Some people may initially find this hard going and may wonder why we need to bother with such a complex understanding of the workings of the human mind and its even more complex interactions with others. Well, that is a fair point. Human beings have managed for thousands of years without the arts, or sciences of psychology, sociology, psychiatry and economics, etc. If all we want to do is get on with our family, neighbours and friends as best we can, avoiding those who get on our nerves, or who pose a threat to us in some way, then culturally conventional methods and means of living and surviving are 'good enough'. Culturally we tend to build comfortable 'mental and emotional' living spaces. If we meet a particular problem along the way and turn to a friend, a professional, or an institution for support and they are able to meet our needs satisfactorily, without too much disruption to your life and the lives of others, then no further thought is necessary, stay with what you conventionally know to be true and helpful. Occasionally you may meet a more serious problem with others, or experience a profound personal trauma which seriously disrupts you life, so that there is no going back. In which case you may seek the help of someone who has a some expertise and talent. If this enables you to overcome this trauma and resume life once more; that is wonderful and we will all be pleased for you. There have always been people who have been seen as 'healers'. They come in various forms with various techniques and a 'natural' disposition which gains the confidence of others and brings about the resolution, or provides solutions to poor health &/or personal trauma. Each culture has its particular form, often 'framed' in that cultures belief systems. Unfortunately, not everyone meets the same skilful, insightful and effective examples of 'healer'. Doctors, Therapists, Counsellors & Mediators are our western forms of 'healers'. They evolved from the same fundamental 'cultural' framework in which we, in the west, have mostly lived. These can be as good as any and as bad as the worst. Each of us, individually, are variously disposed to accepting and believing the effectiveness of any 'healing' process. 'Naturally disposed' Doctors, Therapists, Counsellors and other Healers, do not pretend to be 'experts'. They just do what comes naturally to them and supplement their skills with new knowledge and the knowledge gained from their practice and wider experiences. In distressed and distressing cultures and societies, there are increasing demands for physical, psychological, emotional and social healing. This demand then outstrips the supply of all 'Natural Therapists' (healers, doctors, nurses, counsellors and advocates by another name). The society has to import, or train up more, in desperate response to the the increased demand (rather than solving the underlying problems). As a consequence, a culture may experience 'charlatans', who pretend to have the skills and take money people ,or the State, and fill the gap. Sometimes this even works (we will explain why later). In desperation, cultures and societies then seek to train up more 'therapists' to try and stop the rising tide of distress, poor health and increased demand for social help. In an attempt to control this, cultures, societies and nations attempt to 'regulate' the increasingly chaotic practices and then seek to promote the accelerated recruitment of practitioners. This often distorts the natural process of vocational development. The process becomes institutionalised and there is poor distinction between the intuitive (life experience and enhanced social skills), technical skills and bullshit. Some technically competent practitioners fail to understand the difference, but are often good at the quick fix. As a result they tend to get promoted over the inherently skilled. Reflective practice attempt redress this, but only partially succeeds. Some practitioners are able to talk the talk but not effectively walk the walk. They are the most dangerous and can completely cripple the whole purpose and process. The technically and intellectually competent become promoted to powerful positions, which affects the recruitment and retention of intuitively skilled practitioners. This same process takes over within the professional institutions themselves and the character and competence of practitioners deteriorates, is less effective and becomes institutionalised, corrupted, generalised and increasingly ineffectual. This has been the character of the 'corruption' of all healing and therapeutic practices, in all kinds of cultures and contexts, throughout the history of human, self-sustaining, collective organisation, in any form and at all times. It is for this reason that there is a need for a 'General Understanding' of the processes involved. To this end 'Relative Psychology' is being developed and the concept of psycho-social therapy evolved. Those who understand the distortions that have taken place will already understand these institutional processes and effects that I am talking about. They will feel inhibited and restricted by the institutional framework and constraints on good, flexible, client / patient focused practices. They will also better understand the benefits of cross cultural perspectives. The following 'intellectual' thesis is designed to help understand the 'cross-cultural' understanding of the 'evolution' of natural therapeutic skills, how 'technical competence' can enhance these skills, how Para-therapeutic contributions can be (and are) valuable. More importantly, it show how groups, cultures and individual can variously survive and thrive, or corrupt and fail. Have fun; step outside the box a little. if you feel your have heard all this before somewhere, or that it does not make sense, you are probably missing some important points. This may be because I have missed out something that is important to your understanding. The nice thing about the internet is its immediacy and responsiveness. We do have the answers for you. Ask! There is a place for most true 'therapeutic' methods and the model below allows this. Relativistic Psychology:
Relativistic Psychology: The presentation, perception and conceptualisation of social behaviour, of any kind, is observably different in the varied response to the wider, varying, 'Psycho-social, and the physical environmental' context of any behaviour. Observations are further affected by, and limited to, the psycho-social, environmental perspective of the observer. The psycho-social 'context' of individual psychology, and any expressed behaviour, determines how these features will be manifested, how they will be perceived and then, how they will be conceived. This statement, may at first, seem an obvious comment on the fact that people behave differently in varying circumstances and that the observer can only see that which is 'available' to them. These two aspects are true, of course. Notice that I say that the presentation and perception are affected. This makes a very significant difference in my meaning, some of which may already be understood and accepted. The two concepts are not included for emphasis, they are 'both', reciprocally affected. Social intercourse is psychodynamically socially active (I use the term psychodynamic in a very pure form and intend no psychoanalysis here). I would like to briefly define some of my other usages of concepts. By 'psycho-social' I mean; the dynamic, interactive, cognitive, linguistic, non-verbal, perceptual, experiential, spiritual and social interactive universe and its various identifiable 'domains' (ways of perceiving and conceiving). Human beings are natural rule forming, pattern seeking animals. We look for order to explain things and look to spirituality to encompass that which does not fit these rules. These are all belief systems, some more based upon daily experience than others. Understanding in Science, psychology and sociology are all part of this evolution. We may assume that we are in physical contact with parts of our 'physical environment', and are, indeed made up from elements within it. What it is important to understand, for our fuller knowledge of these things (and how they may go wrong, or be seen to be wrong), is that our 'experience' of this wider (or narrower) universe is obtained through our perceptions and conceptualisations. If we look at the evolution of these belief systems, even the earliest and crudest, they had a measure of predictability for the cultures that used them and for the purposes that they served at the time. It is not just cultures and societies that collectively evolve in this way. Individually we all can test out our environment. The most creative and intelligent way to 'grow up' and evolve, is to develop our individual theories of what is happening around us. We then put them up for scrutiny and, as a result, collect further information so that we may adjust our 'internal models' for how it all works. In this way we learn from all our experiences, sensations and our own 'internal environment' (our creative minds). The outcome will usually be common to most others in that same milieu, but can be substantially different to that of other individuals and the prevailing culture. Our language, (and therefore many of our thinking processes) evolve in that way. As children, we make sounds in our crude attempts to get the attention; in order to get our needs met. Adults start to mimic these sounds and 'naturally' abbreviate the grammar of communication. This grammar mimics the developing grammar of young children. We all tend to do it, we are following the child's way. Through this interaction the child 'evolves' a set of rules that gradually match with those of their culture. It is an interactive and re-creative process. Some of the child's new grammar, concepts and words are incorporated into the culture's evolving language. It is my contention that it is 'natural' for individuals and cultures to 'evolve' in this re-creative way. Each individual and each culture, separately and jointly, creating and testing out models and theories. In 'healthy' systems, the interactions between self & others, between cultures and within cultural evolution (over time); this creative process goes on for a defined phase; Rules are developed, systems established and then knowledge is periodically 'transformed' into more widely useful and increasingly reliable predictors. All too often this process is artificially stopped by people with a vested interest in sticking with what is known, thereby artificially maintaining their social status. There is basically a natural cycle of a structuring & 'conservating' phase, followed by periodic, apparently spontaneous, radical transformations. This cycle is occasionally, artificially interrupted by 'induced' changes and by enforced restriction upon the social and intellectual growth of a culture. This is usually in the form of a particularly powerful leader, or collusive group, that has a vested interest in holding back natural psycho-social development, or advancing it along a particular, relatively selfish avenue. These aberrations are usually identified and a later, natural transformation correct the deviation, often after some retrogressive consequences and the effective collapse of the host culture. In the natural order of things, as demonstrated by some individual genius and invention, it is the somewhat 'accidental' variations in thinking, interpretation, perception and dialogue that bring about the individual transformations and cultural revolutions. For better, or worse, this is how progress is made, mistakes and all. By the same token; The periods of natural stasis are just as important as the transitional phases. These are the periods when information is collected and new experience gained. Each phase naturally follows the other and any one phase, when unnaturally arrested, produces anomalies. This is also how cultural differences arise and how some variations in conceptualising are interpreted as issues of 'mental health'. Mostly they are 'alternative' ways of seeing the same thing. As with the differences between Newton and Einstein, Microsoft and Apple Mac, VHS, Betamax and Phillips. Anyone outside of the current, main 'domains' of thinking, will feel isolated and misunderstood, with all that which it entails. This thinking will always have some validity but may not always have the recognition, or reinforcement, necessary to become incorporated into a cultures broader understanding (at that time). It is in this apparently 'stop - start' way that people and cultures evolve. Periodically going through 'transformations' of understanding; incorporating all previous knowledge and experience into a new 'more encompassing' understanding. Previous understandings linger on and still have their limited validity is explaining more local, or immediate phenomena. The newer understandings, if the evolution and adaptation is in the right direction, will produce more accurate and reliable predictions, across a wider range of phenomena. This may require new ways of 'perceiving' things. It will certainly involve new conceptualisations. Taking all this as our foundation for a newer understanding lets look at our current phase of cultural evolution and adaptation. We will here, of course, be applying this 'frame of reference' to our current and historical understanding of 'mental health'. Essentially both the dynamic, creative component and the more static, gaining information and experience phase, are equally important in our development. Some would have us believe that one or the other has greater value, validity, or justification. To prefer one over the other, to promote one over the other, or separate out in different individual each of these components, takes something away from the individual and also from the culture. It breaks the cycle. Science, as we can see from the above example, can produce different explanations and invent different mechanisms, to achieve similar predictive results. Some more advantageous than others (in some way, or other). There are two common feature to watch out for though. a) Seeking greater, more inclusive and reliable predictability, B) Seeking to fulfil existing expectations. The first is 'open' system and the second is closed system. I believe we are in this latter phase currently. There are so many experts with limited perspectives. This has a potential effected our individual mental health and our collective mental health. The Psychology of Mental Health:Clinical observations can be useful, but are of limited benefit in a dynamic system. Like the Physicist trying to explore the nature of an individual electron; in an attempt to 'stop' this dynamic entity, he changes the very nature of the thing he is trying to study. Similarly, in studying individuals and groups, within clearly defined controlled boundaries (lab, clinic, a form), he restricts what 'goes into the 'system', this affects what happens and consequently what comes out, and 'quite separately', what is observed. Clinical situations are good for getting quite precise 'features' of various aspects of an individual, or groups, identified and recorded. From this a reasonably precise 'model' can be created to represent those isolated aspects and features. If one does this for each human, psychological feature then a 'set', or prescribed range of aspects and features can be defined. But, like the electron, the dynamic nature of the entity is eliminated. Only the external shell is observed. The dynamic interplay between the observable features are not appreciated in this way. This requires conjecture about these interactions, which ultimately must be verifiable, by making predictions which can be empirically checked. Break into the 'shell' of an electron and further damage is done, to the internal dynamic and the information gleaned can become quite useless, and certainly corrupted. Similarly, intrude into the psyche of an individual, or even a group, and you get an immediate distortion and can have no real confidence in what you are observing is anything more than the 'fragments' of that particular disruption. The normal, otherwise indifferent, dynamic is lost. Stand back, view with an open mind and look for primary, secondary and apparently spurious effects and explanations. From this make calculated assumptions and then predictions, that you can check against the observable facts. Whatever the value of these empirical observations, they have to be interpreted, taking account of the 'dynamic context' of the observations. The subject has internal processes going on that you may try to compensate for. That is the first distortion. The observer has internal processes going on and that they try to restrain, this is a second distortion. The biggest distortion, though, is that of the wider social context; which prescribes the 'conceptual frameworks', methods and 'normal' perceptual interpretations and lays down social rules for conduct and wider expectations. Even science is part of this social dynamic and scientific understandings 'evolve'. They are dynamic. All that we see and experience of the physical universe is perceived and conceived through ourselves; through the distortion and prejudice of our 'needs orientated' sense organs, transferred by our 'survival dedicated' nervous system, and processed by our 'self seeking' brains. The same is true of our search for psychological and sociological knowledge and understanding. What we expect from the encounters colour what we will get. That is human nature and, perhaps even animal nature. The expectations are the biggest, uncontrolled influence in any scientific explorations. They gave Copernicus his his perception of the universe, Newton his own, more general form, Einstein his his relativistic, 'psychologically challenging' general theory, from which he predicated still further general theories. These geniuses understood the universe through altered states. They did not intrude into it but stood back from it an used their intuitions and imaginations. Einstein in particular looked for the General Features of space and time, much like Noam Chomsky has with language, in terms of individual and historical developments. They opened their minds to the 'psychology' of experience; its Universal and its Relative characters. Clinicians would do well to follow their example. We now move towards a more general, relativistic theory of human and social functioning. Step outside the box and look in, but remember, all you have really done is made the box bigger. All the better to see the psychological universe with. I first wrote about this (having practiced on its basis) in 1978, in an essay I presented to my tutor, while a mature student at Brunel University (it obtained a 'D' grade). I have improved on it a little but 'relativity' takes some handling. It requires us to step outside our usual prejudices, which work for us well at the 'local' level. Relativistic logic does work though, and the creative process assists us in seeing the wider, interconnected influences that explain psychological phenomena; The wider context in which everything happens and is 'experienced' to happen in differing ways. The 'Character' is the Dynamic, Public expression of Personality:Part of this thesis is a Fundamental Law that for each presentation of 'Character' (the public and dynamic presentation of underlying Personality) there is a fundamental opposite (reciprocal) Character. The 'Actors' operate along the spectrum of these relative opposites. They appear to do so in a 'universe' of relative opposites. We can identify many of these by name but they are our 'constructs' and simple represent our notion of the underlying complex dynamics of the interaction between players. As each engaging Actor(s) approaches the interpersonal centre of a particular domain (within that spectrum) the contrast lessens and the intensity of separation reduces. At the mid point there can be gentle oscillations and consequential changes, or switching of roles. A kind of dynamic balance can be achieved. The dynamics of this interplay can usefully be considered in terms of psycho-social 'energy'. The balance achieved can be highly dynamic, or relatively passive. Higher or Lower, dynamic energy. There is a 'quantum' aspect to this dynamic. If we consider 'conflict' for instance we can often see the transitions between 'steady state', low energy balanced dynamics, through higher energy 'alternating' but balanced dynamic, then on through rapid change, 'catastrophic', unsteady states, quickly switching to a new balanced state with a profoundly different 'quality' of relationship. These new states can be stable and 'resolved' (at least for a time) as Higher or lower psycho-social energy states. (energetic versus relatively passive arrangements). A Boxing, or Wrestling match can be used to illustrate this: The Actors dance around with greater of lesser energy, pace of action switches at points, from walking to skipping. Energy increase and decreases (usually as 'quanta'). The Actors check out the ground and the opponent and actively look for opportunities. They take in information, gain insights and work out strategies. There is often a 'feigning' of the intention to 'act' with greater energy. This provides more information but also gives up some. Each evaluates and establishes a 'theory' concerning the opponents strengths an weaknesses. Eventually one of the Actors makes his move with increased energy, the other reacts. At some point there may be a dramatic switch in the dynamics. One lays on the canvas in a relatively passive state the other dances around in victory. The floored opponent may almost immediately get up, perhaps even turn the tables, or remain close to the ground, collect his energy and ego, and await the re-match. As new energy (information, knowledge, insight) is fed into the 'interpersonal system' and taken up within it, often differentially by one, or more of actors, the system can be 're-invigorated and the dynamic balance can again be 'raised' and can induce another 'catastrophic' change in the dynamic. The system includes 'others' (think of a tag match in our example) and those on the side lines giving sustenance, encouraging, 'putting down', giving moral support and possibly even throwing in distractions and dirty tricks. There may be effective referees at times. There are always 'expectations', not always met. As described in our example, in instances of interpersonal negotiations and conflict, these oscillations in psycho-social energy can increase, with a consequential more dramatic role change (aggressive/assertive verses submissive/passive), or 'entrenchment' (still a change - passive aggressive in character), of one or more roles . The oscillations continue until a new equilibrium is achieved, with each actor taking on more permanent, contracted roles. This may continue until the relationship fails in some way, resulting in a psychodynamic separation. (but watch out for the re-match). The conflict may be transitory of course, but there is usually a pattern in what triggers this re-adjustment, or conflict, the stable balance may then be achieved over a longer period, with breaks in the action. Once a new balance is achieved roles tend to settle and soften. They become 'low dynamic energy', conflict subsides and agreed roles are re-established, but may (and often does) remain high 'potential energy' (this is represented by intensity of difference (gap) between the roles and the degree of resistively within each Actor - potential, or tension energy). The 'tension' energy is dependent upon the established 'separation' between the two roles, the 'experience', 'knowledge', and/or 'insight', of the actors in establishing their roles, and the psychological commitment to those established roles (conscious, or unconscious). These are affected, or constrained, by other underlying psychological features, which include those described by 'personality', 'intelligence' and behaviour. This does not happen in isolation, however, these are 'public' dimensions and domains (even though a particular interpersonal dynamics may be hidden from public view). Within a particular interpersonal dynamic (two or more people) there may be greater or lesser degrees of internal resistance to a particular role (role differential) established. A role may be passively accepted, without significant resistance (including a 'power', or decision taking role), in this particular dynamic. It may be that the actor naturally and comfortably accepts this role in all interpersonal dynamics . Alternatively there may be (and usually is) some varying degree of resistance maintained within the role, or resistance may develop, or increase with experience and knowledge (as a child develops and as we reflect). Historical circumstances will also have some effect and the a particular relationship dynamic remains 'relative'. Other interpersonal dynamics may have an entirely different character, and appear contradictory, except when viewed with in the wider domain. The roles are maintained, in spite of the resistance, because there are cost benefits to be achieved. The dynamic along another dimension of the relationship compensates for the 'tension' that is maintained in the one. It can also be affected and supported by influences from outside, within a broader interpersonal domain(s). Psychodynamic Energy can be imparted from outside the interpersonal domain being considered. If this does not find fertile ground within the dynamic of this interpersonal domain, then it can feed the potential conflict within it, especially if there is 'high potential' separation in roles and significant internal resistance, in one or more. This is then more likely to disrupt the the internal equilibrium. This is the 'where did that come from' scenario. There may be an initial 'shock' and on-going repercussions but, more usually, a new equilibrium can be achieved, if the existing dynamic is relatively stable. The 'external' influence may be perceived as constructive, or destructive by the Actor bringing in this new energy (knowledge, experience, behaviour), but is 're-evaluated' and may be 'transformed' within the dynamic of the particular interpersonal domain. It may be absorbed, re-directed outwards, or transformed to useful knowledge and experience. Others Actors, within the wider domain, have their influence and the collective influence can be very powerful inhibitor, or motivator, for particular role formations and intensity of differentials and any eventual changes. Transitions and Transformations:Contrary to popular psychological beliefs, these Characters are not immutable. Any change that can take place can be the result of 'trauma', 'brain washing', 'bullying' and other 'intrusive' interventions on the one hand. Towards the middle there will be more 'contracted' interpersonal change agents, like psychotherapy and cognitive therapies, advice and support from friends. Otherwise, it can be as a result of an actors constructive, intended actions upon their psychological self, putting on a mask, testing out in the real world and eventually taking on the new role as a well established 'replacement' character. In any event, 'natural' transitions and transformations will eventually happen as a result of experience and learning. The fundamental character, that was established, through the same mechanisms, influenced dynamically by our genetic make up, is not 'lost' to us but it is 'transformed' to varying degrees. In a perfect transition, everything of any significance that went before would be transformed into an new 'psycho-social' understanding and the resulting presentation of character and associated behaviours, reflects these changes. These transitions can often appear to have a temporary, or transitory character but will remain part of the person's 'resource', once established and 'practiced'. They can be 'contextual', having effect under certain circumstances and situations. There can be a repertoire of these potential transitions. The more significant 'transformations' are dealt with later but for now can be recognised as qualitative changes in the way a person presents to the world, understands it and how they relate to it. These are transitions where the is a fundamental 'altered state', so to speak. The transitions and adjustments of a previous period become transformed into a new way of relating to the world. Professor Elliott Jaques and research colleagues, gave these various qualitative states 'type' names. For our purpose we need only consider that these transitions happen and can, with more extensive experience, take the character of transformations. These will be dealt with else where. The Wider Context of Interpersonal Dynamics:As I have already stated; Interpersonal Relationships, of Couples, Families, Groups and Communities, operate within increasingly wider, circumscribing contexts. These are essentially 'environmental' contexts. This includes the physical universe, with its attendant conditions, demands and resources. It also includes the social universe with its traditions, rules, wider interactive networks, cultures and societies. Incorporated into this social 'context' are varying attitudes and expectations, which have a significant influence on everyone within in. Other animals are significant in these domains. No personal 'psychology' operates within a vacuum. Even the simplest, private behaviour is influenced (past & current) by this social context and in return, the behaviour eventually has impact upon the social context in some way, reinforcing it and challenging it. The physical universe is perceived through ourselves and is essentially a collectively shared understanding, or a representation of physical reality. To emphasise the importance of the social context, I have coined the terms 'Psych-social', Universe and Environments. To Identify the varying cultural features that can be evident within these and overlapping each other; I have coined the term 'Psycho-social Domains'. Psycho-social Universe is a space / time continuum with physical environments dispersed throughout it. If one considers that there is a psycho-social universe, then Psycho-social Domains are the usual 'physical environments' with a 'psycho-social' element superimposed, wherever a group of human being co-exist and cooperate in some more-or-less, characteristic way. These Domains are not restricted to the direct physical space and they evolve over time. I this sense we can illustrate how one phase of development influences another, in the same physical space. Just as one contemporary domain can influence those psycho-socially adjacent to it. How the physical environment is interpreted and understood depends upon the 'perspectives' generated within that particular psycho-social domain. Eskimos have some different notions of the world than does the Aborigine. They have different challenges, needs and expectations. Some are common, but others do not really 'psychologically' exist for the other. Even in describing this model, I am both constrained and enabled by my own wider social context. All I can do is seek to make the model as generally applicable as possible, extending it beyond my experience, by contemplating the gaps (alternative domains that may or may not exist, may never have existed and may never do so). This can also be true over time, as cultures develop and change, as knowledge is gained and lost. Sometimes important insights are lost as the result of the introduction of newer insights and knowledge. In a perfect system all valuable knowledge and insights would be incorporated into a greater, more general 'theory' of this socially perceived and conceived universe. Just as in the case of individual psychologies being 'transformed' by this social experience, so groups, cultures and societies can be transformed. In the transformation we take on a radically new perspective. This is a problem for historians trying to interpret the societies and conventions of the past, just as it is for the anthropologist's interpretation of a culture that is alien to their own. Psycho-social domains have actors interacting, formulating and establishing conventions, laws, belief systems, psychologies & philosophies; basically, any number of theories and explanations of experience within those domains. There are behaviours that establish patterns and actions that show dispositions and attitudes that may be expressed through language and may be represented by theories and evidence, obtained through the particular perspectives and on the basis of the fundamental assumptions of that particular psycho-social domain. These evolve and divide as its subjects take up differing philosophical positions and the culture subsequently fragments. Boundaries between domains are tangible and resistant but are permeable. Psycho-social 'energy' is required to move between distinctive domains. There is a 'quantal' aspect to these transitions. During psycho-social and psycho-emotional transitions, actors can exist in the free space between domains but the tendency is for them to be gravitated back into one domain, or another. This 'free space' experience can have the characteristic of psychosis, or some other alternative perspective & experience.
Although the 'geo-physical' environment may be continuous the 'psycho-social' domain boundaries do not necessarily butt up upon each other. The free space may be unexplored 'psycho-social' territory, or space explored and 'socially forgotten'. We can expect that there will be significant areas of this free 'psycho-social' space, potential for colonising in the future. These domains can comprise; geophysical, geo-cultural, geo-economics, geo-social, psycho emotional, psycho-neural and more general psycho-biological aspects. The divisions are those that we may find useful but they are all artificial boundaries, useful for identifying the various elements that make up the whole, These can be considered sub-domains for the benefit of integrating these useful components into the general psycho-social-environmental domains we are considering. The 'Physical Universe' are all those physical, spatial, temporal and other 'unknown' features that exist outside of ourselves, independently of 'perception and contemplation' of them. Their 'real' expression is independent of us and is therefore 'unknown' to us. These external features are only known through the psycho-social and psycho-emotional and psycho-biological (general organic) perspectives and our 'conceptualised' map of this 'universe' of external reality. In modelling this social structure and order we could do worse than use the latest kinds of 'scientific modelling' principle to describe the psycho-social universe. These individual 'models and maps', are progressively developed from early childhood. They are evolved from simple interpersonal interactions, through Group rules and expectations, towards cultural belief systems and up to and including the scientific theories. We establish these various forms of explanations to make sense of all our experiences and communicate them in useful ways with others. These are the models and maps that required for us to collectively make sense of our surroundings and perceptions, to share our experiences of the world, warn others and make predictions of it, etc.. Psycho-social domains can be superimposed. For instance; two distinct and adjacent psycho-social domains. Each can have their own set of actors operating distinctly within them and with these domains largely psycho-socially separate from each other (different 'cultures' in some important respects). We can consider another group of actors operating in another distinct domain that overlaps the other two domains, encompassing the major part of both. This group have multi linguistic and/or multi conceptual perspective that enable the transitions necessary (they understand and have experience in their own and in these other domains). We can then consider that this group, of what I would call 'high psychological energy' actors, can more-or-less move freely between and interact within those in either of the first two domain with a substantial degree of communication and largely shared experiences and understanding. We could also consider that those in the other domains may find the interaction uncomfortable with their sister domains. Their tendency is to stay in their own domain; or, practical, linguistic and philosophical limitations exist that inhibit the transitions, or else they 'choose' to do so, for their own good purpose and reason. We can consider that the boundaries between the 'major' domain and the other, 'relative' sub-domains as being semi permeable. This is useful in understanding that the transitions from major to minor are more-or-less free flowing, low psycho-social energy demanding transitions; whereas the minor to major transitions are high psycho-social energy demanding transitions. We can consider that the wider 'relative' perceptual and cognitive horizons allow the one group to freely interact, while the other, relatively more restricted, focused and insular, specialised groups find the interaction less appealing, or necessary. The difference for the major domain actors, compared with the minor sub-domains, is that they have high 'psycho-social potential energy' already established. The transitions to the the relative, low energy domains is 'active' and overcomes the resistance (or resistive 'tension') that is encountered. The reciprocal transition, from minor to major domain, for actors in the minor domain, requires high 'psycho-social dynamic energy'. In that this 'energy' is transient and largely circumstantial, the 'differential', of psycho-social tension' will quickly draw the actor back to their 'home' sub-domain. If the 'energy' potential is eventually established and maintained, the actor can be considered to have gone through a psycho-social transformation and is now 'established' in the major domain. Whereas the energy had previously required to be actively drawn from the psycho-social environment, it is now 'stored' within the individual, There is effectively, no going back, in real terms, short of a serious physical or psycho-social trauma. Even then the potential may remain and transition back to the major domain may be expected, even upon 'partial' recovery and psycho-social opportunity. This concept of dynamic and potential psycho-social energy can be useful. In many ways we can see the dynamic learning process is energy demanding. We have to engage the world, struggle with it, actively think things through, argue, revise and experiment. This can be seen as energy demanding and this kind of energy is generated through action. As learning progresses and knowledge is established; as confidence and predictability is improved, we eventually absorb enough social energy that it is established as a potential within us. This is a the 'quantum' feature that I described earlier, in terms of the 'transformations' we can be seen to go through at various stages of our development, from childhood onwards. Dynamic psycho-social energy is converted into Potential psycho-social energy. There are 'qualitative' changes that arise from energy of experience. Low order experiences and transformed into higher order experiences by the process of taking in this psycho-social energy and establishing it as 'knowledge'. Biological Evidence that seems to support this model:All animals would appear to have a perceptual 'mental map' of the universe (progressively laid down in the cerebellum) that is adjusted and modified through higher learning (via the cerebral cortex), into a conceptual map of the physical universe and experiences within it. Psycho-social domains are multidimensional and incorporate a 'time' domain as well as the usual 'spatial' domains. (Space time continuum and all current past and future contemplations of it). The concepts of Universes, Domains and Sub-domains is useful for considering many psycho-social phenomena, like attitude formation and change, social change, psychological and emotional breakdown. See: Towards a General Theory, Transformations, Social Adaptation, 'So What?', Human Rights | Relativistic Psychology:
A synthesis of individual & social psychology, of genetic disposition and inheritance (biological & psycho-social impact of the past , current and on future, genetic influences).
The study of the neurological processes, behaviour, modes of experiencing and variation in the interpretation of social phenomena. Seeking to understand differential effects, alternative perspectives on observations, and variations in conceptualisation; all which give rise to our varying interpretations of experience and experience itself.
Explanations of human experience in the social context prevalent at the time, used in reflecting upon past developments, or in contemplating future possible social events, developments, adaptations, or evolution.Psycho-social:
The internal and external environmental contexts that encompass and unifies, social behaviour, perception & conceptions (cognition) and human biological, psychological, emotional, social, spiritual and environmental development.
There are very few circumstances under which it is possible to dissect out an individual psychology from their past, present and future social context and its collective consciousness.
There are useful studies of individuals psychological features but these are relatively limited and the results usually represent an average, mean and deviating range of defined 'groups' of human subjects, in which the social context is only nominally acknowledged as pertinent to the studies.
Arising from these studies are usefully defined ranges of behaviour, cognition, mental function, propensity and capacities. Most useful, and little appreciated, are the identification of 'types' of mental function and 'styles' of presentation.
These represent identifiable 'states' through which individuals, groups and cultures can be observed to go through transitions and transformations, often under particular conditions and after significant events. All, however, are influenced by changes in the physical and social contexts. Context:
The wider physical, social and experiential circumstances surrounding any behaviour, or social interplay. The conceptual framework in which behaviour & events can be more reasonably (but variably) interpreted, and whereby reasonable, scientific predictions can be made, in response to any changes.
One form of scientific context, in social science, is described as 'clinical'. This is where attempts are made to exclude all factors outside those being studied. This is a brave attempt at objectivity but is quite impractical & of limited predictive value.
In science it is quite reasonable to identify qualitative states that can be recognised to exist under defined conditions. These can be used as the 'relativistic' contexts, or dimension, in which we can make valid observations.
Under varying, objectively defined and naturally occurring conditions (which can be definable 'states'), it is possible to make verifiable statements concerning a typical type of behaviour that is a response to these 'characteristic' social circumstances. These sets of conditions (contexts) have definable (and potentially measurable) influences on the associated and defined behaviour type. Perspective / 'Conspectives' :
A set of established ways of perceiving & understanding, effected by the previously established conceptualisations, which, in their turn, were developed through a particular set of perceptual experiences of the psycho-social world.
The original perceptual & cognitive inclinations being determined by genetic disposition, which were largely encoded by the success of previously disposed and 'reality tested' perceptual & conceptual traits of the parents. Conceptualisations / Conceiving:
The process of forming a thought (concept) which represents what we have observed, and/or otherwise experienced. After an initial perception of an external &/or internal (recall & mental processing) the mind tries to make rational sense of the experience.
In doing so the cerebral cortex (higher brain) collects information from various body locations and organs (including sensory organs and adjacent cortex, the lower brain, nervous system; cerebellum and brain stem). From this information it attempts for formulate a rational explanation of the experiences.
The explanation that it provides itself is often in the form of images, sounds and remembered sensations, that represent similar previous experiences and perceptions, or the closest approximation to them. Where language (in any form) is present it then goes on to use language (and other symbolic representations), to generally explain and order, the sensory inputs and other somatic 'sensations'. Radical Transformations:
Fundamental, 'structural,' social changes that arise as a consequence of 'stimulated' social reformations. These arise out of a 'pressure' for change, brought about by irreconcilable and persistent inconsistencies in the established social order, or collective consciousness.
These changes are 'revolutionary', in the sense that we understand 'industrial' and 'technological' revolutions. They are not accidental changes, although initiating discoveries may appear accidental.
The time is right because all the practical components, information, cognitive capabilities, motivation and initiatives, necessary for change, are adequately available, Dynamic:
That which is 'Active' rather than 'Passive', having and using energy. Interactive changes over space and time. The interplay between real, &/or virtual features and entities of any kind. Activity that has a purpose &/or intention. Cognitive:
The mental, or higher order neurological processes (brain function) that generate the experience that we describe as thoughts. Logical explanations, assumptions, calculations and problem solving, initiated and generated by perceptions and other neurological processe. That which appears to come out of human intention to problem solve and conceptualise. Non-verbal:
Communication that is achieved by visible and postural communication and does not require verbal content but may well enhance and emphasise verbal communication. Perceptual:
The process of receiving information from the sensory organs and general sensory & motor nervous systems. It is the general functional response to the senses when they are responding to stimulus from the external (and internal) environments. Perception has real meaning for us in terms of many learned interpretations by the higher brain, through cognition and conceptualisation.
See perception. Above. Experiential:
That which pertains to 'experience' and through which true knowledge and wisdom is obtained. Experiential is both a way of understanding how we accumulate experience and knowledge and a philosophy of the learning process which follows human natural inclinations, as determined by disposition of genetics and previous experience. Spiritual:
That experience which is outside of normal physical, logical, emotional and cognitive experience and explanation. This may be experienced in the form of: An 'objectification' of spiritual entity(s); A sense of awe &/or enlightenment from some higher order of being; An appreciation of things bigger than us and beyond our comprehension; A general sense of oneness and intuitive understanding and appreciation of the universe, life and human companionship. It hay also be any combination of these and there aesthetic and esoteric experiences and understandings. Social:
That which pertains to the co-operative and conflicting interaction of an animal with others of its species, operating within groups. In the case of human beings this includes involvement in complex social groupings, setting and applying rules and providing structure for social, and 'civilized' organisation.
From this basic frame of reference, all that is social is that which operates within and can be understood through social order, discourse & experience. Physical Environment:
That assumed universe of objects, space and time, that we perceive in our varying ways but with a more-or-less common, significantly learned, general perceptual & conceptual context. Rule forming - Pattern Seeking:
A psychological feature of higher primates and other animals. Most particularly it is a human, Psycho-social feature which helps us to organise ourselves, understand our experiences and make predictions about events that we repeatedly experience.
Science:
Psychology:
Sociology:
Belief Systems:
Culture:
Society:
Grammar:
Structuring:
Conservating:
Evolution:
Transformations:
Radical Transformations:
Transitional Phases:
Natural Stasis:
Mental Health:
Inclusivity:
Basically, the opposite to exclusivity. Clinical Observations:
Collateral Damage:
Intrude into a social system too aggressively and with pre-set notions, there will be collateral damage due to the data that you obtain. You can not rely upon it as you have damaged the system you are observing. This is like 'stopping the electron', you loose is true, dynamic nature. It is necessary to observe through a wider perceptual and conceptual field. Empirical:
Assumptions:
Conjecture:
Predictions & Predictors:
The terms are used in respect of statistical probabilities of events happening. This is the scientific sense of the word but a particular form of statistics; Bayesian Statistics (designed for the purposes of gambling), is particularly useful for quantifying 'beliefs' that an event will happen, or an hypothesis is true.
This simple statistical method allows us to adjust the estimated probabilities on the basis of increasing evidence, as it becomes available, one way or the other. This is, I believe, the kind of expectation people naturally have when they seek explanations through the belief systems they establish. Predictability & Predictive:
I use these terms in the scientific sense and as described above, but relating to the inherent qualities that exist within certain kinds of experiences, perceptions, accounts of events and the different kinds of relationships we establish, with Others, Institutions and the Universe. Expectations:
The general understanding of the term is well known. I use it with a particular accuracy in respect of Psycho-social functioning and social contextualisation of individual functioning and experience.
We each have expectations of ourselves and of others. We also have expectations of institutions. These expectations are usually reasonably accurate and useful, after a period of experience, engaging with a 'personal relationship', an institutional agent, or agency.
Prejudices can distort such expectations and previous negative experiences can compound these prejudices further. These established expectations then influence how we behave towards that which we have these expectations for.
In acting, or responding in this way we then generate reactions from others (including Institutions), which may then fulfil our expectations (whether these are accurate and representative, or not). What we expect is what we get and in some measure we are correct in our predictions and but we help 'Generate' the response we expected.
My definition may appear obvious as first glance. Like many of the other concepts I deal with, we do not always appreciate the full significance of the concepts for understanding the true basis of human behaviour and cognition, especially when it seems to have gone wrong.
Expectations are not 'Passive'. Expectations are always 'Dynamic'. They set the framework for our 'Perceptions', which then, in turn, has an impact on our 'Conceptions' (changing or reinforcing our expectations).
Expectations are an important feature of our need for 'Predictability' and 'Consistency' (even when it is 'Negative'. It is so deep rooted that we sometimes need to dig the roots up re-plant. If we don not do this (especially collectively, within institutions), we contribute to the process of negative institutionalization.
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 |
