Ordinary or meaningful lives? ‘Deep personalization’ and the under-explored contribution of village and intentional communities

Abstract

This article presents the argument that policy rhetoric surrounding personalization is contradicted by practices which marginalize the efforts of types of voluntary community action which do not conform to a centralized vision of social progress. It illustrates this by using examples of the tendency for village and intentional communities to be either ignored or misrepresented by politicians and academics. It suggests that a specific contribution of these initiatives may be an interpretation of community which begins with concrete and personal meanings rather than abstract or general means; hence, they can be seen as exemplifying versions of ‘deep’ personalization. It proposes that to bring rhetoric closer to reality in the quest for personalization requires both policy-makers and researchers to pay less attention to forms of community and more attention to the experiences that legitimize (or discredit) them. Supporting the right of people with intellectual disabilities to pursue whatever combination of environment, relationships, dwellings, facilities, routines, and activities best enhances their ability to discover and sustain meaning in their day-to-day lives is more than an essential of personalization; it is an essential of a democratic society.