Towards a better Institutional, Professional and Media Understanding: We have tended to become increasingly reliant upon 'experts' to make decisions for us and to take necessary actions to solve personal and social problems, along with legal & economic problems. Life has become quite complicated and often appears to be beyond out knowledge and understanding at times. This complicated institutional system of experts has largely arisen because of the 'commercialisation' of our lives. The Industrialisation and commercialisation of our daily activities, and the means of sustaining ourselves in particular, has directly caused, or encouraged, the dispersal of our normal family and community networks of support. The health & welfare services were an an attempt to rectify the shortfall in support and to compensate for the more complex demands, caused by the revolution in working and living practices. Recognising the dependency this had created, the Community Care initiatives of the 1970's and the Community Care & Health Services Act, sought to redress this imbalance and help people live more independently. The idea is to support individuals, communities and family carer's, in looking after their needs directly, or with the kind of help they choose. It is a wonderful idea, and where it has been implemented well, it has been very successfully, although typically it is still under resourced. Unfortunately, there are many professionals who feared and resented this transfer of 'power', back to ordinary members of the Community. Similarly, the institutions did not release funds to voluntary & charitable organisation in any consistent and dependable way. The restrictions placed upon voluntary organisations often required them the behave in similar ways to the institutions. There was a requirement to record and account in fine detail and to operate within the institutions restricted practice framework. This meant that many voluntary & charitable organisation ended up providing the same, limited forms of support that was originally provided by the under-resourced professionals. What could be inspired & creative community alternatives to the stale institutional approach, are sometimes constrained and made insecure. Community Projects are often required to spend precious time 'justifying' their actions and seeking additional funding to meet increased institutional demands. It has become 'care on the cheap', with depleted Professional Institutions and more costly and less accountable private organisations taking most of the Health and Social Care funding. This arrangement usually only allows us to meet the most basic care standards, while responding to much high levels of administrative demand and responsibility. It is small wonder that there are so many cases of 'failures of duty of care' that are identified and reported in the News Media. There are more that are not reported, of course. Some failures are identified by Investigative Journalism and others are by a few brave 'Whistle Blowers'. Government initiatives, involving all parties, have come to accept the need for more open government and more transparent institution's ways of doing things. It is an all party objective to provide 'informed choice', 'full participation' and 'social inclusion'. Conventions on Human Rights have become increasingly applicable to our Western cultures. This is all because of the endemic failures and abuses within our systems. Having worked Professionally, within Health & Social Services for over 30 years; Researched institutional methods and failings of duty of care; Developed and operated within independent Community Projects and Run Service User Support Groups and Networks; worked in IT services and rum my own small businesses, I am in a strong position to understand these persistent failings, most of which are avoidable. By focusing on the risks of individual failings we have generated more catastrophic crises. Instead of remaining dynamic and 'managing' the unavoidable risks of life, we have become risk averse and have micro-managed our services. Good initiatives have thereby corrupted beyond recognition. To use classic psychiatric concepts, our society, our institutions and the way that many professional's and managers operate, have become paranoid, delusional, obsessional and sociopathic. This is a consequence of gradual recognising that they are not 'managing' any longer. Panic sets in, as the facades fails to convince, even themselves. They become increasingly convinced that others are noticing these failures and that they are going to be found out. Any future attempts to bolster confidence and maintain control provide little relief. There is an increasing need to take control and tie everything down and look for scapegoats for the increasing failure to 'cover up' errors & flaws. This happens every now and then, within cultures and societies and can be particularly noticed at times of economic crisis and 'depressions', or 'recessions'. These are very apt concepts; times of going down and times of going backwards. Out of these times there is usually war, or some serious conflict (not usually accidental) and then a renewed pulling together. This renewal usually happens once the general population recognises the serious errors and incompetence's of their 'betters' and their 'betters' (who have not been too institutionalised) recognise the people will not put up this the bullshit, delusional pretence and psychological and emotional 'dumping' any longer. Basically, people start to take responsibility for themselves once more. It is right that they do and it takes a bit of time to get things right and regain confidence in being self reliant, with support (interdependence). New things are tried, with renewed enthusiasm. This leads to greater optimism and increased general prosperity, less resentment and increased time for positively focusing on the needs of people who are disadvantaged. People have more time to 'help out' and to manage their own and family affairs better. Systems of support become less cumbersome and there are less demands upon the unproductive 'fail safes' measures. Confidence is regained and people start to feel they are a real part of things once more. Even with the small human errors, accidents and abuses (which will always happen) the actual support improves and people feel they have more of an influence in things and are even willing to help out others in a similar plight. There is less fear and more inclusion, even of those more antagonistic and aggressive. How do I know this. I have been doing it, in small, local ways for over 30 years and in that time I have seen dozens of other little organisations doing the same, with very little resources, little support, and frequently with jealous professional and institutional antagonism. My research is complete. But this predictable tide of renewal will require people with imagination & flair, who are open minded and who can think outside the institutional box. People who are more honest and acknowledging, even of their own errors, which they are then quick to recognise and correct. People who are confident about what has to be done, the best ways of setting about it, are able to inspire and include others and adapt to challenges as they arise. Mostly they have to be able to recognise the skills and competences of others and give them some free rein and the resources to do what is professionally required of them, without becoming arrogant, cocky and controlling. It will require identifying those people, within the various services, who have the right vocational attitude and positive commitment and skills, to getting things done. These will have to take the leading roles without over managing. This is the more 'entrepreneurial style of working and involves taking calculated and managed risks. It is the only method of working that has been effective, productive and efficient in the last 100 years, or so (perhaps for all time). It takes a special type of skill and insight that is within most intelligent, open minded, people, who believe in what they are doing, where they want to go and how to get there with the maximum benefit to themselves, colleagues and customers. Sadly, it will also require seeking out those who are determined to keep things as they are, unchanged. Those who will already be planning to show how change 'never' works and 'new initiatives' (which are actually just the usual, most effective, inclusive ways of doing things) will not work. Institutions are bad at challenging, retraining and dismissing people who sabotage the service the operate within. I have watched such individuals and groups. Other researchers have identified them. But, then again, we already know that, don't we. I hear people speaking about these failing all the time I have worked within institutions and even within commerce & industry. (Beware: once more, some get greedy and want more power and control for themselves and will seek every opportunity to point at the small failings and errors, take credit for saving the system for those that like to run it, whatever the financial and practical consequences for the rest of us; "The Jobs Worth and his/her sycophantic relations" - there is few better way of putting it). | 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 |
