 | Psycho-Social Theory & Relativistic Psychology | 'Out The Box' Radical Psycho-Social Thinking |
| ||||||
Also here:
|
Genetics and Adaptation to Psycho-Social Environments:A major tenant of our approach is that: Whatever underlying 'Genetic', 'Organic', or 'Biological' contributions there are to 'Mental and Emotional' Health; the positive and negative contributions made by 'Social forces' is far more significant in the generation of 'problems' and in the fuller recovery and 'compensatory' adjustment to these conditions. The resources and opportunities that people are provided with (or deprived of) at any and all stages of life, have a significant effect upon how well they will avoid, overcome, or compensate for; social, mental, emotional, physical and spiritual trauma, of any kind. What is more, even where there is a significant, identified, or a reasoned assumption of, genetic, or organic 'causation' (as is believed by many, in the case of 'schizophrenias' and 'bi-polar' [manic depressive], or 'alcoholic' [addictive] conditions), the biological influence is not as direct as is often assumed. Genetic variations can be, at least partially overridden by other genetic, organic and even personal & social factors (like in compensating for sensory & physical 'disabilities', or a learning difficulty, brain damage & even dementia). We tend to hear about and notice those people who have the most problematic experiences with mental health. People do lead very successful lives with these 'identified' conditions. That is, they incorporate the 'positive', socially accepted features within their life activities and some how manage to 'contain' the 'negative' features of the disposition, perhaps with medical support. Others, no doubt, have these underlying features and are so well socially compensated and 'adapted', that they and others, do not recognise the existence of the supposed negative features of the 'disposed' condition. At the boundaries of the 'expression' of these dispositions, people may be described (in western societies) as erratic, eccentric, or idiosyncratic. Sadly, the more extreme variations in the 'psychological and emotional processing', which can be a feature of these conditions, can often have a serious and long term impact on the individual. These more extreme, 'negative' effects can still remain significantly influenced by the contexts of Family and Cultural grouping (and other practical, political, legal, cultural, moral, and aesthetic contexts) but may become less positively responsive to the natural 'social therapies' with neglect over time. There are, if you like, varying degree of the 'expression' of the negative features and the usual 'social adaptations' to the effects. The most extreme case can appear as a conflict between psychological, emotional and behavioural inclinations'. A struggle between our thoughts and feelings, where we are less able to control our behavioural responses. This can have an important and almost irreversible effect upon the person and their relationship with their families and communities. There is some point where 'trust' in any natural compensatory arrangements is lost. The person looses faith in their ability to maintain a stable and reliable relationship with the world and panics. They respond to their 'internal' fears and behave in uncharacteristically erratic and unpredicted ways, possibly to the distress and physical risk to self and others. Not surprisingly, because of lack of appropriate experience, those around them are fearful of the behavioural changes they observe and react, compensate and then possibly overcompensate, out of fear. Their reaction, in turn, reinforces the notion that the person has been seen to have 'lost it'. A natural social defence, that we have all been brought up to cultivate to some degree, is to keep these problems to ourselves. Denial is a mechanism that can arise out of this. At one level it gives us time to make arrangements and finish off tasks before we take the 'required' break to re-evaluate things. In the worst case the denial continues and becomes a most serious part of the problem, if not the problem itself. If something has this worrying effect on our self and other people, we are driven to start keeping things to ourselves, for fear of being seen as 'off the wall'. This reinforces and internalises the fear further, leading to us establishing our own 'isolated' explanations of internal and external events. The behaviour of those around appears sympathetic and condescending on the one hand and antagonistic and aggressive on the other. The same people may even alternate between both positions. Our believe system becomes distorted; 'no one understands', Everything we experience becomes distorted by our less trusting beliefs of those around us. Everything seems out of proportion, and it is. Both sides of the argument become antagonistic, and/or defensive. What has effectively happened is that the more-or-less shared belief system has collapsed. Trust both ways has dissipated and communication of any meaningful kind has ceased and all conversation now tends to feed the problem. This process can be exacerbated when we quite naturally move to new psycho-social environments. It is for this reason that people may tend to meet up with and live with their own 'kind'. It gives them some measure of continuity. Where this is not possible, because of an emergency, or because someone else has made the decision (for a child or adolescent), the risk of 'breakdown', especially at the more critical times of our lives, is greater. Imagine the consequences, therefore, of transferring someone to an alien environment once the problem has reached a critical level already, as we do with psychiatric hospitals. At some point we hope to turn the situation around. The idea of 'sanctuary' which was an original feature of hospital, assists in the initial settling process. When we are in crises like these we usually need some 'space', without judgment, or comment, to settle a find ourselves a little (if it has not been left too late). Once this is done it is necessary to re-build a shared belief system, one in which both sides can learn to respect the perspectives of the other. This is not the artificial one where we 'humour' the other person. It has to be a genuine attempt to recognise and appreciate that the other person is in a different but legitimate psychological and emotional space, with logic, some purpose and some real validity (because it has). To see the contrast try and consider an Eskimo Fisherman trying to explain his way of life and experiences to a Zulu Warrior. Both are right and have legitimate perspective on the world but some of these are not stared and are very difficult to communicate. With good diplomacy and a genuine attempt to appreciate the alternative perspective, we can have some initial conversations, establish a bond, trust and thereby increasing explain our different perspectives to each other, recognising the common features and the significant differences. Eventually we may even learn that there are some things that are perfectly logical and reasonable in one psycho-social environment but a contrasting 'truth' is perfectly logical and reasonable in the other. In our culture we are ill prepared for experiencing 'altered states' and alternative perspectives. Other cultures are sometimes better adapted to them. The closest we get, quite often, is through reading and through drama. People who drink and take drugs get some experiences of this but this more usually more chaotic and less purposeful, although there are exception, where writers and artists use these as a gateway to their creative processes, usually at some cost to their normal social and family lives. Even when we take prescribed medication, out intention and purpose, when we accept them, can significantly affect the efficacy in most cases. There is a measure of placebo effect, even with psycho active drugs. So, how do we 'relate' to people in these situations, without being sucked into someone else's 'altered state'? Well, it does not have to be too complicated. The more secure and supported you are the better the chance of helping someone, or yourself, come to that. Some 'spiritual' experience in some form can be a useful start. Most of us have them, even if we dismiss them. Travelling in another country without knowing the language can give us a good start perspective, especially if we were on our own. Engaging in extreme activities, like hang gliding and cliff climbing can give another perspective to start from (some would think you mad). There are things that most of us have done, experiences and beliefs most of us have had, which can give us a start in relating to someone else's 'strange' and somewhat frightening experiences. Experiencing and overcoming prejudice, or abuse of any kind can also give us a very good perspective on 'altered states'. All these are all good start positions for helping people become 'safe', to re-establish 'contact'. Be creative. this is what it is all about. Be an artist, imagine a world that is different to that which people normally see. Search for alternative perspectives and view points. Be an Albert Einstein, a Darwin, or a Salvador Dali. You could do worse than show interest in the other person's explanations of what was happening to them. They 'are' right, even if the others involved are not wrong. That is in the nature of altered states, whether accidental, or deliberately induced. The difference is how safe the person feels. Our job (if we choose it) is to help the person (and ourselves) feel safe with this new perspective and, when the person desires this, help them reconnect with our perspective while continuing to validate theirs. Like a placebo effect, sometimes what appears to be the most outlandish explanation for psychological events can have a beneficial effect upon regaining social trust and confidence. If a family, or any group relationship, agree an explanation for these 'strange' episodes and share rational for these, this is often compensatory for that group, however odd to outsiders. The larger and more cohesive the group, the wider credibility, and the greater the confidence in the explanation for the person and the group. It is about finding 'constructive', agreed ways of expressing experiences that have social benefits. That achieved, the negative consequences subside. The reverse can also be true. We need only think of 'witch hunts' and the inquisition. Most cultures have their negative examples, as well as the 'constructive' ones. The World Health Organisation did some research a few years back (and other anecdotal evidence supports the general idea), showing that serious mental health conditions express themselves differently in different cultures and that the 'recovery', or the frequency of 'recurrence' of 'episodes' of the condition are significantly improved, by comparison with modern, western cultures. This cultural evidence complements other evidence that we can identify from the 'cultural impact' of migration. The impact of the clash of 'cultural expectations', that is apparent when people (especially teenagers and older people) move into new cultures, is that they may fail to 'adapt' to the differences they find. It is within the context of this wider understanding that we operate. It is our contention that insight can be gained into the conditions that are broadly described as 'psychoses', 'addictions', etc.. To have a real insight into any condition that we may have (and can experience), we need to have a 'constructive' awareness of that condition. We need to understand its potential positive as well as its known negative impacts. That is; there has to be a form of explanation that allows us some measure of choice and influence. Some conditions appear not to offer this but the adaptive capability of human beings is grossly underestimated. This is certainly true of the psychoses. In science, some theorist often stop 'searching' once the have found a single, simple, rational explanation. From then on in it is a self fulfilling prophesy. This is more likely to be the case in relatively new sciences, like medicine, psychology and sociology. In the physical sciences we have the relatively simple problem of reflecting upon the universe, sharing and comparing this with others. In the human and social sciences we have the additional complication of reflecting upon ourselves; reflecting upon ourselves and then sharing this with others. We remain our own subjects and judge all else accordingly, even where there is apparent 'shared' understanding. The more robust, accurate and predictive theories of psychology and social-psychology that are to come, will be equally as simple as those already developed but will be more powerful in their radical perspective on human psychology and its interactive relationship with human biology and human society. To fully understand our own condition we have to step outside ourselves in important ways. We have to look at the bigger picture and incorporate the wide ranging human perspectives that exist. If it is possible to imagine, it is almost guaranteed that it exists in some form. Nature has been there already, we are the most adaptive species, even with our apparent flaws. The 'flaws' are usually 'displaced' adaptations (an adaptation designed for one psycho-social situation being used to deal with anther). You will find other explanations and more detailed analysis of these ideas else where. Most of these deal with theories and models of 'adaptation' to social and environmental circumstances. This, I believe, is the fundamental skill and inherent capability of human beings. We not only have the usual 'accidental' adaptation of genetics but also have a genetic endowment that enables us to continue 'psychological' adaptation throughout our lives, when this is recognised, allowed and appropriately resourced. Not only can we imagine and then re-create our external world, we can imagine and re-create our internal world. In fact the latter capability is primary and can significantly influence the 'social' world also. See: Towards a General Theory, Relativistic Theory, Transformations, 'So What?', Human Rights | Quotations on Change: ‘It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.’; Charles Darwin To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often.’; Winston Churchill They must often change who would be constant in happiness or wisdom.’; Confucius ‘In times of rapid change, experience could be your worst enemy.’; J. Paul Getty ‘Life has got a habit of not standing hitched. You got to ride it like you find it. You got to change with it. If a day goes by that don’t change some of your old notions for new ones, that is just about like trying to milk a dead cow.’; Woodie Guthrie ‘There is a certain relief in change, even though it be from bad to worse! As I have often found in travelling in a stagecoach, that; it is often a comfort to shift one’s position, and be bruised in a new place.’; Washington Irving ‘Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator and change has its enemies'.; Robert Kennedy ‘There is nothing more certain and unchanging than uncertainty and change.’; John Fitzgerald Kennedy ‘We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.’; R. D. Laing ‘The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea.’; Martin Luther King ‘Security is mostly superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.’; Helen Keller ‘Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.’; Margaret Mead ‘And it will fall out as in a complication of diseases, that by applying a remedy to one sore, you will provoke another; and that which removes the one ill symptom produces others.’; Thomas More ‘An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.’; Max Planck ‘They always say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.’; Andy Warhol 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
|
| ||||||||
