our relationships with each other – and comparing the UK with the US in the process.
I enjoyed it greatly, along with the wonderful Larkin quote she finishes with.
But here’s a thought that follows. It may be the wrong thought, but it did spring to mind. If you agree with her argument, as I do, then an endorsement of loving relationships are seen as positive. We need to both love somebody and be loved, but also know that our love (and theirs for us) is accepted by others. It allows us to draw strength from that love and take it out into the world, and use the power it gives us to be who we want to be.
What, then, do we as a society do about those that aren’t loved; those that miss out on that strength and security that can give us?
There are no easy answers in these sorts of questions – perhaps it is nothing – but it did make me think of my own work. The small research team at Renaisi spends a lot of time interviewing and researching with people who haven’t had an easy life. Sometimes, as with some of the young people we interviewed last week, they haven’t had much in the way of love in their formative years. Whether from parents or families, friends or schools, they haven’t been cared for as you would hope – they haven’t been told that it’s okay to be all the things that you are. In fact the relationships that they build can often end up being quite destructive ones, relationships with other people who haven’t had that emotional comfort and so don’t know how to give it. Given our research is typically about a project or policy, it is not focussed on the person in isolation. And some of the very best work that we see, whether delivered by the state or charities or any organisation, involves brilliant staff who care greatly for these young people. Staff who pick them up and build those relationships, and tell them it’s okay to be who they are. It sounds easy when you say it like that, but it is absolutely not.
So my question is how do we talk about this? If you’re trying to isolate, measure and predict something, you can’t say ‘love’ was the key factor, but that’s often what it feels like it is. Brene Brown talks about this in her work on vulnerability (and that TED video is fantastic). But can you get that into a research report for an evaluation of public policy – or must this stay a part of more academic research like she does, separating the person from the context of the service that society has tried to build to help them?
I would be very interested to hear if anybody has been able to strike the balance between saying these things about relationships, love and vulnerability, and creating a robust research study of public policy at the same time. In fact, I would be far more interested in that than measuring happiness.

I think you might just be on to something here… If you leave love out of the equation things just don’t add up!
But perhaps others have considered this beforeI would direct you to the following publications… 1 Corinthians 13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2013&version=NIV
One of the oldest published writings about the absolute value of love, often read at weddings as the standard for pure and genuine love, however in reality this was not written with marriage in mind, but rather for relationships in community or ”Koinonia” (the richer greek expression) to the transformation of society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinonia
Love is the standard for the richest society, the richest community, but the same manuscript suggests that pure transformational love is sourced only in a creator who is Himself Love.
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.1 John 4 v 7-21http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John+4&version=NIV
Hi John,
Just came across this excellent blog and wondered if you’d seen Community Links’ Deep Value work?
“Deep Value is a term that captures the value created when the human relationships between people delivering and people using public services are effective. In these relationships, it is the practical transfer of knowledge that creates the conditions for progress, but it is the deeper qualities of the human bond that nourish confidence, inspire self esteem, unlock potential, erode inequality and so have the power to transform.”
There’s a literature review and a couple of research pieces here http://www.community-links.org/our-national-work/deep-value/
Thanks Will
I had seen the Deep Value work a while ago, but had forgotten about it. That is exactly the sorts of areas I would like to think more about. So many of the projects I have been working on are successful when they build mechanisms of deep value creation, and what I find interesting about the Community Links work is that it looks at it across services. Normally literature looks at roles in particular settings in isolation. With resource I would love to explore the question further.
Thanks for the comment – and glad you liked the post
J