Part of our counselling and support role is to help people understand and reconcile the individual's unique reaction to the personal and social trauma of various kinds. It is to 'enable' them to understand the strange (but explainable) mental impact of both the most dramatic and the more subtle, pernicious influences of their physical, personal & cultural experiences. Many people in modern cultures are both over protected from distress in early years, or over exposed to this and the images of trauma, throughout their lives. Both distort 'perspective'.
It was never really acceptable to assume that all experience of a similar ilk had the same consequences for everyone. Also, the singular event can be as traumatic as the catastrophic events affecting many people. Even the absence of early negative experiences can have significant psychological effects in later trauma. It can be a neglect. Likewise, the persistent, low level, insidious undermining of an individuals mental resilience can sometimes be more difficult to recognise and often more difficult to resolve. It becomes entrenched
People now feel increasingly confident to complain that generalised attitudes towards 'care' are not acceptable. Being 'given what you get' works for people with low self esteem. This historical acceptance is a feature of paternalistic, 'charitable', support. You didn't argue with what you were given. When we now suggest that we know how a person feels, we had better be pretty close to the mark and be willing to back it up. People's healthy, enabling recovery requires their 'full' participation and the expectation that they will gain some control over their lives.
Similarly, people are now beginning to reject the classical, culturally constrained explanations for their distresses. To understand another's person's difficulties we do need to have walked a mile in their shoes, or listen to their explanations to find answers that make sense in their terms. This is now the only way we become more competent professionals. The 'off the peg' styles of traditional support are fine for 'off the peg' people, or those aspiring to conveniently lead exceedingly conventional lives. Most no longer do. Expectations have been raised.
On Social Theory:
The exiting social 'theories' that we embrace are clearly partisan. They aspire to an average normality, an economic prerogative, a moral stance, or some other philosophical belief. Sometimes they simply aspire to a very personal prejudice of what makes a competent, normal, intelligent human being. These are often for good intention, but are easily shoehorned into more prejudiced actions. They have the same intellectual status as religious and political doctrines. Subtle slights of mind can have them acting in the opposite direction of the vaguely masked, intended purpose. The evidence used to support them is superficial, the axioms and logic used to argue them unsound.
Scientific method was developed for good reason. It was developed as an attempt to remove ourselves from the equation; to remove, or at least constrain, our 'subjectivity'. It works, but is a very challenging discipline. Of course, there are many who feel that we cannot reduce human beings to this level of scientific analysis. The attempts made have brought social science into disrepute. Behaviourism was a sound investigation into some basic learning styles and the knowledge gained has provided benefits. Investigations of intelligence have also produced useful models of scientific understanding. Both made contributions, but social science stopped short of a more integrated the understanding.
Psychology is undoubtedly the father of social science proper, but like all good beginnings in any area of science, its findings were whipped away and introduced as technologies, long before the wider understanding and ramifications were adequately investigated. The finding were mostly incorporated into the existing 'belief' frameworks of practicing professionals and, in their incompleteness, were used to justify and reinforce existing social prejudices. Nothing really changes this way. No real improvements over what went before. The same masses produce the same half baked outcome, while a few insightful 'sceptics' sought better ways of using the new knowledge better, hence CBT is an improvement..
Rebirth of Social Science:
Social Science begins here - There are more fundamental explanations for all the varying things that groups of human beings do, which do not rely upon the conventional 'social' frames of reference. Social Science proper has to explain not only the mechanisms of human action and collective behaviour, but why it becomes entrenched into the familiar and comfortable forms that it persistently takes and which are persistently overturned. It has to explain why prejudices arise and why these are so powerfully turned against an evolving science; which tries to adequately explain them. We are about to see the true establishment of social science, as sound as the physical sciences.
All the important ground work has been done. Some important principles laid down and some significant outcomes already identified. They will require some radically new ways of thinking and once professionals are able to embrace them, they will revolutionalise our understanding of ourselves, our communities and our cultures, without affecting our fundamental beliefs, or day-to-day enjoyments. The IT revolution and the Internet provide the very opportunity that the formal 'Institutions' are programmed to deny us; Real Knowledge, Wisdom and Recorded Experiences. A further challenges to our existing prejudices on behaviour comes from study findings of the 'Genome Project'.
Resistance to Evolutionary Change - Institutions now resist radical change out of fear:
I have observed so many clearly necessary changes over the last half century. Fundamental changes which many recognised to be essential to the wellbeing of everyone. These were achieved very painfully and at such incredible personal, social and financial cost to those concerned. Many very obvious, positive and self evident social advances have been resisted with almost 'obsessional' determination; by people who clearly have a vested interest in maintaining their short term Personal Security. This is just about understandable in re-developing cultures, but quite contradictory within developed democracies. This resistance is only healthy when it is complemented by radical growth and advancement.
There is usually a very natural balance between radical change and resistance to change, the two have usually gone together, one exerting a relatively gentle pressure on the other; both cautiously moving forward (and sometimes in circles) in a kind of waltz. When this natural tension is lost the radical element conspires to undermine, while the more conservative elements conspire to lock down their control. The conserving elements then stagnate and the radical element revolt; inducing change without the healthy constraints of 'conventional wisdom'. Neither the extreme radical actions, or entrenched institutionalisation are healthy states. We see the dogmatic consequences throughout history.
Historical Analysis of Radical-Conservative Cycles:
Recent history has again seen the move from healthy radical-conservative, balanced actions of the 50's 60' & 70's through to the increasing political and institutional stagnation of the 80, 90, and current era. This stagnation was induced in most areas of political, commercial and social development. The exception has been in the area of Information Technology and associated Technological Developments. The failure to constrain technological and scientific developments was only because those in institutional control did not understand it. There have been attempts to constrain, but the technology is ahead of the market in this respect. Even powerful national governments are slaves to IT.
Some would have us believe that there is still general economic and intellectual growth. This is not true. Only the radical edge of technology and science is really advancing, mostly separate from the other social institutions. The changes we see in other institutions and cultures, are superficial. The re-cycling and re-naming old conventions and concepts. Basically continuing to do what has been done for the last 30 (or even as long as 150) years, under new names, modelled on existing, failing systems. Unless there is a release from this crisis of stagnation there will be an inevitable extreme, radical reaction. To some degree we are seeing it, mostly in the current negative cultural and economic forms.
The simple social-scientific fact is; if you over constrain the development of 'positive' radical, intellectual and social advances, without the moderating dialogue between old and new ideas, those frustrated 'developmental initiatives' (good ideas) become directed towards 'destructive', 'anti social' ends. These trends will always assert themselves in some way; it is inevitable; a fundamental rule of social & cultural development. In more conventional terms, radical change, moderated by the constraints of wisdom and experience, produce the most productive outcomes, with the least disruptive side effects. At the moment we still have some choice, but we are at a very critical point in history right now.
Institutionalisation of the Institutions:
The real problem is that those who now govern most of our critical institutions are not the protectors of the principles and wisdom, by which the institutions traditionally operated, or were originally instituted. Gradual changes do happen, but it is rare that the fundamental principles change so dramatically, or become so corrupted by largely selfish & politically intended purpose. The Governors of these institutions are now often 'intellectual' pretenders of cultural wisdom. It is not the first time this has happened, but is perhaps the most profound change yet. The effects are far reaching and are having the negative and expensive effects we see now and can expect for a few years yet.
It was not the usual Radical, 'insider' element which brought about a 'moderating' change, under 'informed social pressure', but ultra conservative invasion, using radical style techniques to establish a regressive and disempowering beachhead. The changes induced have more the character of a Mafia operation and had similar 'fear' generating effects. They serve the short term greed and illicit power of those who are unable to see beyond their immediate goals, misunderstanding (or indifferent) the longer term effects that will impact upon us all and our children, however well we prepare ourselves, our children, or others under our charge.
The purpose of this invasion was to halt progressive changes; to get these institutions to conform to a completely new agenda, different to their original purpose. To do this, 'fear of difference' has again been used to restrict the freedoms of 'the inconvenient', as well as the more agitated and disaffected citizens. There were plenty of self opinionated 'guardians of the state' and of 'personal interests', masked by their willingness to comply with lovingly imposition of personal restrictions on those who are inconvenient, on the pretence of looking after people's interests. It is the same old styles of institutionalising behaviour within the smaller confines of 'mini' community institutions.
The Precursors to this Counter Revolution:
This counter revolution did not happen in a vacuum. The objectives of these large and small Institutions had been undermined by poorly interpreted Government Regulations for many years, Local Government interpretations of 'rules' (based upon human rights obligations and laws) made some of these constructively intended requirements highly restrictive; rather than what was intended to be enabling to the public purpose and reducing of social dependencies. It was the usual, relatively ignorant, short term thinking and sometimes belligerent actions, of those who want things to return as they were, largely in keeping with their selfish interests, whatever the consequences for others. There is cross party support for these initiatives. They are the direct outcome of the failures of professionals to adhere to the requirements of Human Rights.
This is precisely the reason most of these recent regulations were put in place and a r being constantly refined and reinforced, to protect those who would otherwise become increasingly dependent and disenfranchised and, quite ironically, eventually become a bigger and a permanent draw on limited, tax generated resources. The result has been less efficient, more costly systems, which operate against the fundamental purpose of the institution and people's interests. The institutions progressively fail in their social objectives, usually for the purpose of short term saving on local taxes, which actually continue to rise because of the bureaucratic effects of constant tensions between competing interests.
The whole situation is so completely stupid and was entirely avoidable. Its effects have been demoralising and disempowering, creating the very dependent cultures which are again continuing to grow at a rate which can not be adequately met by current methods. Lets be completely frank here. The more ignorant citizens and professional practitioners see the institutionalisation of problems as the cheapest option outside of euthanasia, which most would be too embarrassed to disclose as a solution outside of the local pub or the cosy dinner party. We are sadly in that phase of the cycle of history, where there are those who privately believe and sometimes practice on this basis, even on themselves.
It is the 'rationalising phase' of history, so popular amongst comfortable academic types, who believe they have discovered and laid down the fundamental secrets of the social universe, guaranteed to solve all our social problems. This usually relies upon the formal application of social rules and sticking to the 'legal requirements. Morality and Ethics are compromised as being rather ephemeral; easily re-interpreted to fit an intellectual purpose. It is the duller cousin of the radical academic stance; which sees the possibilities of progress, made in advance of the rules and laws, leading opinion remaining in keeping with the most up to date principles & spirit of Human Rights and inevitable advance of social evolution.
Academic Expertise (Given, Prescriptive Knowledge):
The effect on today's institutions is that the character of professional practice has moved from a 'vocational' towards a more 'academic expert' styles. This has come about because the 'vocational' component of our professions has been almost completely displaced by more 'abstract' and often 'legalistic' forms of knowledge, without the necessary critical thinking, inspiration, openness to ideas, or ability to face up to the fact that some practices styles are just 'incompetent'. The practitioners within the institutions continued to become increasingly constrained and eventually stagnate. The intention to 'disempower' institution and professionals within them, wholly succeeded, but not with the intended results.
The methods used to bring about these changes and the subsequent style of their operation, are variation upon the style of commercial during the early industrial era, but without the creative elements. It is the style of de-regulated commercial operations coupled with the more sever restrictions placed upon employees and customers, with the expectation that the tax burden would be less and the productivity increased.. The perpetrators of this quasi-radical action are the same old dogmatic types who failed to maintain these kinds. The de-regulation of industry countered the predictable bureaucratic encumbrance of social institutions, intended for the improvements for the masses..
As a radical, those 'wise old buzzards', who used to kept us in check, were irritating enough. They had often practiced at the leading edge of their professions, in their own way pushing the boundaries of 'knowledge, tempered by experience, thinking critically and reflectively. They thought in this way, not as a artificially learned technique (like today), but as a consequence of healthy dialogue and interest in creatively advancing their professions. Of course, there were those who 'thought' they new better, on the basis of some intellectual prejudice (rationalised justifications), but these pretenders were usually kept in check, sometimes sacked, or often moved into less dangerous positions.
The intellectual revolutions of the 50, 60 & 70 saw an opportunity for those groups who had previously been denied opportunity to join the professions, to take up professional roles and advance themselves within the institutions. This was generally a positive move, as it meant that we had the possibility of more GP's Nurses and other critical professionals to meet the increasing demands of a more empowered population. To do this, educational institutions felt that they had to compromise their standards, in order to bring in enough new recruits. The short terms demands of Industry and commerce also added to this pressure and had a profound impact on the 'quality' of 'good enough' new recruits.
Actually, the educational institutions didn't need to reduce standards (as they still pretend they didn't). They actually needed to improve the standards of the teachers and lectures and open up minds to culturally new, or alternative ways of teaching, thinking and understanding. There will never be enough naturally skilled and disposed professionals to meet all the professional posts available. There has always been the need to professional apprentices, where professional have a junior role until they have proven to have developed enough experiential expertise to practice more competently, without close supervision. Degree standard education does not replace this requirement, even with 'placements'.
Loss of Vocational Skills:
The consequence has been that, in the absence of enough naturally competent vocational practitioners, and the absence of the apprenticeship' which sifted out the more competent from the plodders, there was an attempt to 'train up' those who had an ambition, but not always the appropriate disposition. At the same time, there was a strong trend towards 'degree' standards in everything, assuming that those with the best natural dispositions, life skills and creative competence, would be attracted towards and thrive in such environments. This has rarely been the case. Those 'high flyers' who do succeed within the formal educational systems often did so by stealth, or by accident of encounter.
Some people achieved their vocational competence by being forced to operate on the edge of the institutions, some by doing their own thing, while 'playing the game' within the institutions. More often than not, they simple did not fit in and progressed, through determination, outside the formal institutions. Those with a vocational inclination, who saw the failings of the 'academic' approach, took up the same professions beside those who clearly did not have the right aptitude, depth of knowledge, personal insight, or vocational disposition (naturally disposed critical reflection). The modern, academic form of 'reflection' does not cut the mustard. It is a 'check list', rather prescriptive style of reflection.
Unfortunately, those with these 'intellectual' understandings, without adequate vocational competences, often have the same status as the more competent 'vocational' practitioners. More worrying, those with the more academic 'talk the talk' approach aspire (without adequate insight), for the higher positions within an institution. They often achieve these positions because of their self assured 'talk the talk' assurance. The institutions are seeking certainty and select accordingly. Once there, they are easily deluded into employing more of their own kind. Mean while, those who 'walk the walk' get on and try and correct the errors produced by those with these less insightful approaches.
Many vocational practitioners are highly intellectually competent, but are not so easily convinced by the more superficial 'intellectual justifications' for poor, inadequate, or inefficient practice. At the same time, having worked partially by intuition (more on this elsewhere) the vocational practitioners struggle to find the adequate 'intellectual constructs' to counter the stupid and often deluded assertions of those without that insight. To understand this more fully it is necessary to understand the inadequacies of two dimensional language being used to express multi-dimensional concepts. It is also necessary to understand the potentially dubious feature of 'intellectual assertions'.
Professional Intuition still has and important Role:
There is a feature of 'intuition' that is not adequately understood. It is the knowledge that is 'pre-intellectual'. That is, it is the bits an pieces of experience and raw knowledge, which have not yet matured into 'rational' form, expressible in words. Sometimes it is even the basis for a 'new perspective' on a situation, or resolution of a problem. It is a fundamental, but largely underestimated, part of proper intellectual development. Not everyone has cultivated these intuitive skills, some avoid them out of embarrassment; other (less adequate) individuals actually scorn and deride these skills, largely because they neither have them, do not understand them, and are frightened of them (for those very reasons).
Those of you who work more intuitively and express less assertively, should take professional strength from the fact that the more artificial, intellectual forms of practice are proven to have failed. The evidence for this is in the constant shoring up of failing institutions. The constant and increasing administrative processes to justify the smallest of actions and the simplest decisions. It is sad that the house of cards in about to fall, but the institutions have all the warning signs. The trend for the media to blame practitioner's for the failures is now moving up the hierarchy. There is now unavoidable recognition that existing 'systems' are incompetent and many of those operating them are culpable.
Another important feature of 'professional intuition' is that it enables the professional to efficiently apply general knowledge and experience to a very particular situation; sometimes unlike any others that have been experienced. In taking 'person centred' approach to any professional work (is there any other legitimate way?), it is essential that we have this fundamental set of skills. It is the basis for the required out 'of the box', creating brainstorming, required to help come up with answers that fit the individuals needs, risks and desires. Of course, there are those who think they know better and will 'assert' a rational for why we should treat everybody exactly the same (rather than equally).
Professional 'Assertions' can be sound and unsound:
Most professionals have established these intuitive intellectual skills and others are quite capable of developing them. Mostly we are often made to feel embarrassed for even acknowledging them. They often have no value to the institution, being essentially 'non-prescriptive' and difficult to tie down to Directives, Policy, or Discipline. They are difficult to explain, but much easier to demonstrate (when permitted). The main inhibition to their use is the 'assertive' character of some practitioners and managers, who would have us believe (like them) that there are some practices that are best maintained because they can be 'shown' to be risk free and more easily argued by a legal representative, in a court of law.
Sadly, the absence of good professional and institutional practice is the very reason why there is such a frequent need to justify our actions in the courts. Assertive behaviour, as a more rational and deliberate style of working, was developed as an alternative to angry reaction to unfair and unjust situations. It was then developed as a method of 'personal advancement' and was promoted as a means of getting your own way; whatever the logic and realities of a particular situation. Just as anger and physical aggression can be misdirected and used in an abusive form, so can 'assertive technique'. There is nothing pure about 'assertive techniques', however well rationalised they have become in 'management'.
The original concept of 'assertion' (logic and science proper) relied upon having established some sound evidential base for the assertion, with a constant check on 'perspective' and the identification of new evidence. Evidence of Change or Difference was was a constant requirement of the discipline and the seeking of alternative perspectives, was an exciting part of 'evolving' the disciplines that relied upon 'assertions'. They have a status slightly more than assumptions, which we used to temporarily fill in the gaps in our evidential knowledge. One important feature of such forms of 'knowledge' was that they were presented in a way which could be logically challenged and the evidence 'refuted'.
What we often have in the social sciences and the health & social care professions generally, is that they rely upon filtered and selected evidence and logic. Evidence is 'selected' for the very reason that is supports the assertion that a person, or a profession wishes to make. These are the 'slights of mind' that I refer to else where. The idea is to find evidence in a form that most people accept at face value and then assert on the basis that most people will blindly accept the evidence and the logic, each seeming to support the other. When these assertions are intelligently and publically challenged, they are seen for the failed rationales that they are.
Social and Cultural (Collective) Delusions:
We should never underestimate the power of self-delusion, and its close relative; collective-delusion. If enough people assert strongly enough on the basis of prejudiced (selective) evidence, these is a tendency for this to become an established 'belief system'. We have recent examples of Nazism, Racism, Sexism and Ageism, etc. Most areas of disability fall fowl of these prejudiced assertions, as does mental health, dementia, learning disability and delinquency (the counter-assertions of disaffected and disempowered youth). In fact, these 'normalized', mostly dishonest assertions always generate reaction from disaffected individuals, which is used to reinforce the 'see I told you so' prejudices.
So; 'Assertions' and 'Assertive Techniques' can be legitimate, when sound evidence and reasonable assumptions are made, which are properly demonstrated. If a professional practitioner, manager, or supervisor, is choosing to 'assert' on any other basis, then they have failed in their duty in some way. There is no other basis for an assertion, other than by virtue of ensuring a 'Law' is applied, when conventional logic sometimes fails to minister to Justice (or where we have to resort to mitigation). This is the case in many areas of health & Social Care, which have increasingly become imbibed into legalistic 'belief systems' of rationalised 'injustice'. Opinionated assertions sometimes parade as 'The Law'.
Psychiatry has been compromised by its desire to become established as the 'legal guardians' of normal social and moral behaviour. Piece by piece, these areas of expertise have proven unsound as areas of expertise. Assertions that 'morality' was a domain of clinical psychiatry became to hot to handle, then the classifications of sexual orientation and racial types . Next alcoholism & drug addiction proved more complex than the previously assumed clinical propensity. 'Personality Disorder', being untreatable, is not legitimate psychiatric concern. Now psychiatry is very unsafe with diagnoses like Schizophrenia, ADHD, Bi-polar and 'thinking and behaviour' lifestyle modes. Conceptualisations change.
All the evidence now supports the increasing understanding that serious mental illness is often the consequential distress of a social 'mismatch' between conventional expectations and individual propensities to think, feel and behave differently (in response to differing cultural experiences & leaning). It is the cognitive and socially constraining effects of narrowly defined 'normality' that is making people seriously mentally ill. RD Lang, David Cooper and other more rigorous thinkers recognised this. Other wilful practitioners chose to stay with the prejudices that justified their established practices and confirmed the stereotypes that were required to 'legally' maintain, promote and control 'difference'.
Clinical misinterpretations of the intellectual and behavioural competence of people with learning disability, autism and even genetically determined deafness & some physical , distorted the stereotypical understanding of often stressed and ignorant populations. As a consequence, the expectations of parents, families and communities were diminished and the basic human rights and civic entitlements of these people were profoundly affected. The clinical and social consequences of psychiatric (and associated social) interventions were often worse than the often impoverished circumstances of their original host communities, or the religious orders that often cared for them.
Undoing the Psychological and Emotional Damage Done:
The damage done was frankly incredible, masked by the pretence of 'clinical care', in institutions for all, or most of their lives. It was not until as late as the 1970's that many were able to earn an undignified discharge from the institutions, often without adequate reparations and insufficient preparation. This was often into a community that had become increasingly intolerant and fearful of such form of 'difference' and into physical environments and social structures designed for the artificially determined 'average' person.
Most of these system and physical structures were designed to meet politically expedient criteria for maintaining a fully productive workforce, unencumbered by the demands and limitation that makes those outside this narrow band of acceptable thought, action and capability, disabled. The institutionalising effects can still be experiences in learning disability, dementia care and mental health, in very nice and extremely caring but highly restrictive and limited choice environments. It is that superficial 'quality' which often deceives the naive investigator. It is an extension of wallpaper and pictures on the bland walls of large institutions. It is just not not good enough. The whole point has been missed.
There is no mistaking this any longer. To resist recognising the failures and prejudices is both unjust and dangerous. It is the same kind of ignorance and associated fear, that gave us racism and other now recognised intolerances. Apart from the determination not to euthanize, the conduct I am able to observe (even today) bears significant resemblances to quite fascist ideas and practices. The diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, with increasing acknowledgment of misdiagnosis, mistreatment and the crudely, scientifically unsound, diagnosis of conditions, still produces injustices and restrictive practices which can not be justified and intelligently challenged.
Of course there will be many who will say that such comparisons are madness of a kind, or are an unfair criticism of those people who genuinely want to help those people in distress, or at risk. Firstly; the kindly treatment of people who are in distress, for any reason and as the result of any cause, is wholly admirable and desirable. I have the same commitment myself and have for nearly 40 years. Such caring attitudes do not have to conflict with the challenge of existing erroneous beliefs and practices. In fact, it is an extension of that caring attitude which drives genuinely caring people to seek to stop any process that causes people distress. Caring is about 'best interests' and 'inclusion'.
Campaigns for real Change:
Many people have tried to change 'asserted' prejudiced attitudes and correct instructional errors. These errors are often reinforced by professional and intellectual ignorance, incompetence and prejudices, often excused by limited resources. Campaigners have often succeeded after distressing struggles that often cost them substantial time, money, effort and ridicule. Racism, Sexism and Religious (belief) prejudices are some of the most notable injustices and intellectual prejudices, but others forms of ignorance continue to have profound impacts upon peoples lives, often quite unnecessarily. Social Disablement affects physical, intellectual, cognitive, and social differences of all kinds.
The anguished and sometimes aggressively extreme reactions of people, frustrated by being treated with lack of dignity and respect; deprived of the normal expectations in life, are often used as further 'evidence' of the persons 'condition'. They are then often further disabled by the effects of psychotropic drugs and inappropriately administered, restrictive behavioural programmes. Fear of 'normal' risks and 'natural' emotional relationships, which may embarrass, leave professionals open to unjustified criticism, or worse still; open to the threat of litigation, or criminal prosecution, caused professional carers and families to restrict the basic rights and entitlements of people, thereby 'disabling' them further.
People who are disabled in this way are disempowered to such an extent that it is very difficult for them to make an appropriate stand for themselves. What is more, the collusion of quasi-rational thinking that once determined 'lack of capacity' (which has now been significantly improved in Law, but not adequately in practice) makes it very difficult to 'prove' that an injustice has been done. An understandably distressed and angry person makes a poor witness for their own protection. Prejudices towards the expression of anger immediately puts such complaints in jeopardy. Add to this the difficulties of learning, linguistic expression, deprivation of experience and social confidence and this just compounds the person's difficulties further. People who have been abused and neglected have precisely the same kinds of problems.
The Law can not be more clear and yet professional remain largely ignorant and prejudiced:
The international agreements to facilitate 'inclusion' is not the condescending 'tolerance' of difference that many professionals, charities and families presume (and act out on that basis). It is the active reparation of the damage done to the psyche and social status of individuals and groups, by the inappropriate clinical and social treatment of them. It is then the active inclusion of anyone with 'difference, on the same, or equitable basis of all other citizens, adjusting environments, systems and attitudes to take account of the 'differences'. This is as true for cognitive, intellectual and cultural differences, as it is for cultural and the relatively superficial physical differences.
It is the unambiguous commitment to equivalence of opportunity and justice for all. There are no excuses. The 'risks' that are often quoted as the reasoning behind professional and family 'restrictive practices' are risks that are mostly created by an indifferent society. They can be easily and cheaply managed, with the minimum restriction upon peoples lives. The supposed risks to the public are often exaggerated and quite paranoid in character. The risk from people who have been disabled by their treatment (mainly mental health & delinquency) are very rare. The biggest social risks are due to the behaviour of supposedly 'normal' people, including many professionals.
This must be one of the biggest inversion of social reality of all time. Professionals, 'normals', industry, commerce and the media do more physical, psychological and emotional damage to people than any person with a 'disability', including serious psychosis and justifiable anger. Further more, there are some supposedly 'caring' people who are so selfishly dependent upon having someone to 'care for' they artificially create and perpetuate dependencies in order to gratify their own needs, to the detrimental effect of the person cared for. For family members who have been 'programmed' to have low expectations this is forgivable, for professionals and 'do good' types, this is completely unacceptable.
Quite frankly, any resistance recognising these prejudices and ensuring the full rights, entitlements and justice, towards those 'identified' and often 'made' disabled, it totally unacceptable. It will be challenged wherever it is encountered. I have heard just about every kind of feeble excuse for keeping things much as they are and have observed professionals and families undermine any positive initiatives towards community care, at every opportunity. I am tired of working with persistent incompetence, unacceptable restrictions and intolerable constraints, which persistently work against the interests of any person with any disability, or having encountered and form of abuse and prejudice.
It has to stop. We have to get the priorities right. I have found no one with any feasible and competent intellectual argument which holds up against the basic declaration of rights and entitlements (and incumbent responsibilities) of people with any disability, or suffering any kind of abuse. This does not ignore the fact that some poor soles are so damaged by these pernicious effects prejudices, or the profound effects of serious physical and organic impairments that they will remain substantially dependent upon others, both physically and mentally. That is no justification for making their lives more constrained and controlled.
Be warned. I am now on the real mission - I will take on any intellectual challenge to any of the assertions published here, or evidence of prejudicial, or continued disempowering behaviour, by anyone, in any position, within any profession. Over 40 years of preparation is long enough for professionals and other officials to have got things right and in respect of Human Rights.
. . . . Get sorted or get out of the game. . . . .
More to come on this subject . . . . .
(© Terry Couchman, Visitweb - February 2010)
