The Nature of Tragedy & Distress:
 This
page is in the stage of preparation.I would like to make something clear here and I will be repeating myself,
perhaps with different emphasis and perspective:
Individual suffering, whatever its form, physical, psychological, emotional,
cultural, environmental and spiritual, involves personal catastrophe and
tragedy, which 'will' have profound & lasting effects on the individual and
their families, current and future. These effects do not have to all be 'bad'.
Some may even be 'positive', but there will still be vulnerabilities as a
consequence of huge tragedies, or relatively minor, serial tragedies. It is our
culture that makes us victims, or
Sometimes, it is in the nature of things that events happen; like earthquake,
flood, storm, volcanic eruptions, fire, decease, ill health, bereavement &
personal loss, separation, and all manner of natural environmental & personal
catastrophes. These are a 'big' focus for recognising the nature of the 'problems' than can
ensue. So big that the little, apparently incidental but consequential events
and social responses are missed, or ignored as irrelevant. We are good at grand
gestures and celebrity, but poor at individual empathy and responsibility.
In addition, there are the 'Man Made' catastrophes and distresses. Some; Like
War, Revolution, Genocide, Enslavement, Commercial Exploitation, Serious Crimes,
Institutional Prejudice & Abuse and Child Abuse, are active participations that are
know to produce Tragedy & Distress (known and partly understood, even by a 6
year old child), others catastrophes are of a more 'Neglectful' Nature, caused
by our ignorance, selfishness and indifference;
These 'neglects' may deliberate, a direct form of 'active' indifference to
the effect of Human Development and Commerce, or other, 'more selfish' human activity,
OR, they may be a more accidental, 'naivety' (by some) concerning potential side effects
of commercial, technological & scientific progress and exploitation, or
other, more personal,
'selfish' activity. This again is understood by some insightful 6-10 year old
children and people with Learning Difficulties and Autism (all evidenced).
Often these events and circumstances are linked; where one catastrophe leads to another and a
whole chain of personal tragedies and problem are the result. I have never met an exception to this, although peoples resilience (if they
have had a period of stability to build up resources) can often see them
soldiering on, tackling them one by one, in their stride. Some of the problems
that they meet in their stride are the consequence of our grand gestures, of
celebrity & our collective, apologetic 'withdrawal' from the aftermath.
If you come across someone (including yourself) who has experiences serious tragedy,
neglect,
or abuse, at any stage in their lives, you will find a whole string of other
problems that are a result; physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual,
economic, practical, etc. Some of these are hidden for years & only become
issues when a new crisis hits, or when we search for them. Some of the 'psychodynamics' is
crudely understood, the
'socio-dynamics' is not nearly appreciated enough, by most professionals,
including Social Work.
Sometimes we focus so closely on the 'presenting problem' (in and out of the
'head') that we loose
sight of all the other problems, which are going to be having a serious impact
on the person's well being, even if they (we) are unaware of them. This was most
evident in 'learning difficulties' field, where the resolution of relatively
minor physical & sensory problems, plus the development of higher social skills,
experience & confidence, had a profound effect upon the 'presentation' of the
'identified problem'. With the new perspective (by some) people with learning
difficulties did not appear so 'stupid', after all.
The associated problems I am talking about are those that developed before,
at, & around the time of an identified 'abuse', 'neglect', or 'psychological
trauma', but were perhaps more
'subtle'. Because, as a culture and as professions, we do not pay these problems
the attention they deserve, they grow, fester and become problematic in social
terms. These problems then create most of the personal and social distress that affect us all,
as adults and as a culture, in the end. Anger, frustration and resentment at
poor, unjust & ignorant treatment are legitimate, but in ignorance are dubbed
'behaviour problems', 'their' problem.
Sometimes these 'other' problems are, in fact, 'the real' Primary Problem. They are the ones that magnify all the others
that we do more comfortably identify & appreciate. The personal consequence of missing these
other contributions includes; the experience (by the person) of further 'abuse',
'prejudice' & the physical & mental health effects from 'all' these known, hidden, or indeed, ignored problems.
Plus, of course, the economic, and other social consequences; affecting family,
neighbours, communities & society in general (The social consequences Including;
High Dependency, Aggravation, Fear & Ignorance, Antisocial Behaviour & Crime).
When any problem is ignored, or there is 'neglect' of appreciating that a
solvable problems exists, it is usually because of an attitude; 'we can't do
anything about that' (an age old, self fulfilling prophesy - 'Am I my brothers
keeper?'). Some individuals who face these serial and parallel traumas, by
virtue of their greater insight and experiences; carry these problems & distresses and do (from
early in
life) appreciate these 'hidden' effects. They are then, often largely left to their own
devices, unassisted & in relative isolation. They are seen as 'victims',
pathetic, without power.
We live in a society dominated by celebrity. These new Kings & Queens can be
raised up and dismissed. Largely at the whim of the Media. Occasionally one or
two 'survivors' of social trauma, or prejudice of some kind, speak up &
obtain celebrity. Things change for a particular group in some ways, but the
general problem remains. Perhaps the problem is transferred else where; other
'groups' perhaps, or the same group with a neglected 'underclass'. We tackle the
symptoms but lack insight into the underlying problem, or chose to keep the
status quo, hoping we are not next. ('We' will be). The 'pecking order' syndrome
is unfashionable now; because it is so rife.
There are social consequences, 'always', mostly bad, but some good (as we
will discuss later). For each of those that 'thrive and overcome' adversity,
often speaking up and ignored (but occasionally 'raised up'), there are dozens
of others who suffer in silence & relative ignorance. They were victims of
circumstances of one kind of another. Now they are 'victims' of the forms of
blinkered institutional provisions, increasingly managed (and sometimes staffed)
for the benefit of those who provide the service. The service which was
originally designed to remove the unreliability of 'charity' and 'good will'.
Objectives & perspective usually get distorted in this way (See Regression to
the Mean).
Any Personal, or Group 'Recognition' without real Social
Accountability, or Social Responsibility (as distinct from economic
accountability), is
dangerous, both for the individual 'and' the culture & society. Like in the
case of our crude understanding of 'denial', in psychodynamics; The powerful
'group denial', understood in socio-dynamics, evidenced in modern social
psychology experiments (Milligan's & others) and in the big 'human experiments'
of 'righteous war' & economic experimentation & exploitation,
has far more serious social and economic impacts. Impacts which increasingly
affect us all, even outside the 'big' events that are easily identifiable.
We may pump more money into the existing institutions (police, education,
health, social care, etc.) but the 'problems' seem to get progressively worse as
its solutions get institutionalised & remove 'responsibility' and 'initiative'
from the individual (including service users & staff). Even attempts at
producing more independent and flexible practitioners (like GP's were) are
marred by the requirement to 'account', in fine detail, for all decisions, in
order to justify funding and salaries. Levels of demand go beyond that which an
constitute an effective service. The choices become 'best you can', or
'overwhelm'.
Trust is now seriously lacking, largely because managers are making Bad
Decisions, under Poor Guidence, with Inappropriate Training within Management
Models and refusing to recognise responsibility, or be accountable for the
outcomes. Systems are reorganised in an attempt to resolve what are
institutionalised problems. The reformed institution has the similar procedures
and structures, doing the same kind of job as before, but with new names and
re-designed forms (usually more of them). Accountability systems take over the
major part of people's efforts, distracting us from the original 'problem' and
objectives.
These 'current' institutionalising effect can be a direct consequence of
historical event and experience (embarrassing incidents & general criticism),
or, by virtue of the fact that 'professionals', have put the focus, skills and
intervention in entirely the wrong direction; 'the problem' as expressed, or as
professionally identified (over the years), rather than as they are in people's
reality. This happens as a result of the misunderstanding of original 'good
practice' that are used as models for 'Modern Practice'. Managers are culpable.
Something very important gets missed out in the 'documentation'. The 'Policy
Guidelines' become edicts, removing innovation, initiative, diversity and
flexibility, the very fundamentals of the 'good practice' models they are
supposedly based upon. These 'Models' have already been partially 'doctored' by
Government Agencies and some of the innovation is lost. Getting this point
across is painfully difficult with managers of most institutions. In talks &
lecture there are three fundamental groups, who respond in characteristic ways.
A) Those that 'see the light' come away excited & motivated to do what they
knew was correct in the first place (but needed permission). They reflect upon
the discussions and develop them further, to take account of their client
group's situation. They ask pertinent questions about how this and that can be
best achieved and reflect upon the possible restrictions and inhibitions they
may meet in developing their service. They are 'open' to possibilities.
B) There is then the mixed group of those people who still have doubts,
uncertainties, further questions, taking account of where they and their clients
may not fit, or where their knowledge and experience may be lacking. There may
be the usual fears of change (its all been done before) and recognition of the
need for firm structure and guidance for working within. They often like the
ideas but have doubts about how realistic the developments of ideas are.
C) The third group is quite dangerous. They may show the same enthusiasm, or
cheerfully say ,'I do all that already', but in further discussion, or dialogue,
it becomes clear that they have heard their own message. They were not actively
listening, they are reading the information in their 'own light'. What they see
and hear are sound arguments to keep things as much as they are, but using more
'modern' concepts. This group is closed. They can see no sound reason for
'including' clients and patients in the development and running of services.
The first two groups are complementary. They need each other to provide and
effective service. There may, sadly, be a few in the second group who are so
disillusioned by the current institutional practices that they will be hard
pressed to get excited about any initiatives taken by managers, whether these
are re-hashes, or radical changes.
This happens more often than you may realise It is mainly a form of naive
neglect on the part of Professionals & Managers (in the main) but is often a form of 'active' neglect
on the part of government, institutions and professional bodies. Once we are
aware of a serious cause and effect it is legally and professionally neglectful
to then ignore it.
Further details of these effects and the Theory and Logic behind this
argument are else where on this site. Links to these will follow shortly.
|
NOTE:
This Document is still at some stage of
development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its
logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see
its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary.
I thank you, in advance, for any
contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in
any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is
also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and
individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate
activities.
Copyright:
Although you will see very few reference
to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to
the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and
clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this
rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading.
If any content of this document
describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where,
(prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I
acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for
financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to
retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have
made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a
past influences.
Other than this, I invite you to share
and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of
individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for
constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing.
Should you wish to use any material
presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web
site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current
Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory
(unless stated otherwise).
This 'Reading Date' may be an important
part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will
be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those
following up on such a reference at a later date.
Thank you for your cooperation.
TRC. eMail:
terry.couchman@visitweb.org
|
