Towards a General Theory:If it is any consolation. The modern theories and techniques used in counselling and therapy, and within the health and social services 'care' system, are refinements of those conceptualisations and skills that are mostly found within people and communities generally. These are not invented, they are discovered, tidied up and described by researchers, put into a theoretical framework and practiced by professionals. There are many modern examples of Florence Nightingale and Louise Pasture. Discovering good care anew and refining it through training and the masterful experience of others. The special words and the approach may give the impression of expertise but they are, at base, purified forms of caring and support that generations of (secure) human beings have been evolving and offering in some way, often with equally mystifying explanations. Added to this, there are some additional skilful insights and more specialist clinical techniques, to compensate for entrenched problems. However wonderful and effective new treatments and techniques are they are largely meaningless without the fundamental skills of caring, some of which remain undiscovered in their 'intuitive' nature. Of course, any form of caring can go wrong and get distorted, or become inappropriately applied and misdirected. This happens in everyday life as it does with the professionals. It is not a perfect system. What the research, theory and 'reflection' does help us do, is try to identify and remove our prejudices and the bad habits that we have incorporated into our 'natural' caring actions. Even in everyday life we can pick up bad habits and corrupted 'truths': We most of us have examples of the Maiden Aunt Flows homely, childcare advice, or Uncle Bills army days suggestions. There is also the flippant professional reference to the judgmental and intrusive conduct of the 'Blue Rinse Brigade' (Amature Experts). The trouble is; these kinds of errors and misjudgements can arise within the 'monitoring' systems, which are set up to review and refine professional ethics and practices. This, in turn, can affect the nature of the support provided to and by professional, in their everyday responsibilities (and eventually to all of us in our support requirements). Apart from the errors that are accidently incorporated into institutional policy, practices can be erroneous because of the poor interpretation of policy. Interpretations that are restrictive and defensive, or re-gigged to address 'cost' factors, rather than the primary care purpose. We all become too dependent on these services and professional systems, at our peril. It can be very difficult not to become so dependent. When we do end up over-dependent upon the institutional directives, professional guidelines, and the Law, we can find ourselves incorporating 'institutional' errors and prejudices; thereby creating further problems for the future. There is a needed for an evolution of the institutions but not; change for change sake, reactionary and precipitous responses to fears of litigation, or resistance due to fear of change itself. Change needs the quality of a 'transformation' to be beneficial to all those at the giving and receiving end. We all have to refine our knowledge in some way. What works for one situation, time, or person does not necessarily work so well for another. It is an on-going learning process, one where the wider family and tribe once made a a more significant contribution than now and where it is hoped this may be the case again. We once had cultural apprenticeships, with multiple 'masters' to gain knowledge and skills from. These communities are changing and are having to rebuild themselves. So 'experts' have a role but as supports to the natural carers, without de-skilling them, or taking away their natural, instinctive and intuitive tendencies. The other thing we need to be careful of, is not 'purifying' things too much. Being too clinical takes away the human touch and the sense of humour, equally important as the techniques. As an illustration of how this 'expertise' can take away natural skills, I like to refer to the influence of 'Dr Spock'. The 'parenting advisor', not the half-alien from Star-trek. He offered much good advice, perhaps with a few errors and irrelevancies. He (and others) provide some good guidance for correcting the errors we may accidently pick up, or particular problems we find ourselves having to face. In the main, if appropriately supported, without too many distractions; Mothers know best how to Mother. Advice to correct mistakes is fine. Unfortunately we have become a culture of 'experts' where natural authority and skill is taken away from the ordinary person and replaced by generalised expert advice. Parents and carers become disempowered while still retaining the ultimate responsibility. Confidence in natural parenting and caring skills is reduced while the demands for the taking responsibility and providing the care are increasing, often in relative isolation. All this has been done in the good name of reducing risks to children and vulnerable adults. This fragmenting process started with the amateur 'expert' and the 'celebrity' culture. With the best of intentions, the institutional and legal expectation now is that we can not afford to make mistakes, or we will be criticised and punished. We therefore can't afford to learn from our mistakes. So, we become dependent upon the 'experts' to solve the problems, that trying not to make mistakes creates. It is a catch 22. It is actually impossible not to make mistakes and do the wrong thing at times. It is not possible to stay cool at all times and it is inhuman to remain detached. The trouble is, if you make a mistake, do you admit it? Perhaps only when it is an understandable, or a beneficial mistake. There you have it - you need the theory to understand how things go wrong, even with the best of intentions. You need a framework and a sounding board to ensure that you are not going off at a tangent, creating a problem for later. We are none of us totally independent and were never intended to be. We are inter-dependent and should enjoy sharing the rights, responsibility and the appropriate 'authority', or power. The theory and frameworks for any kind of community care are there to help identify and correct error and mistakes, not just to punish wilful neglect and real, or intentional abuses. These are different. In caring, or sharing care, for each other, we mostly have to avoid becoming too dependent and creating dependency in others. Both sides of the relationship can become dependent on the other in some way. The direct support should be just enough, without taking the ultimate power and authority away from the other person. This is as true for the carer and the cared for. It does not matter if this is a family carer, or a highly skilled and knowledgeable professional. The consequences are the same in each instance and for both sides and all forms of 'caring', however apparently sophisticated. Mis-applied care and inappropriate power relationships are damaging to all involved, and to our cultures and society. The 'general theory' is important to strive for, because the particular theories are only as good as the situations they represent. This is effectively micro-managing, or the 'Nanny State'. There are some general rules that we can reasonably apply, without unnecessarily taking away individual responsibility and autonomy. Similarly there are other general rules we can apply to ensure that we do not unrealistically place responsibilities on people without the provision of adequate knowledge and resources. General rules come out of general theory. Much current legislation is drafted out of a panic reaction to the fact that the community has been slowly murdered, by becoming increasingly de-skilled (devalued). No side can absolve themselves of these responsibilities, unless they clearly do not have the intellectual and emotional capacity, practical resources, relevant information, skills and knowledge, or appropriate empowerment to take these responsibilities on. Even then, assuming they have this 'capacity', they should declare if these other requirements are not available for any reason, even temporarily. No one should be trying to 'go it alone', or be expected to do so, not even managers of services. Service user involvement should be real, day-to-day, direct, involve and with informed choice, not just nominal representation within a professional, or an administrative system. In short, this involvement and empowerment is not just etiquette, it is a necessary and effective part of care, treatments and recoveries. All care & support should be 'enabling'. In declaring these obvious shortfalls in services and support, the errors and lack of any 'resource' (which are restricting the opportunity to take the required responsibility), individual service users, carers, practitioners, managers and administrators, should be protected in making these declarations of 'deficits'. This is, of course, with the proviso that they are not doing so maliciously, or dishonestly. The normal case should take precedent; the criticisms are likely to have some basis. It is not incompetent to be unable to 'manage' a particular situation that arises, it is incompetent to pretend, or delude yourself, that you are when you are not, or when it is impossible to do so 'reasonably' safely, or in the 'least restrictive' way. So the theory describing the 'social systems', and the rules established within society, have to be equitable and representative of the wider realities, and responsive to all cultural circumstances. It should also be representative of the natural order of recognised human entitlements and responsibilities. The more generally applicable the theory and rules are, the better and more properly representative they become. We need this general theory to encompass, explain and partially predict, all natural variations within our mix of cultures. The rules are generalising already, so we are 'in touch' with this theory, waiting and crying out to be discovered. See 'So What?' and Human Rights See also: Relativistic Theory; Transformations, Social Adaptation, 'So What?', Human Rights | 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 |
