Separating the deed from the doer

Jackie Winfield

Labels and exclusion
In Child and Youth Care, we often speak of “separating the deed from the doer”. This means that we attempt to avoid labelling a person on the basis of their behaviour, and rather, describe behaviour or reframe it in strengthsbased language. For example, instead of labelling Sami a “thief” (focussing on the doer), we might say that he took something which belonged to someone else (emphasising the deed). Or instead of saying that Ally is rebellious, we might describe her as assertive or having leadership potential. This does not mean that we somehow try to pretend that the behaviour is acceptable or that the person is not responsible for it.

As Child and Youth Care workers, what we have to do is to find ways to motivate behavioural change. If deed and doer are inextricably linked, if the behaviour is an intrinsic part of the person, then perhaps, behavioural change can occur only as the result of major personality reorganisation. As such, this probably does not fall within the expertise of most Child and Youth Care workers, professional or not. Furthermore, non-caring, judgemental responses (e.g. “you’re a thief!”) alienate and exclude others, reinforcing their sense of being different and not belonging. When people feel as though they do not belong and that others do not want them to belong, they are more likely to continue the behaviour since they are already “other” or different, and as such, they might set themselves up in opposition to the mainstream. Belonging with the other “misfits” is more comfortable than not belonging and consistently experiencing that one is unacceptable, unworthy and inferior.

Predeterminism versus flexibility and change
When we separate the deed from the doer, we recognise that behaviours are not necessarily connected to a usual way of being for that person. They do not reveal something about how that person habitually is or how they were born, and therefore, how she/he will be for the rest of life. When we label people, it’s as though they truly are like the spots on the leopard's skin, and in English, we know that “a leopard never changes its spots”! Separation of deeds from doers recognises that people make mistakes; that just because someone does something once, doesn’t necessarily mean that they will do it again, even once more! It recognises that people are able to grow and learn and change, and that their behaviour changes from context to context. However, it is essential that we recognise that behaviour is related to the individual. The behaviour might represent something they learned (e.g. violence as a means of self-preservation) or something they didn’t learn or something that needs to be expressed or something that needs healing. The behaviour can be more clearly understood through an understanding of that behaviour in relation to not only the individual expressing that behaviour, but also all the minute aspects of context including time, place, presence of others, preceding events, previous experiences, weather, norms, self-discipline, autonomy, learning, perceptions, goals, needs and a multitude of other external factors which interact in particular ways with the internal environment of the individual concerned.

Meanings and morality
When we separate the deed from the doer, we mustn’t think that Bala refusing to go to school, and Pume refusing to school has the same meaning, that they’re both trying to avoid school or just “being naughty”. Perhaps, Bala is scared because his room-mate has threatened to beat him up as soon as they walk off the premises, or maybe he just hasn’t done his homework. Perhaps, Pume is anxious about her forthcoming weekend at home with her family, or perhaps she is just refusing to do everything you ask her because she feels embarrassed about comments you made about her weight at the breakfast table this morning! Even though the behaviour is ostensibly the same, i.e. not wanting to go to school, the routine requires some flexibility and individualisation in order for Bala and Pume to get better at going to school. Such behaviour does not require punishment. The infliction of further discomfort encourages young people to do things motivated by fear of punishment, the most basic and unsophisticated level of moral development according to Kohlberg’s theory.

Similarly to perhaps every approach, there is always the danger of taking principles to extremes. We do not want to separate the deed from the doer so much that we no longer understand the behaviour in relation to the person-in-environment; nor do we want to develop a culture in which young people are not held accountable for their actions. What we do want is to think about and talk about young people and their behaviour in ways which are most useful for promoting positive development.

This feature: Winfield, J. (2006). The power of separating the deed from the doer. Child and Youth care Work, 24 (1), p.23