The Theories from which we operate: During my arguments here you will see me refer to Psychological and Emotional Features, rather than diagnosed conditions. This, and other re-definitions of psychological and emotional states, are a deliberate avoidance of diagnosis. I deal with the psycho-social aspects of presenting problems not the 'psychiatric' diagnosis. The diagnosis is the domain of Psychiatry. I operate on the boarders of psychology, sociology and anthropology, or in the realm of non-clinical social psychiatry, where I refuse to qualify, other than by experience. The people I am referring to may also have a 'diagnosis' but that would be in order to identify a legal and/or medical problem that is having a distressing effect upon the individual (and their society), to the point where they seek, or are assessed to need, clinical interventions. It is my argument that this is for those situation where the individual and their cultural milieu, have been unable to accommodate and adapt to the psycho-social features. It is for those circumstances where the individual and society have become mal-adapted, or at odds, that we seek to have a purpose. I do refer to the 'conditions' but in this respect I am describing the psycho-social conditions, or dispositions, without pre-qualifying whether they are inherently positive or negative, constructive or destructive, dispositions. What potential benefits and disadvantages are available, I assume are largely contextually determined by social interactions, cultural expectations, environmental conditions and the social adaptability of the wider culture. Basically, how accommodating to the a particular person the 'social context' is. Genetics does not come along and say hear is a good feature and here is a bad one. Neither does it just go wrong. There is, of course, extreme chromosomal and genetic 'damage' which leave us with a clear 'organic' problem, raising possible psycho-social problems. But even in these cases nature has been clever. If the right circumstances and resources are available some aspects of this feature, in association with other established genetic features (individual and group), can have some beneficial psycho-social outcomes. Relatively spontaneous, on-going variation is the life blood of genetics. We carry some of these features and they may not be activated at all. Other influences, or disposition, may take over and shadow the range of alternatives (at least for significant periods). If we are truly adaptive (as we are basically designed to be), we will comfortably bring to the fore, those features that best fit the circumstances that we meet during a particular phase of our social experience. Our adaptability is sometimes bred out of us, genetically, but mostly socially. Why does a mother-to-be demand that she be allowed to suck on coal, have chilly sandwiches, or eat a whole cucumber, or a raw potato? Why do societies of otherwise perfectly reasonable people accommodate to a cultural inclination that sometimes leads to their own extinction and in other circumstances, to the point of genocide? Why do cultures have widely differing contentious disagreements about what are fundamentally common aspiration, like spirituality, humanity, self expression, language, the environment, etc. Some people do not like variation. It makes them feel insecure and requires constant adjustment, or differing presentations. We acclimatise to what we are used to and things are then more predictable and reliable for us. Ironically, this variation is critical to our survival, so there has to be some mechanism for accommodating to the variations that are thrown up. There is a constant tension between continuity and change. The variations in ways of thinking and doing are our adaptation resources for the future. When they are needed they are often valued but till then they can be an irritation to institutions (they need a place to thrive) We sometimes find teachers and parents have problems with the child that sees things differently, who thinks, asks questions and theorises (sometimes wrongly) about everything, rather than accepting what they are told. Similarly; the child who uses his left hand rather than his right (or either), or the child who has problems with reading and writing accurately, because they think ahead and recreate a story in their head, neglecting to write components of it. The child who bounces around and doesn't focus for long, is interested in everything going on around them, rather than the limited activity in front of them. We tend to look for the negative features in these child actions rather than consider that a different kind of process may be going on that has some advantages over the usual approach. The child who is shy, slow and introspective by their nature; maybe they are observing and taking in more information before laying it down as 'given' facts. The child who comes up with an odd, inaccurate answer to an question asked them; perhaps this is because they understood a more complex interpretation of the question. Before we correct an apparent error we should first check out what alternative explanations there may be. Some children do think, process information and focus differently. They may even use different parts of their brain to other children. There may appear to be environmental features that have a bearing but not all children react to their environment in the same way, nor should they. Good teachers and parents value the 'differences' in spite of the irritating features that can be apparent. It may be irritating, but rather than just look for a problem in the individual we should look to provide a wider range of stimulation to meet the particular requirements of all individuals, modifying the environment to facilitate their particular learning styles and rates. In later life we find that people who had a particular problem as a child develop gifts as they get older. They are different but in useful ways as well as 'irritating' ways. How many children's gifts are we trampling over in an effort to make them 'good' and conform to the norm. How much damage are we unknowingly doing to their psyches. Some 'slow learners' who have 'behavioural problems' are actually processing the information more thoroughly and developing their own theories and explanations. They are fascinated by their experiences and soak it up and play with it, compared with the child who conforms and settles for what is given and demonstrated to them. The outcomes are different ways of perceiving and conceiving how the world works. If they are given accurate, quality physical and social environments to explore they may actually come up with the unique, creative and useful explanations that other conceptions did not encompass. Our world thrives on this 'novelty', why do we, at the same time, smother it? What of the parent, or teacher, or institution, who has ambitions for the child that are not the child's. Worse still what of the 'expectations' of parents and teachers and other professionals, that do not fit the pattern of the child's natural thinking, interests and processing? These conflicts of interest not only potentially deprive us of a creative adult but risk producing a child and adult who acts out against the system that intellectually and emotionally imprisoned them. When wise people say 'listen to the child' they don't mean recognise when the child is asking for sweets and asking to go to the toilet. The idea is to listen and think about what the child is saying and look to how they may be experiencing things differently to what we assume. It is not just that they may be being bullied and abused in some classic way. It may be that they are being institutionally bullied, forced to operate in a framework that does not fit them. They will not be alone, and it is not a new phenomena. Any inflexible system; mentor, psychiatrist, nurse, or social worker can generate these problems for and with the child (or Adult, or Older Adult).. Frustrate a child's, or an adult's, opportunity to express themselves, verbally or practically, in constructive ways and you will see them express themselves in negative ways. Either way you will eventually see their intellectual and emotional skills working; if you look for them. These methods of expression may be self destructive in some measure and may also impact upon other individuals and the community. The child says 'you never listen to me' and often we didn't. We heard them speak and interpreted the words in the framework of our rather rigid way of learned thinking, but we did not listen. In a very crude sense there is a battle within our cultures and within ourselves, between the Neolithic selves and our Modern Social selves. We carry all the features that allow us to selfishly survive emergencies and meet our needs, moderated by the 'social adaptive genes', that enable us to co-operate and share. For the 'social human' to overcome the Neolithic tendencies, there has to be social justice and fairness. There has to be a purpose and structures that encompass all legitimate persuasions and compensates for when things go wrong. It is no accident that this is the trend. It is unavoidable adaptive tendency that is resisted only by the Neolithic character within us. This sets the scene for what follows. Here I will test out with you some ideas about differences, anomalies and variation in human beings. I will ask you to take a wider perspective on what we call genetics and what we understand to be 'normal'. In doing so I will provide some 'potential' novel answers but mostly I will stimulate additional questions to ask, of yourselves and those you bring up and/or care for. Asking the right questions is critical to getting useful answers but listening properly to the answers also gets us closer to the truth, which, in turn, will always require refining in with new knowledge. I would ask you to consider a much looser definition of 'adaptation' to the environment and circumstances. This form of 'adaptation' includes human beings' special gift to 'change' how they see the world, allows them to share this with others and then change the world they live in quite profoundly, for better, or for worse (or both). I then ask you to consider how we each act to generate the very problems we have, in seeking to achieve so>£k*7=Ú#me kind of persistent conformity in people, above and beyond that necessary for some kind of social order. The links on the left take you to various aspects of this wider 'alternative' universe we need to consider, if we are to constructively incorporate ourselves and our various charges, into a society that is accommodating, tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Skinner and many others, have made their contributions to how we understand our social universe; for they each contributed something to how we perceive and conceive of it. These theories are good for what they are good for and are advances on what went before. They are not the end of the road of changing perspectives. Einstein gave us a 'relativity' theory that seemed to go against our direct experience and yet it is agreed, by all eminent physicists, that he was basically right, in spite of not seeing direct evidence to support this himself. It was because he was not caught up in the evidence and refusing to seek answers from asking the established questions of the time, that he gained this new insight. Max Plank asks us to consider that in certain fundamental ways 'things' are not material but energy (waves). In a sense; things are both material and energy at the same time. Both are right, if you like. None of these theories are final answers to the riddle of how we experience the social universe but the later ones are more general and more encompassing explanations than the previous ones. Einstein is still looking for his General Theory of Relativity. If he had been a psychologist he would probably have found it. We have to make do with what we have got but we can continue to seek more general, constructive theories that encompass and include the potential to understand, value and incorporate the wide ranging perspective in social psychology, human understanding and social adaptation. I am not claiming to have found a general theory of social psychology. Einstein strangely started that process, as you will hopefully see. I am seeking, and I am encouraging you to seek, answers that more generally explain and encompass the variety we see in the social universe. Rather than having theories that are largely prescriptive, we need theories are objective and logically cohesive but that are also more descriptive and predictive. I hope we can at least start that process, or encourage it along. Perhaps you can help? T Couchman. (© 1976 - 2010) | Guidelines on the use of terms:Radical:
Why Radical? My own definition stems from a very clear definition of the term, as used in science. Free radicals are 'open' [shell], highly reactive and keen to bond with other radicals & reactive entities, while retaining their own special character. Thus, this concept of Radical is associated with the potential to be open to change: responsive and reactive to knowledge, experience, ideas and other perspectives. While being thus, they also remain true to their own character and expanding knowledge & experience. 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. 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. Theory
A set of cohesive hypotheses, logically organised from certain basic assumptions (usually supported by physical, or other kinds of observable evidence). The important feature is that theory is capable of predicting events, or outcomes, on the basis of some simple observations. Diagnosis
A diagnosis is given by a GP or a Specialist Consultant. This relates to a process of medical, or clinical interpretation of symptoms, expertly identified, which have persistent features that suggest a particular, characteristic, medical condition.Condition
An identifiable medical condition has clear features and symptoms that suggest, to a medical expert, that a person has a particular form of poor physical or mental health. It is usually described as a Medical Condition. I use this more abbreviated term to emphasise the idea that we accept that there is an identified problem but that it this not related to the person's 'health' alone. The condition is a consequence of the physical & mental state of the person and their interaction with their social environment.Feature (Presenting ..)
I use this term to refer to characteristics of behaviour which can be described as being similar to those symptoms of a particular (psychiatric) condition. The term is usually used as a 'pre-diagnostic' explanation of behaviour. Where the person accepts a diagnosis I accept this usage.I also use it to avoid a formal diagnosis but to succinctly refer to behaviour that may, or may not, have been diagnosed as a condition but which can usefully be summarised in the form of a representative set of 'presenting behaviours'. Some Psychiatrist would do the same, wishing to avoid a formal diagnosis for any reasonable reason. A paranoid feature could describe the typical presentation of any of us at times of particular social distress. The symptoms do not necessarily make represent a psychiatric condition, although a psychiatrist may make such a diagnosis if the feature persisted under circumstances where the social stimulus was no longer present.
Anthropology
This is basically the study of cultures and societies. The Researcher attempts to make objective observations of human groups, without pre-judging their actions and beliefs. It requires discipline and lateral thinking, in order not to project ones own cultural beliefs onto other social groups. For myself, it is worth taking the approach as if one was a alien to human species. Some would say that I am anyway. It is impossible, of course, to exclude all biases & prejudices but it is possible to allow oneself to develop some affinity with some other, 'alternative', known cultural viewpoint, from which we can gain experience. The more cultural alternatives the merrier. By doing this it is possible to firstly seek to remove all judgment as far as possible, recognise when there is a measure of judgement and then take an alternative 'known' cultural perspective and see if the perception of the new culture, or social group, is seen in a different light. I call this thinking process 'triangulation'. It allows us to try to view a culture from 2 or 3 different conceptual perspectives. With some practice, it is also possible to do this with existing, identified groups (seen as having some commonality), within our own existing culture. We have to start from the perspective that we are not necessarily part of that group (if it even exists as an entity), in terms of its assumed members. We can not fully appreciate the psychology & emotionality of its members, should they recognise themselves as a cohesive grouping in their own terms. With some work, however, it is possible to utilise our closely aligned experiences to develop an initial affinity & then engage with the group in its own terms, as much as we are allowed & are capable of it. In many ways it is necessary to immerse ourselves in the group, but not to the extent that we loose contact with our original objective. Our job is to translate between the conceptualisations & beliefs of the group (or collection of groups with commonalities) and our own mix of cultures. One thing is certain, by engaging with a group we influence it, however much we try not to. Similarly, there is a reciprocal effect, some of which we are not fully aware of. By taking various perspectives we can get a better insight into these prejudices and adjust for them. All we can then do is get a close approximation of understanding. Whatever culture, or group, that we are researching there is still the individual cases that make up any group & we can become too influenced by the particular individuals that we engage with. The ultimate picture that we obtain is going to be an 'average' of the individual we engage with and it is the commonalities we perceive between these individuals that approximates to the Anthropological picture that we seek to develop. Our interpretation of what we find will still ultimately be from the evectional viewpoint of western scientific method, within general social and cultural context of the researcher / observer, All we can hope to do is establish the basis for a general understanding of the investigated culture, relative to our own and with as few value judgments as we can achieve. We need to state the facts and relay the culture's interpretation of these, through our own perceptual and conceptual framework. Social Psychiatry
Media Prejudice:
It is generally understood that much of the press compete with each other to get the attention of readers. In doing so they have often catered to peoples prevailing prejudices. In doing so they feed that prejudice until they are embarrassed into changing tack, or the Law prohibits them continuing.Social Psychology:
Social Psychology concerns itself with the social features & character of human thought and behaviour and the forms of relationships they establish. For myself, there is no other form human psychology. Except for a few exceptions, all psychological studies are of the 'averages' and 'norms'. Individual psychologies are unique. The generalisations are about the nature of human thinking and behaviour in general.Perspectives:
I use the term perspective much like it is used in photography. Perspective is a perceptual & conceptual 'view', from a particular position, with a limited width of conceptualisation. Like physical objects, conceptions closest to us loom larger and more detailed. Those things that are farthest from out from the 'minds eye' seem smaller, less distinct, less detailed. Other things are beyond the horizon of our experience.Mental Health:
Mental health is maintained through the psychological & emotional adjustment to a changing social milieu, whereby; the individual's physical, psychological & emotional (including spiritual) needs are adequately fulfilled, utilising their own & community resources, without significant disadvantage to self & others.
It is achieved whereby the internal world of the individual is in some measure of synchronisation with (a significant part of) the external world. The adjustments, both ways, take account of natural reactions to physical, psychological, emotional and social trauma.
While this is achieved, the individual will feel safe with their thoughts and feelings. The community will understand and be appropriately responsive to, the person's behaviour. Social interdependence is recognised and achieved.Mental Illness:
This is the psychological and emotional condition which arises when the person's internal world is significantly out of sync with the external world. The person may no longer feel safe with their thoughts & feeling, even when these are reasonable reactions to prevailing circumstances.
There may be effective miscommunication between the person's internal & external worlds. The consequence can be that they become increasingly detached from the thinking & feelings of others, to the extent that relationships break down, as the social world fails to understand what is happening.
Recovery then requires an altered perspective from others. This may take various forms, but it is the process of social re-engagement that is most significant in any recovery.
Clinical interventions can help in the most severe cases, particularly where there is clearly an organic causation. The damages 'social connections' still require repairing and this would only appear to be benefited by sensitive social interventions.Psycho-Social:
The psychology of the individual is linked to the social milieu Although behaviours and thinking may become increasingly entrenched with time, there is, none the less, an on going relationship, with positive and negative influences, with the external social world.
We continue to experiences the consequence of the relationship between our internal selves and our external social world. Patterns of psycho-social thinking and behaviour, set down in the earliest years, will continue to have influence and become progressively transformed, throughout our lives.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.Prejudice:
There is a common understanding of what prejudice is. I think that a good starting definition is that it is the 'pre-judging' of people & groups. That is; It is the judging of attitudes and conduct on the basis of the superficial character, rather than the fuller understanding of underlying philosophy, purpose and intentions. It is often judgment on the basis of the hearsay of others.
Prejudice is often the result of generalisations made on the basis of some initial negative impact on a prevailing culture. Sometimes this impact is correctly interpreted but the interpretation is projected onto a whole group, as being typical. Sometimes the impact is assumed, rather that real and relationships between conflicting groups is clouded by gross misunderstanding, self interest and false representation by powerful / influential individuals, groups and institutions.Relative Injustice:
I have coined this term to represent a number of inconstancies that can be found in the administration of justice anywhere. This is not so much expressed by the Courts, where the decisions are open to public and media scrutiny. There are relative injustices here but these are often generated and transferred by the supporting institutions of court administrators, police and other professionals.
Relative injustice is disproportionate representation of groups; by race, colour, class and other 'types', that are targeted for investigation and subsequently 'processed' for particular kinds of crimes. Part of this relative injustice is a consequence of cultural prejudices and part is due to an over reaction to identified, existing prejudices.
Another aspect of this kind of injustice is the relative differentiation of forms of 'mitigation', some of which are 'justified', but much of which is 'unjustified'. Changes in this area have particularly affected people with borderline learning difficulties and some kinds of mental health issues. Some of the demarcations are increasing arbitrary and prejudicial.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.Action & Reaction:
The features of 'action and reaction' are very important in dealing with conflict, abuse and in the dealing with people exhibiting mental health, alcohol and drug, and criminal behaviours. Just as under-reaction can appear to provide justification and limited containment of behaviour that offends the public interest,; So too, 'over-reaction' can generate a counter reaction that has even bigger negative impact on the culture and society. This is especially the case where the is evident 'relative injustice' and 'Institutional prejudice'.
There are clear dangers in being under, or over reactive to situations and circumstances. Reactions are to be expected in many professional and institutional practices. It is in our interests as professionals, members of a community / society and as arbiters of justice, fairness and best practice, to recognise a mediate these 'reactions'.
Action and reaction consequences have significance in all areas of group, community, institutional and social practices. It has wide implications in understanding and helping 'victims' understand the part they inadvertently play in their torment. It also illustrates the part that professionals can inadvertently play in mediating conflict and dealing with accusation.
Not appreciating the full significance of 'action and reaction (& counter reaction)' can mean that the victim is treated as the perpetrator. Abusers are often very clever and manipulative. By their nature they are dishonest. Prejudice is often a strong influence in misunderstanding the action-reaction consequences, generating Relative Injustice.Conventions:
There are two common usages of the term. The most frequently used is the loose form that describes a generally agreed & established way of doing things, especially social behaviour. The more formal use relates to an agreed set of conduct & practices, written down and agreed to be adhered to by the signatories.Attitudes:
Our attitudes not only reflect how we think and feel, they influence what and how we perceive things. They have the feature of self fulfilling prophesies in that attitudes tend to seek information, or influence ways of perceiving events & characteristics, which re-enforce the prevailing attitudes.
Attitudes are also somewhat infectious. If we choose to engage with individual & groups that have features that we are attracted to there is a good likelihood that our attitudes will progressively correspond to those of the group. This tendency has positive & negative effect, according to the general social inclination of the group.
By their nature, the psychological feature, that we describe at as Attitude, is prone to evolve with experience, be resistant to temporary change but open to persuasion over a longer term. It establishes a 'mind set' by which all experiences are judged and further experience is interpreted.Feminism:
This is a movement for the advanced emancipation of women. It has arguably gone through a series of phases in the West, starting at the end of the 19th Century. A second and third phase developed after the two 'world wars'. The 60' saw the start of 4th, most revolutionary phase, which peaked in the 70's & 80s. The 5th phase would seem to be an evolutionary phase, with some redressing of issues relating to status of women in families and with children. This phase is significantly influenced by the East.Resistance:
This relates to the resistance to change in social order and relationships. There are three qualities of resistance to change that interest me: Cautious, Natural and Prejudicial. These are three manifestations of the same underlying psycho-social propensity. This natural tendency to resist change has adaptive benefits. Without it there would be no social stability.
The process of social adaptation needs these phases, rather like stepping stones, to ensure that a pressure for change is not just a passing fad. Power:
We often talk of power within relationships. This feature of energy and orientation (direction) is demonstrated by the agent(s) that have the strongest relative influence upon dynamics of an interpersonal, or group relationship. This may be identified as an individual, or sub-group, who initiate and maintain the dynamics within the wider group. The power not only generates complementary action, or reaction in others but also tends to give the dynamics an orientation, direction, or trend. Energy without direction is chaotic and represents general, undirected, disorder.Adaptive and Reactive:
These are opposites in the process of adjustment within social relationships. The terms largely speak for themselves. For me they have no 'value' other than that they describe a process of adjusting towards a static state of stability or stagnation, or else; towards increasing dynamic state of resonance or dissonance.
The terms themselves are the positive and negative aspects of change. No other value is intended; change in either direction can be either constructive, or destructive in character (as qualified by the defining terms) . The observable trends can be see as either Adaptive: action and complementary action, or else Reactive: action and reaction (or counter action).Evolution and Revolution:
These are two process with understood meanings. Evolution is the gradual, interactive process of species change & development (heredity & Genetics). Revolution is the dramatic and relatively sudden change in political control and influence. I use these terms here to represent two forms of social adaptation. Again, there are no values assigned to these forms of change, they must be further qualified if we wish to indicate social benefit, or disadvantage (if there are either).Religious Beliefs:
Religious and spiritual beliefs have always appeared to be a feature of human order and civilisation. Apart from the usual social animal's need for pragmatic order and structure, humans seem to need & tend to acquire, an intellectual and emotional explanation for that order.
This need has a mystical quality and a pragmatic quality. The mystical quality is represented in religious ideas and doctrine and the pragmatic quality seems to be represented in the languages of science and technology. Both can co-exist, each compensating for the shortfalls of the other.
When two or more cultures meet, or clash, the differences in belief systems can cause conflict. This is the result of the insecurity that can arise when ones own established belief system is undermines by 'evidence', or by other, contrasting, credible explanations. It can be loosely described as 'rocking the boat'.Race & Colour (Difference):
Physical difference within social grouping can have a profound impact upon contrasting cultures. Any differences can, as we can see above. Our existing stable and hitherto reliable (if largely prejudiced) understanding is disrupted by the existence of 'difference' and 'similarity' which falls outside of our previous, normal experience, or rational explanation.
This may be due to a new 'alien' experience, or a challenge to the existing 'prejudicial' belief system which had artificially resolved the cultural fear of 'differences'. When evidence is first identified, which now suggests a belief system had been inadequate, there is a natural tendency to challenge and contain the intellectual & emotional assault.
With adjustment over time the prejudices can tend to subside, either by an adaptive process of acclimatisation, or helped by changes in the social order and social rules / Laws. If this is resisted then a more revolutionary, self emancipating process usually takes over (as in Feminism), or as in classic revolution involving primitive conflict. Disability (Difference):
Again, awareness of physical difference, and any changes in the perception of them (especially where previous explanations have comfortably resolved experienced contradictions), tend to cause emotional & intellectual discomfort to the established culture.
Belief systems have evolved which sought to explain differences from the 'norm' and as these become established they represent physical and emotional 'security' for the believers. Language is so powerful because it is one of the forms of 'conceptualising' or 'intellectualising' our experiences.
When new evidence comes along, or when there is opportunity to experience 'differences' which were artificially restricted, or when an alternative & more credible explanation regarding difference is expressed, cultures tend to react with prejudice initially. Eventually adaptive, or reactive process takes over, as described in the above examples. Sexual Orientation (Difference):
Sexual orientation was once seen as a mental and moral aberration, comparable with many other 'mental health' categories. Once it was understood that ordinary people lead very ordinary lives with this 'hidden' difference, and once the issue came out the closet, cultures were forced to adjust their previous perceptions and explanations.
Behavioural differences can be more easily hidden, presented in more acceptable forms (arts, entertainment & bravado), or camouflaged to be something else; confabulation. Once the more observable differences had come out of the closet and effective methods for inducing change in attitudes and reactions had been demonstrated, the same processes were used to challenge conventional views and behaviours in this area. The Law and social attitudes have been changing since.Difference (In General):
The social features that are evident in the acceptance & tolerance of differences (which have been described in the examples above) are also evident in other areas of difference, prejudice and fear. These other Groups and sub-groups that have been affected include; Learning Difficulties, Mental Illness, Older Age (in western cultures especially), the Young, Homeless, Travellers and any other group who follow a different path, or understand the world differently.
Sanctioning:
The process by which something is made, or appear to have been made, acceptable and reasonable, whether it is or not. The providing of apparent status and validity by some authority or by common consent, or formal agreement, whether this is fair and equitable or not.Corrupt:
That which is not what it is legitimately and honestly represents itself to be. That which deceives and misleads in order to gain unreasonable advantage over others, or that disadvantages them for personal benefit. |
