| Anthropology is a valid Science with a poorly appreciated methodology which is potentially invaluable for all forms and areas of social science. It has real advantages over clinical, or other empirical studies, which pride themselves as being 'detached' and 'objective'. Such assumptions are seriously flawed, as we will demonstrate time-after-time on this site. Empirical scientific thinking is 'tunnel vision'. It has its value as a discipline, but it does not advance our understanding beyond what people already know, in some other way. The usual social science 'perspective' assume a cultural purity which they do not deserve, however rigorously applied. The application of the usual empirical principles to social science (as this is usually undertaken), simple 'entrenches' culturally biased perspective and sets itself up as a rigorous 'belief system' at best. All predictions on the basis of these 'empirical' assumptions are only good for the current western perspective, 'tweaked' for embarrassing contradictions when in discussion with other cultures. (Jump to Conclusion) (Click to read following text in a new window) The Foundations for Legitimising 'Radical' Social Studies: This discussion forms one of the important cornerstones for our attempts to seek valid Relativistic and General Theories, to explain Human (and other animal) Evolution, Genetic Disposition, Psychosocial and Environmental Adaptation and many other exciting areas of study requiring re-interpretation. Like Ronald (RD) Laing, Professor Elliott Jaques and others, I have engaged in Longitudinal Studies and Operational Research, into human behaviour, thinking processes, belief systems and institutional organisation. These pages are the beginnings of the process of opening up the opportunities of further legitimising and validating these Logico-deductive scientific approaches towards the human sciences. Rather than 'depersonalising' the subject (as with empiricism) these 'qualify difference. This approach more reasonable explains the 'exceptions' to empirical rules, as it does the established empirical rules themselves. In that sense, the approach is already more 'General' than empirical theories. In recognising the valid benefits of starting form 'Defined Contexts' and 'Specified Perspectives' we have already established the sound beginnings of 'Relativistic Theory' for social science. To understand this 'switch' in thinking, we have to step outside the box of our more usual ways of conceptualising. This was essential for the radical developments in the Theoretical Physical Science, mostly precipitated by Albert Einstein. Albert was not the only person able to do this, other notable people have made the same step, in their own areas of social discourse, throughout history and prehistory and in more modern times. In doing so, they not only advanced these areas of human endeavour, they also opened the door to the variety of 'thinking styles' and 'behaviours' which confound the empirically established 'conventional wisdoms'. The obvious modern contenders are Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Gordon E. Moore (Moors Law). There are many others, past an present, some of who struggled to gain credible acceptance, because they though differently to the majority. If we look at these successful entrepreneurial' individuals, they not only advanced their specialist 'disciplines' of science, engineering and commerce, they implemented employment systems which got the very best out of their employees, excited and engages others and contributed to the educational institutions, 'opening minds' to the potential of people who others see as delinquent, a problem, weird, obsessional, disabled and stupid. R D Laing 'engaged' madness and in doing so got to understand it intimately. He was a strong character who was able to do this, with its incumbent dangers, and reflect upon our corrupted understanding of the nature, cause and the 'purpose' of mental ill health. In engaging in the 'mad experience' he was able understand it from within and communicate with patients in terms that they understood and respected. This was not perfect, but what technique is. He was a pioneer. Others followed. Professor Elliott Jaques, another modern example, not only engaged 'psychoanalysis', he stepped outside its usual boundaries and sough to understand the successes and failures of all kinds of Institutions. Institutions have many of the features that we apply to individuals. In fact, it is often the institutions that become 'sick', distressing the individuals working with them and the people that they service. These more famous examples are those who have kept me inspired to continue the Longitudinal Studies and Operational Research I stared over 35 years ago. Like R D Laing and Elliott Jaques I had a obsessional interest in what makes people and cultures tick and sick. The sad fact is, many of the people I have helped over the years were disadvantaged 'exceptional' people - for years they have been a great loss to our culture. This obsession was (probably) largely because of the difficulties that I had, being understood as a child. This was partly due to my disposition, but was also affected by the physical and psychological damage, due to abuse and prejudice I experienced. For this reason, I sought to 'engage' learning disability', 'Autism', 'ADHD' and then 'Mental Illness' on these same terms as those described above. These 'problems' are largely 'created' by us and taking a 'Anthropological Perspective' allows us to see how this has happened. These 'problem' groups are effectively 'disaffected and disabled subcultures'. People and cultural institutions make people sick and disabled in the vast majority of cases. Fear of difference and selfish interests are the driving force, in what are often prejudiced and abusive cultures. Terry Couchman. (© 1972 - 2010) | Hi there Reader, I appreciate your visit. On this page you will find my account of the lessons that can be gleaned form the studies of individual and collective human development and social and cultural evolution, diversity and 'adaptation'. This interest includes attention to social systems, structures, organisations, institutions, belief systems and intuitive processes (often incorporated into spiritual understanding), which underlie all establish social systems. I also argue how and why it is that these social systems naturally evolve, blossom, stagnate and collapse. I discuss this evolving, adaptive process as a 'natural' cycle of growth and advancement, adjusting to new circumstances, while incorporating the valuable lessons of the past. Like all natural systems, processes and beliefs, these can become 'corrupted' by individual and collective aberrations and overwhelming circumstances outside of human control. The wider context of human interaction with other species and the interactive engagement with physical environment, are also valid but are mainly dealt with else where. 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. |
