'So what?':What follows here is a slightly light hearted but pointed illustration of the dishonest application of 'intellectualised' perspectives on social (including some psychological & emotional health) problems and the misuse of social 'scientific method' and analytical interpretations, to justify clearly prejudicial community and institutional positions. This section is in development and will tend to wander a little, covering a lot of interlinking issues and aspects of Social and Health Care. Institution (Organisations with externally defined briefs, firm organisational structures, historically determined rules and procedure and ) almost have a mind of their own and I tend to talk about them in this way. It is an argument for some honest and more searching social research into the mechanisms that affect attitude formation, the 'institutionalising' process and the appropriateness (and inappropriateness) of some forms of 'managed' social change. Research that hopefully explains the sound 'gut' instinct (that some of us have) that the whole social care situation 'stinks' and leaks like a sieve. We patch it up with sticking plasters, sellotape blue-tack and even chewing gum; then pretend we have it sussed and under rational control (as if - ever). We do this rather than acknowledge that we have got some of the fundamental principles wrong. Social Research and Analysis that will hopefully answer the even more interesting scientific questions that arise from having conducted research to answer a 'pet' social question, or perceived social problem. My interest in this social science includes historical and current researches into and interpretations of, genetics and heredity, as contrasted (quite artificially) with 'environmental' factors. There are some real social issues here. There are few doubts about the 'mechanisms' and the statistical features involved in genetics but there are very dubious, usually 'loaded' interpretations of how those mechanism operate to produce 'behaviour' and 'cognitive processing'. My mother (who was actually very clever and perceptive) use to have a pet saying; 'That you can know too much'. (By the way - being slightly cocky, - I was six years when she first said it). It took a little while for the penny to drop, I was keen to soak up the knowledge on the most challenging of social or scientific problems, but I soon learned more fully what she meant. Einstein did too. You can 'know' too much and actually 'understand' very little and even get that very little, very wrong. Hello modern social intellectuals, care professionals, institution managers and politicians everywhere. If we were able to get away from the 'absolutist', 'doctrinaire', 'Newtonian' and quasi-investigations to the more 'relativistic' perspectives and understandings in social science, we will have made a giant leap for mankind, we may then have a chance at developing a 'unified theory' of social science. A relativistic one would help clear up a lot of injustice and social scientific prejudice right now. The concept and Intuition is often put down these days. We joke about 'multi-tasking', we joke that 'women being better at it than men'. Research Colleagues of mine at Brunel University (BIOSS) actually identified and researched this phenomena, prior to, and independently of computer science, in the 1970's. Recognition of its existence in some form (like intuition) was clearly recognised before this. It is only really since the 1970 that is has been recognised as a psychological phenomena, worthy of study. Intuitions is the same. It is scorned because it is not recognised as 'evidence based'. This is another poorly understood scientific principle that social scientists and social practitioners, have latched onto and distorted out of all rational recognition. True Intuition, if we take the more intelligent 'Deductive' scientific approach, favoured by the likes of Einstein, Max Plank, Carle Popper, is the highly skilled multitasking, largely unconscious (and even subconscious) integration of in-coming information, comparing it against pre-defined, previously established and constantly revised, evidenced based models; with largely unconscious, or semi-conscious 'prompts' for us to seek additional information and, where necessary, revise largely unconscious conclusions and then prompt us with 'suggestions' (intuitions) that we can then further test out in the conscious world. How was that - not bad eh? Cant give you and references here as I just made it up. But; is it a useful explanation, can it assist us in developing our understanding of behaviour further, can it be 'tested' in some way. Does it help with predictability (preferably better than by pure chance). That is all a model, or theory needs to be able to do. Again. People were doing this before formal scientific method was developed, and since, where it is felt that scientific method is largely irrelevant (oh sin of sins). Sometimes the formal explanations appear ridiculous to us but we can often find a sound set of observations, recgnisable associations \(or correlations) and a significantly better levels of predictability than by pure chance, that this 'none-scientific person' has discovered. It actually happens all the time and a great deal of valuable knowledge is lost to us because of our quasi-scientific, intellectualising and rather academic snobbery (so there). Welcome to the wonderful world of deductive, relativistic psychology. The ability to use psychological and emotional processes to seek to understand psychological and emotional processes. It is the parallel mirrors paradox. Linguistics and 'concept formation' is another fascinating area to consider in this respect; where we use words, images and concepts (and the relationships between them) to try and understand the relationships between words, images, concept formation and understanding, etc. There is also a largely forgotten intuitive model of 'The Pecking Order' syndrome. Chickens can often be seen to peck at each other and in the process there seemed to be a kind of hierarchy established, which actually did not seem to serve any particular purpose. There were no Cocks about and there is plenty of food and water, yet the chicken that (often randomly) gets pecked the most tends to weaken and then gets pecked further. Sometimes they become the chicken that gets pecked to death. I know that description is a bit twee and rather 'old fashioned' now but, just ask yourself; Does this behaviour ring any bells for you, in your work, at home, or in your studies? If you are old enough to have met this description of the social behaviour of chickens (I have actually observed it - I kept chickens from the age of 14 to 17) you may have got some sense of what was happening and why. You may have soundly recognised, or perhaps comfortably accepted, the explanation that the behaviour is a social reaction to individual and group distress, including animal equivalence to entrapment, boredom, lack of natural purpose and increasing with the level of overcrowding and possible 'felt' competition for space & resources. Any, or all these explanations are plausible. That does not make them right but may be a useful model for understanding some forms of social behaviour. Does that sound fair to you? Can you see how this model may explain, or 'model' some of the social and clinical phenomena, or group behaviour you observe? It was not a particularly 'empirical scientific' explanation but it seems to make logical sense, has an element of predictability about it and seems to generalise to the observable behaviour of other animals. These observations were made in chicken rearing, before any real scientific attempts to understand it. This became recognised as a serious practical problem by chicken keepers, when they introduced the practice of rearing chickens in close proximity, in confined spaces, to reduce costs and minimise 'exercise' (It makes for tender white meat).. Battery Hen rearing was another practice that had chickens individually caged off next to each other and the pecking became limited to immediate neibours. If there is a simple model or theory that explains say 50 - 80 percent of situations and a more sophisticated model that explains perhaps 20- 30 percent of situations; Which would you choose? We have to be careful when we throw away old ideas and perceptions in favour of new, more sophisticated models. Prior to scientific understanding of psychological and emotional functioning and problems, there were very competent and insightful people doing a great job helping people out of their difficulties. Of course the was a lot of crap too, or sound and effective practice with rather dubious explanations. Basically we have to 'think' a bit. Scientific understanding is fantastic and exciting - I am a borne scientist but only an intellectual plonker will actually dismiss all the social evidence of skills and intuitions that exist to the continued benefit of self and others. Only incompetent institutions, managers and human resources personnel would exclude people who have demonstrable skill in advance of those that can be intellectually taught. The problem is, as I am trying to show, is that there are a lot of intellectual plonkers in powerful positions, hence the need to intellectually demonstrate their existence It is mindless, sometimes purposeless, sometime futile behaviour with little apparent gratification that has to be obsessionaly repeated, often with increased ferocity until the frustration has subsided, if it ever does? It is the 'social' equivalent to the toxic effect that bacteria are seen to suffer in a Petri Dish when they overcrowded, have reducing food supply and I then illustrate the impact this artificial, highly intellectualised and simplistic 'social science' has on actual services in the community, the disabling effect upon service users and the serious and unmistakable, contravention of human rights in many institutional instances. This is then, often retrospectively, justified by rather inadequate and quite amature intellectual arguments and gross misinterpretation of the good 'science' and sound, 'reasoned', 'operationally tested', legislation and social policy. Without this wider understanding of the social mechanisms of social distress, the distortions that are created by being 'intellectually & culturally biased' (as with our institutions) are not only dishonest but quite dangerous. Displacing responsibility inappropriately, hiding shortfalls, denying implications of actions, misdirecting and misrepresenting funds, or ignoring (or not seeking) the evident, truthful social cause and effect, puts everyone in jeopardy in the end. People with any 'little power' are prone to take simplistic, self interested stances, to the detriment of the people they serve. The consequences of dishonest intellectual approaches are that social problems get worse, not better. People suffer and culpability is avoided by further intellectual slight of hand. Look at the real figures for crime (especially violence), mental illness, drug addiction, family breakup, child abuse, real and relative poverty. With all our modern insights, knowledge, facts and figures, institutions still revert to old, tried and tested (but persistently failing) theories, methods and practices. They become expensive social placebos, concentrating on the 'thick end' of the wedge. Quick fix, cultural and social biases of any kind (including towards 'clinical' perspectives on mental ill health, the 'intellectualisation' of social problems, sexism, racism, ageism and the like) cause these distortions in perspectives and many resultant injustices. Without the wider wisdom gained by seeking a 'general theory' of social change, social cohesion, social development and problem solving, we remain tied to narrow, biased institutional directives, fears and misunderstandings that exist now, within the professional groups and the community at large. One of the biggest errors being made, using 'loose' social theory (actually media type hype), is the belief that it is now those with serious mental illness that pose the greatest risks to society. Professionals do little to correct this misrepresentation. It is not the case, it is the 'normals'. It is the calculating, self seeking, self interested, the violently angry, the disillusioned and the resentfully disempowered, the skilful and 'competent' abusers, that pose the greatest threat (including some of those who sometimes happen to have a mental illness). Such 'corrupted' perspectives on communities and individuals have seriously disadvantaged identified social groups with physical, sensory and learning difficulties in the past. The treatment they received was appalling, being largely moralistic in tone and dismissive of their human rights. Equally as prejudiced as racism and sexism. These poor institutional and professional practices were identified and serious attempts to rectify the 'abuses', started as late as the 1970's with the Campaigning and early beginnings of Community Care. For those who want to see the dramatic impact that well managed, planned, motivated and educated 'Community Care' can have on the quality of life and empowerment of disadvantaged and socially deprived groups; I would invite you to do 'comparative studies' of the development of services for the above groups from the 1950-1960 and contrast these with 1970-1980's.There has since been some regression in the services to some with mild to moderate Learning Difficulties (these adults are now largely neglected in the community and develop other social problems as a consequence - Mind the Gap comes to mind). I was part of this campaign for the introduction of Community Care, specialising in Learning Difficulties at the time. Although the initial impact on the planned transition from institutional to community care was dramatic in the cited cases, I had hoped to see a similar progress in Mental Health. Professional attitudes and some treatments have slowly improved. The support of people with serious mental illnesses and older adults, with moderate to sever dementia are generally good in terms of 'physical care' and basic medical treatment. The services are, however, quite inadequate in terms of individual human dignity, freedom of action and informed choice. There are just not the appropriate attitudes, training and utilisation of available resources to meet the human rights objectives. The professional attitudes are good, if defensive, the professional will is there, but the resources are badly used and the attempts at representing the person's interests (especially in the absence of mental capacity) is nominal; often a paperwork exercise. There is no real community integration. Residential Homes for the elderly are becoming institution once more and the re-enablement of people with serious mental illness is quite inadequate. There is a significant lack of knowledge and skills in the re-enablement, rehabilitative process, especially for working with those with a psychosis. Service users are often instructed that their problems are largely intractable, undermining their hopes and aspirations. Condescending attitudes and lack of appreciation of a person's frustrations and anger, add to this disabling despondency. This prevailing tendency is in spite of the fact that therapeutic communities and other therapeutic and service user led initiatives and inputs, have proven to be beneficial, even in the most serious and supposedly intractable conditions. There is also significant misdiagnosis that can remain undetected for years. Each time I have helped someone overcome a serious 'psychotic condition' this is deemed to have been a 'misdiagnosis'. Perhaps it was - it seems to be quite frequent. Drug and stress induces psychosis is often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, which I have picked up on, sometimes years down the line. I have recently seen some 'best practice' operations (in older adult dementia services) disbanded in preference for lower cost 'prescriptive' solutions, with substantial funds being tied up in funding institutions operational cost and activities, with the services being taken out of the local communities. Residential homes, domiciliary and hospital services can do little more than meet immediate needs and minimise risks. Staffing levels are inadequate, given that there is usually no other encouraged, or significant community input beyond GP & family. As communities, we help create these disempowering situations, as we do in creating disabling and 'projected' forms of mental ill health. It is this relatively 'unconstrained' social abuse and ignorance that creates social distress and mental illness. People (including professionals) are seen as expendable, replaceable, they are disempowered (even though this is proven bad business practice). Disempowered professionals generate disempowered Service Users. The concept of Human Rights gets distorted. The argument that 'There is not such thing as Community' summed up the current social attitudes and many institutional and professional attitudes. Those same groups of people, for selfish gain and personal power, sometimes try to divide and undermine the communities that do survive fragmentation, or that have rebuilt themselves. When individuals organise themselves for their own interests this is often seen as an institutional threat. The formation of 'reference groups', under the control of an institution in often seen as 'representation'. It is not, it is a very poor, artificial form of representation. Encouraged, supported and resourced Community and Service User Led Initiatives are best form of proactive representation. It works. Those that see this as idealistic and impractical should think again. I have helped organise these initiatives, with exciting a dramatic consequences. It is these that led to the original Community Care initiative. If it is possible for people with Learning Difficulties to speak up, collectively presenting their own issues, in public forums, to Service Managers and the Media, I promise you any Community Group can be supported to do the same. Sustaining such groups is rural communities is more difficult. It requires the active and supportive (but non-interfering) input of institutions and a few professionals and volunteers. That said, I have supported up to 22 volunteers, all having experienced, or recovering from mental illness (including serious mental illness), in providing services and support to themselves and their peers. This was in the form of 'drop Ins' and the provision of information resource for local services and other available support. Some of these volunteers became members of the organising committees, taking on 'shadow' roles to begin with and full, formal roles as they gained confidence. Such groups often need rebuilding from time to time, because people move on and the needs of the remaining group changes. The establishment of smaller, local support groups and user networks are also useful and can be quite self sustaining, with the minimum of input, once their confidence is established. Mental Health and Abuse 'survivor' groups can become quite successful and potent support and advocating groups. Who are the most susceptible to serious mental ill health? Actually, it is those who are in the greatest denial of the possibility of it happening to them. They take the greatest fall when it happens and make the worst patients. To live with this denial and then to project personal problems and selfish desires onto others, is what creates most of our mental ill health, social distress and criminality. Denial and projection just displaces, delays, distorts, or hides the ultimate social distress. It spreads it around and makes the problems bigger and more widespread. There are those who have some limited insight of these facts and also, some recognition of their own potential vulnerability, who project their problems onto others and otherwise cause distress to others. These individuals are sometimes recognised as having 'personality problems', as being bullies, paedophiles, sociopaths, aggressive or bullying managers, drug dealers, organised criminals, some kinds of aggressive entrepreneurs and also, some forms of politicians (not exclusively dictators). I have made it my private project, over the last 40 years, to engage in the seediest Even TV programs these day glorify these abusive egoists and we are appropriately amused by them. I sometimes wonder what effects these forms of entertainment are having on children and young people who are watching them. What circumstances Because of my own strange childhood experiences and my learned ability to survive the most abusive physical, psychological and emotional circumstances, I have a dogged, almost obsessional ability to hold on to my fundamental beliefs and truths and some measure of integrity. circumstances Their abusers 'pseudo general theory' includes the following premises: it is Survival of the 'aggressively' fittest (Red in tooth and claw, Neanderthal principle), The 'Do it first before they do it to me' ('kick arse', school of thinking.) The 'If someone is too soft and willing, they deserve what they get ('They deserve to be shat on', 'Football hooligan', 'I am alright Jack' and 'Let them eat Cake', tribes and schools). I am sure you can recognise other tribes and sub-groups, never mind the gang cultures that are now being celebrated and given media coverage. Do we recognise a problem here? Send me your own suggestions. I will include them here. You may even recognise yourself in the descriptions? Why not try and retaliate - lol. Anyway, beware alleged sheep in wolves clothing as much as you would the wolves in sheep's clothing. We have you sussed. The battle is on and the former are set to win. Beware and be warned. These social sheep in wolves clothing don't bleat. Wolves, on the other hand, can't help playing the alpha role and howling, you can see and hear them coming from miles away. Wolves like the dinosaur and the Neanderthal, are nearly extinct. Actually, I shouldn't be unfair on real wolves, they do have good, protective, social order (human wolves don't). These human sheep keep breeding and rearing. Like the good books say. Their offspring will inherit the earth. While the one social type is up front kicking the crap out of each other, the other is behind the lines, finding ways of covering their backs and protecting their own. They continue to evolve - quietly, intelligently and diligently social organising; their fundamental human skill. Set to win the real battle of survival. See Human Rights See also: Relativistic Theory; Transformations, Social Adaptation, 'So What?', Human Rights
| Organisation:
Many of my views & ideas, about the character of organisations, stem from my own extensive experience at the receiving end & working within them. This has also been reinforced by the varied experiences that my clients' have described to me & that I have observed in advocating for them.
My interest in organisations is not limited to statutory and voluntary bodies. I have worked with large, multinational IT Companies & smaller businesses, including being self employed & operating within the leisure and entertainment industries.Institutionalisation:
There is a natural tendency, in the process of social change, for there to be a resistance, which moderates the speed & adjusts the pressure for change, ensuring the viability of it. The need for change has to be proven to the intuitive, or intellectual satisfaction of the affected culture.
In less socially developed groups this resistance is expressed directly by the members of the group and any leaders. In more advanced groups the resistance is expressed by its institutions and their representatives, periodically moderated by leaders and representatives of the group.
There is a power struggle between the established power base (established knowledge, practices & attitudes) and the initiators of change (often the young, or an 'enlightened' individuals, or groups with special interest). Ideally, benefits are checked against disadvantages and the changes moderated and tested in practice, before being full implementation.
This process can be anything from war, physical struggle, revolution and resistance, through to rational dialogue and debate. Whatever the process, any established institutions will remain resistant, because they are, by their nature, organs of stability and continuity. The leaders and administrators establish policies and procedures which are typical of institutions everywhere.
The natural process of change has historically been slow and gradual. Institutions evolved as the changes happened. In modern societies, knowledge & experience advances more quickly and some institutions can lag behind, especially if they are not adequately included in the dialogue. Further more, vested interests, by managers, administrators and agents, can seriously hold back this process of change.
This is what is understood to be the 'institutionalisation' of ideas, practices and attitudes. Institutional Change:
The process of institutionalisation has been described earlier. This is a negative consequence of pressure for change. Institutions have a more beneficial resistance to change, which serves and important role under normal circumstances.
If groups, societies and their institutions changed immediately, in response to changing social pressures, then stability of that group, or society would be compromised. The 'natural' resistance is there to moderate and check out the wider consequences of any pressures for change. Social Analysis:
I was, for a while, an Associate Researcher at BIOSS; Brunel Institute for Organisation and Social Studies (Brunel University). Professor Elliott Jacques & his colleagues were researching the relationship between people & organisations. It was essentially a Psychoanalytic (Melanie Klein) approach.
This was very influential in my thinking. Although I am not particularly persuaded by classic psychoanalytic theory; the 'folklore' like character of psychoanalysis does interest me. Folklore is an extension of the way that cultures collectively express their understanding of the nature of mankind, the kinds of relationships formed & its forms of institutions.
I have adapted this Social Analytic approach to suit my own perspective on the nature of human thinking, behaviour & the forms of organisation. For myself, communities, institutions, nations & methods of communication, are natural manifestations of human needs, thinking & aspirations.
By their nature, they have the same basic character & style of development, that individual humans are seen to have. They evolve, thrive, stagnate, corrupt and die in much the same way.
The psychology of the individual is therefore manifested in the relationships & forms of social order that we can observe. It is the psychology of these relationships and the general character of human beings, that we study when we seek a scientific understanding of human psychology. Individual psychologies remain relatively private and capable of stepping outside the psycho-social box. Communication & Understanding:
The technologies that these social institutions develop are extensions of our senses & the methods of communication. The collective knowledge & conceptualisations evolve as a consequence of our need to procreate, establish inter-dependent social communities, extend the boundaries of our domain & harness nature to our mutual benefit (or demise).
Human evolution is a very sophisticated form of evolution & adaptation. One in which we, individually and collectively determine not only our blood line, but also the kind of environment & forms of social order that our offspring grow up in. Further more, we can override many of our own endowed limitations & help others to overcome theirs; to their own & their societies benefit (or even mutual disadvantage).
The kinds of institutions that we set up are therefore critical and more important for the future, than for the individual greed & self interest they are often turned to serve. 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 |
