Social-dynamic Adaptation of Perception and Conceptualisation. Working within the fields of learning difficulties and mental health, we are consciously required to intimately engage with alternative mind sets and diverse mental processes. Some of these seem fairly normal and some are variously perceived as 'abnormal'. Teaching generally forces us to conceive of the 'differences' in this black and white way. More recently (in considering Autism) there is the notion of a 'spectrum' of presentations. Unfortunately, this 'spectrum' is judged from the perspective of the 'disordered' end of the spectrum. Although we normally do not need to consider this; our usual understanding is from 'standard', worldly perspectives of giving and receiving information (mostly via 'language'), from within 'more or less' similar mental frames of reference. We usually have similarly learned understandings of a shared cultural world, of roughly common experiences. Normal experience is basically constrained within a cultural milieu. Professional practices, of all kinds, then become 'prejudiced' by the constraints of by these same general frames of reference. There is a parallel here with the concept of 'Discontinuity of Experience' (Elliott Jacques, Ian MacDonald & Terry Couchman - BIOSS, Brunel University; 1974). This is the recognition that continuums of experience are associated with perceived 'discontinuities' which appear to be related to the points on the continuum. The 'spectrum' is a continuum, but the more discrete, tangible identified 'conditions' are the perceived discontinuities (colours). This kind of recognition parallels the 'Quantum' notion in physics. It is two ways of perceiving-conceiving. It is not so much that physical, biological and social worlds have actual parallels, as the psychology of perception and conceptualization have some developing commonalities. We should never be surprised about these parallels with the physical sciences. Logico-deductive Scientific disciplines rely upon rigorous forms of human perception and conception. Basically; agreed 'alternative' perspectives and mental frames of reference, are geared to obtaining greater predictability and more general rules, governing the relationships between the phenomena being experienced or studied. The rigorous discipline needed to develop an understanding of this ph3nomena, requires a 'special', more precise language (Partly Mathematics and partially Logic) in order to 'share' these more predictive notions and 'play' with the alternative theories and possible solutions to problems. Social Science and associated Professional Practice (in order to advance further) have to 'step outside the box' of our normal cultural constraints. To do this there is every good reason to follow the advances of Logico-deductive science, rather than the artificial constrains of empirical science. The need for this has become increasingly necessary as cultures are intermingling and sharing concepts that were peculiar to particular cultures. If this process had started earlier, we would have made fewer mistakes in understanding and interpreting cultural differences. Similarly, we would have had less prejudiced professional attitudes towards racial, sexual, gender commonalities and differences (Identified as stereotypes and deviancies). Instead of developed 'understanding' we have responded to prescribed. Professional Practice - Research and Application: Having this wide range of 'alternative' perspectives left me open to the possibilities of 'alternative realities'. This motivated me to seek a more encompassing understanding (General Theory) of mental processing; varied learning styles & processes; diverse perceptual frames of reference (mental frameworks); and the idea of adaptive versus entrenched conceptual structures. This is not so different from Chomsky's search for the General Theory governing the formation of grammatical structures and other aspect of language structure. I had always suspected that there was significant legitimacy in the alternative realities, expressed by some people; some of them seen as on the edge of 'normal' and others assessed as 'abnormal'. These conventional reactions appeared to be quite in common with racial, sexual, gender and other 'prejudiced' stereotypes. The prejudice is not intentional, often an accident of social reactions and political pressures. These 'pressures' are now being gradually and progressively reversed, driven by a 'general theory' of 'Human Rights'. The development of these 'International Laws' are not accidental at this time. They developed out of the practical application of 'Relativistic' forms of thinking and Albert Einstein, along with other radical thinkers, scientists and activists, were instrumental in the form that these 'Rights' have eventually taken. They are actually scientifically very sound and seem to reflect a natural, irrevocable human trend, making more 'general' sense over treaties that have been established over many centuries. They are 'beyond' most Lawyers. In these fields of work, and being originally focused upon teaching, I had perceived serious contradictions between what I was 'told' were the fundamental, or official problems, methods & constraints and what I actually observed in individual cases, from these more 'open' perspectives. This led me to re-think how we perceive social problems and issues, and reflect upon how we established bodies of professional knowledge. I was also able to conceive how these can then constrain, or enable, our further learning and understanding. These contradictions became even more apparent when I (and others) tried to explain to those with the established views on 'mental health & disability', what other alternative explanations and possibilities there were. This was often met with very aggressive reactions and a clear determination to resist any change, or even an alternative perspective on the problems people faced as service users, or as professionals. This remained the case, even when we were able to demonstrate successful advancement in many individual cases. Eventually some advance was made with understanding 'learning disability' and the relationship between other 'social-dynamic' problems the person may present. These are largely a result of restricted experience and opportunity, once a 'diagnosis' had been made. The dynamics of 'reaction' to social constraints and treatment was also misinterpreted in most instances. This was (and still is) 'diagnosed' as 'challenging behaviour', rather than natural resistance to unreasonable and poorly managed restrictions on a person's natural drives. The International 'Human Rights' legislation is based upon a fundamental psycho-social understanding of natural human requirements. Everything from a biological need for adequate Food & Shelter, through universal need for freedom of action, with a natural propensity to take initiatives; to the more esoteric notion of 'Dignity'. All these needs persist, even under the most severe of physical, sensory, mental, and psychological impairments. Failure to respects these Right always results in personal and social consequences. I recognised that there was great potential in developing a radically new perspective on what we understand to be mental health and disability. This was to be a means to enable people to feel that they are a full part of the community and no longer disabled by their experiences. Obviously, I was not alone in this thinking of the time, but there were no real attempts to understand why our culture, institutions and professions needed such a disabling approach to do the job. I already had a pretty good idea of what the disabling process was, but needed to observe how professional's collectively perpetuated these unnecessary restriction and what important part Institutions played in this. The problems was not your standard 'empirical' investigation. It was not so much about looking for the evidence, but investigating 'how' we tend to look for the evidence and 'how' we tend to interpret the evidence we 'perceive' and then how we further 'conceptualise' it. I realised, quite early on, that we had to do what Einstein did, just prior to his 'realisation' of his 'relativistic' perspective. We needed to start looking at things from a different perspective, on a macro scale, mentally stepping outside ourselves and seeking something simpler, like the Theory of Relativity. Many people think this is complex but it is, in fact, a substantial simplification of understanding, compared with what was 'known' before. The reason it 'feels' complicated is for the same reasons when we first learn a new language, or skill. It is the move from a comfortable frame of reference to the relatively unknown one. We are 'moving outside our comfort zone'. Having become used to one basic language, we often seek to understand the new language by constant 'translation', almost word by word, and having to mentally manipulate the clauses and gender, etc.. So it is with radically simple ideas that can be shown to more precisely represents a new, or an underlying rational perspective on reality. We are required to re-frame our understanding, in new terms and from a mental perspective that we are not used to. This is quite a challenge, even for those of us practiced at it. 'Normal' perspectives are resilient. Helping others to understand this new representation of understanding is an even the bigger challenge. This is especially the case when there is natural resistance, lack of desire, little motivation, or an absence of a impending need to do so. If the existing, conventional understanding is comfortable, has an strong social standing, represents a natural, long established cultural bias and is reinforced by a cultural need for security, the potential for 'change' can be very restricted. A 'crisis' of some kind, can make a difference though. Models of attitude change and experiments on 'social compliance' demonstrate the strength of this 'resistance'. The resistance actually 'naturally' advances cultural cohesion and in more positive context, changes require the culture, or institution, to be 'convinced' that new perspectives and understandings are a real improvement over established ones. Unfortunately, this healthy 'resistance' can become disabling to a culture, causing it to stagnate. This is what we understand by institutionalisation, corruption, prejudice and various other concepts that suggest intransigence. The 'alienating' process, by which people are 'excluded', or made to remain 'outsiders', has serious cultural and wider social consequences, whatever the perceived benefits to those who remain 'insiders'. The Applications of Alternative Perspectives: The essential theoretical and operational research has now been done and the concept of 'alternative' perspectives has been established. This has required a radical review of how we generally understand genetics, evolution and experience and even 'conditions' like 'mental illness' and 'Learning Problems'. In taking this step, it is now possible to better understand, not only the true, underlying character of what constitutes 'normal' reality, but also how our realities gradually get stretched, distorted and transformed. This happens as we gain new experiences and new perspectives, some of which challenge our previous understandings and even our 'experiences'. As cultures and as individuals, we gradually change how we think and experience and then (periodically) almost seem to like a quantum leap. We (and sometimes our sub cultures and culture) become transformed by a new way of understanding all that we assumed to be true previously. If you like, we see things in a new light. There is not a close correlation between individual, sub-culture and macro cultural transformations. Usually individuals and small groups see the potential first and then others join as they are able to 'switch perspective'. The remainder 'learn' to accept a new explanation and gradually come to trust them, 'on the evidence'. Of course, like the problem of learning a new language, we then have to translate our previous perspectives and associated experiences, into new linguistic and conceptual frameworks. Hopefully these are more representative and expressive perspective and associated novel experiences, with the potential to add more to our bodies of knowledge. That is not easy to do, but after some practice, as with progressing in a new language, or skill, it eventually becomes second nature, feels simpler and more compressible. Communicating this to those not 'in the know', is remains more difficult and this can be problematic for changes that affect whole cultures. In the 'conceptual-perceptual' cases that I am describing, this new 'perspective' (one of many alternative possibilities) is also more comprehensive and representative of a wider range of experiences, of a greater number of people and cultural contexts. It offers a sounder basis for explaining apparently 'irrational' experience and provides sound explanation for why some people have an intuitive understanding of a problems; some are more inclined to rationally work things out 'logically' and why others hold onto learned understandings and seek concrete 'evidence' before they are willing to join the developing cultural, or a sub cultural trend. Like with so much learning, it is easier to mentally take on board when young, or when 'new' to a situation (or under emergency conditions). This has little to do with the 'ageing' process, but has much more to do with how 'open' our perceptual and conceptual frameworks are. It is literally about how 'dynamic' we remain. This is clearly part of our inbuilt adaptive character. Younger people are less pre-structured in their thinking. This leaves them more open to developing 'new' conceptual structures and perceptual frameworks. They however, have less experience to 'moderate' and logically test these conceptualisations against practical realities. The rest of us have to struggle to incorporate our own and others, new perspective into an existing, highly 'prejudiced', structure and framework, assuming that we can be bothered! This theory suggests that when we are young and relatively inexperience's, we are more susceptible to alternative realities and enjoy playing with them. Some of this play is just for fun, or to be 'different', but now and then some flights of fancy , or gut instinct, or perceived contradiction, produce exciting alternatives, with a stark, alternative validity. When such individuals meet the right environmental and cultural conditions, they transform our body of thinking. This process gives rise to and explains, both the gradual Cultural Evolutions and the Radical Social Revolutions, which 'pop up' from time-to-time. The obvious examples are the agricultural, economic, commercial, industrial revolutions and the progression of recent technological revolutions; including Information Technology and periodic scientific developments. This process goes on, by the same, unending processes of perceptual and conceptual 'revisions', which appear to have been going on since before history, within most cultures and their sub-cultures. The cycle of Micro, 'techno-social' changes (use of tools) seems to be accelerating at present, but there is a background 'evolutionary' component which is more cautious and tends to rein us in. This Macro cycle eventually produce the more radical social transformations, affecting whole cultures. This is after longer periods of adaptation and seems to have more persistent and progressively inclusive effects upon cultures. The job is never complete, but cautiously moves mostly forward and engages increasing numbers of varying cultures and subcultures. . There are also cycles of 'mini' transformations that are more 'cyclic' in character. These are are the advances and partial regressions, mostly affecting groups and subcultures, gradually allowing adaptation and accommodation to change by 'testing' them out in the wider culture. These cycles introduce novel uses of the developed social technologies and novel intuitional structures. These can be radical transformations, or compromised adaptations. They are usually accommodated by subcultures and moulded to to fit a particular culture, under pressure. The Macro scale of change, for cultures and societies, seems to be about 1.5 centuries (or more), but may now be shortening in time-scale. The Mini scale of cyclic changes, for cultures is 25-50 years. This has a clear advance and partial regression character over that cycle, as described. The Micro scale of change is relentlessly forward and is currently accelerating rapidly, within specific technological areas. These 'advances seem to get 'moderated' later on, once the full implications for the culture are better understood. It may even be worth considering a split between Mini and Midi time frames of change. The Midi cycle would appear to be quite variable and affecting the 'specialist' subcultures at different rates (politics, science, technology, commerce, education, health & social care, etc). One could almost conceive of the Micro cycle being the engine of the system, the Mini cycle being the gear box the Midi being the differential and the Macro being the output to the driving wheels of the culture. By comparison, individual human development also has an extended pattern, which goes well beyond adolescence. The critical ages of personal / developmental transformation are around the ages 2-3, 5-7, 13-14 and 21, 28 years and so on, potentially throughout our lives. This takes us from dependency, through concrete operations, more abstract thinking, theoretical formulation, and testing out in the world; through to integrated experience, intuitive knowledge and on to 'wisdom' and 'mentoring' states. Powerful established forces, in the shape of Institutions of people with established, rigid frameworks of perception and fossilised structure of conceptualising, moderate the progress of cultural, social and economic change. The natural institutional purpose is to 'moderate' the integration of new knowledge into established bodies of knowledge. This serves a useful purpose in ensuring that no spurious information gets incorporated, but when it goes wrong it often does the opposite, selecting sameness at the exclusion of novelty. Stagnation then ensues and cultures and societies suffer, regress and sometimes collapse.T Couchman. (© 1974 - Feb. 2010) | 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 |
