What do you think?
Rate this book
The Careless Society: Community And Its Counterfeits
Amid all the hand-wringing about the loss of community in America these days, here is a book that celebrates the ability of neighborhoods to heal themselves from within. John McKnight shows how competent communities have been invaded and colonized by professionalized services -- often with devastating results. Overwhelmed by these social services, the spirit of community falters: families collapse, schools fail, violence spreads, and medical systems spiral out of control. Instead of more or better services, the basis for resolving many of America's social problems is the community capacity of the local citizens.
- GenresNonfictionSociology
208 pages, Paperback
First published May 5, 1995
20 people are currently reading
379 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 25, 2020
Such an interesting, and at times infuriating, read.
McKnight argues that as the economy moves away from manufacturing and resource extraction to service, the constant need for capital to increase itself means that the service economy is constantly incented to grow itself as well, to the detriment of people and community. Because of this, outside experts like social workers and medical professionals are descending on communities and telling them that they know better, and fracturing community bonds and replacing care with service.
McKnight and I agree on some things! Siloed services for vulnerable people are frustrating and not helpful. Just giving poor people money (a basic income) would solve a lot of their problems. Local solutions that increase jobs and focus on strengths based solutions are a good idea, and can have a lot of positive ripple effects. Community associations are valuable, and can respond to local problems in a way institutions cannot.
But we also disagree on a lot. McKnight argues that if we trust and empower community and the body to heal itself and care for others, it will do so. And I just don't agree. Some people will be cared for, and others will fall through the cracks. Look, we've all read news stories about nursing homes that mistreat their patients. But we've also all read news stories about elders being horribly neglected at home just so their relatives can cash their pension checks. My own family recently had to make a very difficult decision when my grandmother's dementia advanced to the point where my grandfather could no longer care for her alone. It would have been lovely if we could have kept her at home, but in order to provide the full-time supervision she needs, who should quit their job? Should my youngest aunt have not gotten married so she could have lived at home forever to care for her parents?
Because he believes that so-called experts do not know better than communities, there's a sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit argument that if we could return to a time when communities were stronger, things would be better. First of all, please show me the halcyon time when the poor, mentally ill, developmentally and physically disabled were folded into community and lived lives full of care and free from discrimination. That's what we should all be striving for, but I'm unaware of a place or time when that happened. And McKnight totally ignores that a lot of the care that took place in the past was unpaid labour done by women. Like, I think McKnight would happily welcome an aging parent into his home, but I somehow doubt he would be the one getting up in the middle of the night to change a diaper, you know?
Anyway, I appreciate that this was written in 1995, and I think some of the things that McKnight is decrying are turning around. For example, the government of Alberta is increasing it's focus on ensuring that youth in care are encouraged and supported in building strong relationships with adults in their life that are not paid to be there. And a conversation around a basic income is still swirling around Canada. I agree with a lot of the foundations of McKnight's work, but I think his solutions are a little too pollyanna-ish, and do not adequately account for the people that will fall through the cracks.
McKnight argues that as the economy moves away from manufacturing and resource extraction to service, the constant need for capital to increase itself means that the service economy is constantly incented to grow itself as well, to the detriment of people and community. Because of this, outside experts like social workers and medical professionals are descending on communities and telling them that they know better, and fracturing community bonds and replacing care with service.
McKnight and I agree on some things! Siloed services for vulnerable people are frustrating and not helpful. Just giving poor people money (a basic income) would solve a lot of their problems. Local solutions that increase jobs and focus on strengths based solutions are a good idea, and can have a lot of positive ripple effects. Community associations are valuable, and can respond to local problems in a way institutions cannot.
But we also disagree on a lot. McKnight argues that if we trust and empower community and the body to heal itself and care for others, it will do so. And I just don't agree. Some people will be cared for, and others will fall through the cracks. Look, we've all read news stories about nursing homes that mistreat their patients. But we've also all read news stories about elders being horribly neglected at home just so their relatives can cash their pension checks. My own family recently had to make a very difficult decision when my grandmother's dementia advanced to the point where my grandfather could no longer care for her alone. It would have been lovely if we could have kept her at home, but in order to provide the full-time supervision she needs, who should quit their job? Should my youngest aunt have not gotten married so she could have lived at home forever to care for her parents?
Because he believes that so-called experts do not know better than communities, there's a sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit argument that if we could return to a time when communities were stronger, things would be better. First of all, please show me the halcyon time when the poor, mentally ill, developmentally and physically disabled were folded into community and lived lives full of care and free from discrimination. That's what we should all be striving for, but I'm unaware of a place or time when that happened. And McKnight totally ignores that a lot of the care that took place in the past was unpaid labour done by women. Like, I think McKnight would happily welcome an aging parent into his home, but I somehow doubt he would be the one getting up in the middle of the night to change a diaper, you know?
Anyway, I appreciate that this was written in 1995, and I think some of the things that McKnight is decrying are turning around. For example, the government of Alberta is increasing it's focus on ensuring that youth in care are encouraged and supported in building strong relationships with adults in their life that are not paid to be there. And a conversation around a basic income is still swirling around Canada. I agree with a lot of the foundations of McKnight's work, but I think his solutions are a little too pollyanna-ish, and do not adequately account for the people that will fall through the cracks.
December 18, 2014
I really like the premise of this book - working in the service sector I have taken a while to come to terms with being in many respects 'the enemy' when it comes to people getting real support.
Although when I began the book it felt more like a polemic rant than careful analysis. Many points were cunningly presented as hypothesis or theories, then repeated shortly after as fact (a genuine psyc tactic) Nonetheless I strongly agree with many of the points made - the overall thesis that often service systems hinder more than help is interesting especially since the focus is not a right-wing or anti-government rant but a genuine focus on people and community
Although when I began the book it felt more like a polemic rant than careful analysis. Many points were cunningly presented as hypothesis or theories, then repeated shortly after as fact (a genuine psyc tactic) Nonetheless I strongly agree with many of the points made - the overall thesis that often service systems hinder more than help is interesting especially since the focus is not a right-wing or anti-government rant but a genuine focus on people and community
December 28, 2014
I love this book. It's changed the way I see things for good. If you are in any way interested in having a positive impact on the world around you then I urge you to read this book. It's not easy to get hold of in the UK so I'll happily lend you my copy.......but I want it back!
June 10, 2025
This book is 30 years old and some of the writing is from as far back as 50 years ago, but gosh darn does John cook in here. I'm just going to come clean and say the reason I liked this book so much is because it confirms a lot of things that I thought already and affirms that my theory of how civic life is meant to work is not just the musings of some C-average undergraduate.
The argument laid out here is very, very anti-meta. Almost everything I've read about institutional systems focuses on reform vs no reform and what we could be doing better in social service, but John here questions why we have these institutions in the first place and what they realistically cost the long-term stability of the communities they service. I won't spoil it but he really does lay down a pretty unique argument, even if it's not one I hear repeated today (however, the reason for that is that it outlines a vision by which community service workers essentially work themselves out of their jobs).
I liked basically everything in the book, so I'll just list the complaints here:
- This is sadly an article compilation, which I can live with, but it seems to not really be edited for a book format. The consequence of this is that a lot of pages are spent restating arguments that have already been laid out as though the audience is hearing them for the first time.
- He's a little less charitable to service work than is probably most productive for his argument. He could have done more steelmanning before tearing them down
- Related to that, as a lot of reviews have pointed out, this is a very critical work. He's obviously upset at the state of the meta and has spent a lot of time thinking about this. Due to this, I think he assumes that the reader knows exactly what he's talking about at all times, which is occasionally frustrating.
Okay, other than that, this book is great. If you care about community organizing or work in some community service profession, you might wanna pick this up, it'll really change how you think about our line of work. (Oh, also, the ending is a big banger).
The argument laid out here is very, very anti-meta. Almost everything I've read about institutional systems focuses on reform vs no reform and what we could be doing better in social service, but John here questions why we have these institutions in the first place and what they realistically cost the long-term stability of the communities they service. I won't spoil it but he really does lay down a pretty unique argument, even if it's not one I hear repeated today (however, the reason for that is that it outlines a vision by which community service workers essentially work themselves out of their jobs).
I liked basically everything in the book, so I'll just list the complaints here:
- This is sadly an article compilation, which I can live with, but it seems to not really be edited for a book format. The consequence of this is that a lot of pages are spent restating arguments that have already been laid out as though the audience is hearing them for the first time.
- He's a little less charitable to service work than is probably most productive for his argument. He could have done more steelmanning before tearing them down
- Related to that, as a lot of reviews have pointed out, this is a very critical work. He's obviously upset at the state of the meta and has spent a lot of time thinking about this. Due to this, I think he assumes that the reader knows exactly what he's talking about at all times, which is occasionally frustrating.
Okay, other than that, this book is great. If you care about community organizing or work in some community service profession, you might wanna pick this up, it'll really change how you think about our line of work. (Oh, also, the ending is a big banger).
June 8, 2025
1.5 stars. Made me wish I never learned how to read.
May 1, 2015
I came to this book just as I am beginning to learn about McKnight's Asset Based Community Development approach. I realize most of the essays in TCS are twenty to forty years old now. And I do not judge the book on all the water that has passed under the bridge since they were written. McKnight makes many good points about the disempowerment of people that happens when we rely on outside experts for local social solutions. If anything, many of the points he makes are absolutely confirmed by the passing of more time and the every deeper entrenchment of outsider, centralized, "efficient" social policies. He does, however come across as extremely polemical. Not a lot of nuance, or space for the fact that there are, in fact, people who actually do benefit and need, for example, allopathic medicine. And that, perhaps, the profession of social work does have a place in the fabric of community life. Churches cannot do it all. Heck, churches barely exist today. Also, local communities can be known to discriminate in ways that our entire nation will not allow. So, local communities don't always know best. Overall, though, I like much of what he has to say. And I really do appreciate his later work on ABCD.
Read
June 16, 2020It is a very interesting book about how American society has changed slowly over the years to become a "careless society" in a few steps:
1. It has moved from the majority of workers producing goods to the majority producing services.
2. These services have come to provide what used to be defined as care.
3. As more and more companies started providing "care" in the form of services, communities started losing their power over their own lives, and stopped caring for themselves.
4. As communities died and people didn't interact with each other as much and turned to the "services" to receive their "care", America turned into a nation of "clients" and "consumers" instead of "citizens" and "community members".
Basically, these service companies found conditions of certain people (eg grief, hunger, boredom, stress, obesity), defined them as problems that needed to be solved, and said that their "service" will solve the problem. These new companies need human need as a raw material to eventually create profit. As McKnight puts it, "This economic need for need creates a demand for redefining conditions as deficiencies" (p 29). He also speaks of the iatrogenic nature of many services in the country today. This means that the service is basically doing the opposite of what it says it will: "sickening medicines, stupidifying schools, criminalizing prisons." An example being how a medicine has a side-effect, so the doctor prescribes another medicine to counteract that side-effect and so on. "Like a hall of mirrors, the problem definer creates the treatment that creates the problem and creates the remedy..." (p 21). The service organizations define a condition as a deficiency, decide what the treatment should be, end up with sometimes creating a real problem and make more of a profit by finding the treatment for this new problem that they created in the first place. Example: a grief counselor provides "care" for a person who recently lost a loved one. As a result, this person wasn't surrounded by family and friends during his/her grieving period (to grieve with them) and therefore never realized the love and care that came from the community around him. He/She is now slightly distanced from the community he/she used to be a part of, feels something missing in their life, and ends up going to more "service" companies who claim to "care" about their loneliness.
In other words, read the book and you'll actually understand what I just wrote in the previous paragraph. I definitely recommend this book to other CTEPers.
1. It has moved from the majority of workers producing goods to the majority producing services.
2. These services have come to provide what used to be defined as care.
3. As more and more companies started providing "care" in the form of services, communities started losing their power over their own lives, and stopped caring for themselves.
4. As communities died and people didn't interact with each other as much and turned to the "services" to receive their "care", America turned into a nation of "clients" and "consumers" instead of "citizens" and "community members".
Basically, these service companies found conditions of certain people (eg grief, hunger, boredom, stress, obesity), defined them as problems that needed to be solved, and said that their "service" will solve the problem. These new companies need human need as a raw material to eventually create profit. As McKnight puts it, "This economic need for need creates a demand for redefining conditions as deficiencies" (p 29). He also speaks of the iatrogenic nature of many services in the country today. This means that the service is basically doing the opposite of what it says it will: "sickening medicines, stupidifying schools, criminalizing prisons." An example being how a medicine has a side-effect, so the doctor prescribes another medicine to counteract that side-effect and so on. "Like a hall of mirrors, the problem definer creates the treatment that creates the problem and creates the remedy..." (p 21). The service organizations define a condition as a deficiency, decide what the treatment should be, end up with sometimes creating a real problem and make more of a profit by finding the treatment for this new problem that they created in the first place. Example: a grief counselor provides "care" for a person who recently lost a loved one. As a result, this person wasn't surrounded by family and friends during his/her grieving period (to grieve with them) and therefore never realized the love and care that came from the community around him. He/She is now slightly distanced from the community he/she used to be a part of, feels something missing in their life, and ends up going to more "service" companies who claim to "care" about their loneliness.
In other words, read the book and you'll actually understand what I just wrote in the previous paragraph. I definitely recommend this book to other CTEPers.
March 6, 2020
Some interesting new concepts and ways of thinking about social service. As a person going into the profession of helping others, this makes me think whether I am helping or actually perpetuating the suffering of humans. While I won't be changing the course of my projected career, it definitely makes me think of ways in which social services can be improved.
June 29, 2017
Full of food for thought, I'll have to reread this book sometime.
Read
December 11, 2021The final chapter...
February 24, 2022
3.5 rounded to 4
June 5, 2022
A unique view looking at the potential harms from the professionalization of everyday life. Read other reviews to see the pros and cons of this book.
January 20, 2025
If anyone has read this book and knows of an updated version (or something similar) that includes some feminist critique let me know cause I'd love to read it.
December 25, 2009
A learned book about reclaiming community responsibility for its members, especially "intractable" people--those who don't flourish in institutional or corporate settings, those who can't seem to stay away from overeating, druggies, law-breakers, crazies, and others. The book builds slowly and often put me to sleep in the first half, being a bit dated in this Facebook-Ning-Wordpress-Twitter World. The closing chapters, however, sang to me. For example, the three views of how to deal with our problem people: Therapeutic (everyone deserves treatment for anything), Advocacy (finding jobs, finding ways for individuals to conform the larger society), or Community ("recommunilization" i.e., local community finding ways to bring the person back in). And the challenge to move from servant-thinking to friend-thinking. The short closing chapter "On the Backwardness of Prophets" is a gem. Thinking on that, perhaps a way to read this book would be to read it backwards. Smiling.
September 17, 2009
John MCKnight has written academically and carefully about community organizing using community assets for decades; dean of a powerful movement.
This book shifts gears, it is a popularly-aimed, easily readable, and strong statement. Professionals, literally, can drain a poor community of resources by subsituting themselves for community functions like grief. And by taking lots and lots of the $$$ coming into a community [e.g. hospitals/doctors get $$$; if people had them they would be healthier:]
some combination of inspiring, waking-up, and depressing. Loved it.
This book shifts gears, it is a popularly-aimed, easily readable, and strong statement. Professionals, literally, can drain a poor community of resources by subsituting themselves for community functions like grief. And by taking lots and lots of the $$$ coming into a community [e.g. hospitals/doctors get $$$; if people had them they would be healthier:]
some combination of inspiring, waking-up, and depressing. Loved it.
Read
May 4, 2008I skimmed more than read this one. I'm not sure I have the attention/focus this books requires and must give it back to its owner before the end of the semester as promised. Some other day, perhaps.
August 17, 2014
Right ideas, but dated now.
He relies on public sphere theory without naming it as such; argument would be strengthened by public sphere theorists available in 1995.
He relies on public sphere theory without naming it as such; argument would be strengthened by public sphere theorists available in 1995.
May 9, 2010
a book about how services ultimately disempower people, communities
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews