I have observed so many, clearly necessary, but powerfully resisted 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 incredible personal, social and financial cost to those involved.
The fundamental need for change were not the result of 'opinion'. These were human critical changes, beyond the whim of academics and politics. They are so fundamental they have a status of 'fact', rather than mere opinion.
These 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 and Selfish Interests. This is not the first time that 'drafts' for establishing sound human conduct have been undermined. These are the persistent, unsound 'opinions' of the sociopaths and the 'Collectively Deluded' - Maintaining: Job's Worth; Unearned Status; Illicit Power; Selfish Influence and Personal Greed, etc.
This resistance is just about understandable in re-developing cultures, trying to re-establish their own cultural identities; after a century of imposition, from powerfully bullying nations and cultures. This resistance is quite contradictory within developed democracies, who pretend to be the leading lights of modern social evolution. Fundamental Rights come with responsibilities, which are just as self evident to most intelligent, clear thinking people. I am sick of academics pretending, through their convoluted, pretentious bullshit, that there is no difference between 'social facts' and 'opinions'.
Facts can be 'evidenced' and opinions can be used to confound the facts. Of course, we sometimes have to use the same language to communicate facts and opinions and use the same language forms to discuss the fine details of how to set down the facts clearly, so that they are not confused with opinions. The evidence is always unmistakable and often kicks us in the face, sometime quite literally. The following are linguistic approximates to some fundamental social dynamic facts:
Fact 1: If you impose change without sound, collective agreements; you get resistance and that resistance will eventually defeat effective changes; if the changes do not allow for the positive expression of all ideas and beliefs, in some constructive form, validating the positive contributions of otherwise competing sub-cultures .
Fact 2: All forms of individual and collective expression can have both positive and negative outcomes and consequences. Like any powerful force, it can be utilised to build, or to destroy. Sometimes the building of something factually more healthy, requires the recycling of factually less healthy components.
Fact 3: If any particular form of social expression is totally suppressed, or seriously inhibited (through relative ignorance, or disproportionate 'selfish' purpose) there will be one or more negative consequences, equally as powerful as the potential positive contribution which has been suppressed, or inhibited.
Fact 4: Social Change is inevitable and naturally progresses in 'quanta'. Small technological, conceptual, environmental, physiological, intellectual and social developments find their way into one or more cultures and these periodically stimulate a radical (sometime revolutionary) change in social structures & thinking.
Fact 5: There is a natural resistance to this change which sets up a tension, which is designed to 'refine' (the thinking around the fine details of) how that radical change will take place, with the consensus inclusion of all useful knowledge and experience, from the different contributors, which went before.
Fact 6: If this natural process is not allowed to progress, the individual factions then compete destructively with each other and the positive energy within the system is used up as a destructive force. The structural changes collapse and the system falls back to a lower energy, quantum state (regressed state).
Fact 7: Social evolution requires the constant progress towards more inclusive, less destructive, social-environmental advances. Failure leads to socio-environmental degradations which inhibit, or halt social progress and risk complete human and other species failures.
Fact 8: Like in any 'organic' system, there has to be the means for containing, removing, and re-utilising socio-environmental effluent (waste products) of various kinds. Recycling is a nature-al, cost effective and constructive way of using up what is produced as consequence of any communal 'living'.
There are other 'self evident' facts, mostly sociological manifestations of sound biological and other scientific 'facts'. These will evolve as we evolve, for as long as we evolve. The language is inadequate and can be refined, but not so that advance is refined out of existence, through poorly substantiated 'opinion'. There are those who aspire to the 'regressed' animal states. These will try and incorporate the conditions which cause naturally advancing social systems to collapse.
If those social systems are corrupted in this way, there may be other groups who will seek for the social systems collapse, in order to re-establish the natural progression once more. Basically, some refuse to see the impact of their ignorant actions on the quality of their collective lives. You get what you sow, eventually and everyone suffers the socially polluting consequences.
There seems to be an intolerable and very costly struggle to overcome the unbelievably crass, prejudiced and unjust practices that had gone on previously. Blatantly stupid and inhuman behaviours continued to be justified and resisted, by every kind of religious, legalistic, professional 'expertise', academic assertions, or quasi-scientific logic, often quite unlawfully.
The Laws and Human Rights often precede the effective cultural changes.. The necessary changes in behaviour are eventually achieved; painfully, one destructive step at a time. Attitudes often linger, but the adjustments are eventually recognised as probably a good idea, and of general benefit to the majority, by a large minority.
These unacceptable conditions are eventually knocked down, either by sound logic, persistent 'counter evidence', varying degrees of passive resistance, proactive determination, violent protest and even belligerent counter aggression usually in that order. Ultimately, the evidence and logic do thoroughly challenge the flawed arguments of those who had been clearly 'deluded'.
Collective delusion in the established resistance to changing bigoted ways of thinking. It is as if the vast majority of the population are unable to conceive of, or fear to acknowledge, the wider consequences of unequal treatment, restricted opportunity, maintained prejudices, irrational judgment and blatantly abusive actions (even of events that are historically repeated and fully understood). The 'chosen people' can't be wrong, surely!
Resistance to Change:
Of course, some resistance to change is important. If something is quite evidently 'Just & Fair', makes perfect sense in all languages and cultures and is working well in keeping people reasonably safe and happy, why the bloody hell do we then happily change things? We often do this on the basis of some supposedly, politically correct extension of a corrupt interpretations of Human Rights, which we otherwise persistently ignore in more justifiable cases.
It suggests to me that the established culture of 'clever' people needs seriously revising. Vested interests are at play once more. They never give up, any channel of influence is justified. What nonsense is there in agreeing that people are entitled to buy booze, wherever they want, at any time they like, form a garage, or supermarket, on the basis of their human rights.
By a similar 'Extended Human Rights' entitlement; I can buy a competent Defence Lawyer to get me off on a technicality, while those who are poor, easily intimidated and possibly innocent, are encouraged to plead guilty, to stand a better chance of 'getting a reduced sentence'; saving money in legal aid fees & costs. Some kind of justice!; Which is actually called 'Summary Justice' (Yes - that is how it is described by our justice system - like that of the Witch Trials of Judge Jefferies time).
'Zero Tolerance' is a fine principle; until used by the bigoted, to tackle anyone who fits a prejudiced profile. Read some history folks, we have been here so many times and we just sit back until we trip up, fall ill, fall on hard times, or slide into old age. It is too late then: Read Pastor Niemoeller's words - General warning to all.
Radical Perspective - (Doubt all that you see and hear - until you know what the assumptions and vested interest are):
Having worked in the field of Social Welfare (and mental health in particular), I have observed the irony of recognising that it is the 'culture' that often deranged, deluded, paranoid and over anxious in its thinking. There are well established jokes in the field of Mental Health. These include playing around with ideas like; 'the Mad being in charge of the Mad House'; the Blind leading the Blind'; 'Just because I am Paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get me' and 'You don't have to be Mad to work here - but it helps'.
There are so many and they all have a serious truth to them. The skilful and experienced Blind are best at leading the Blind, for instance. Send me your examples please! Many a true word is spoken in jest and there are two useful, general reflections I can make on this subject:
Firstly; Those in charge of the 'Mad House' are often deluded and somewhat paranoid. Its is a fact. If you actually listen to a classic, senior psychiatrist (or clinical psychoanalyst) talking about Classical Psychiatric Diagnosis and ask them to explain the evidence to support their understanding of the causation of serious mental illness, they are rarely able to provide any refutable evidence to support their claims.
If you challenge them intelligently about their assumptions they will often return to a cyclic argument based upon 'symptoms' and talk about 'imminent risk to self and others'. Risks which invariably condense down to; 'upsets the neighbours', 'wasting police time', 'distressing family members' and 'getting violently angry' with their 'jailers' intrusion. Part of Psychiatry has been subsumed to legal process & definition.
Risk to 'self' is usually managed, with increasing competently, by police, GP's, families, paramedics, neighbours and counsellors, once those risks are more fully recognised and appreciated. It is never perfect, but is 'less restrictive', in practice. Risk to others are usually dealt with by Police and Courts, more justly and less restrictively than many psychiatric institutions.
Medications are often good stop gap methods of treatment, devised by research chemists and biologists. These can be very useful for helping people regain speedy control over their experiences and lives. Social Psychiatry, Psychology and Counselling are then available to help people to find new ways of coping and establish new skills & confidence in managing their more chronic conditions, or the future difficulties they may experience in life.
Ordinary 'Talking Treatments' (basically; skilled, natural counselling and practical support) then becomes very useful, even for those who are diagnosed with serious 'psychiatric conditions'. Those with the 'rare' organic conditions; which have psychiatric consequences, also gain considerable benefit form alternative support and better insight into their conditions; all be it with the on-going need for 'replacement' clinical treatments.
Some thyroid problems, organic and traumatic brain damage, strokes, toxic reactions and dementia are mostly manageable within ordinary community and social care situations, using good quality human support, skilled care and effective social skills. Social Psychiatry then provides a useful resource for diagnosis, advice and crisis treatment.
By the way, by 'talking treatments' I mean skilled, life experienced, competent support, refined with some measure of higher level social skills training (gained through the proven development of Social Care / Social Work / Nursing / Psychology / Community Work / Voluntary Work and other Therapeutic type skills). I am not advising the 'off the shelf' counselling expertise, provided by Colleges; wishing to raise their income, by catering to the flattery of condescending and often pretentious desire; 'I want to help people be like me' types (that drives people mad). Believe me, those who may be tempted to use such resources should do so with caution. There are just as many vested interests here as in any institutionalised practice. Buyer Beware - always.
Classical Psychiatry has had its day - Social Psychiatry & Social Therapies a chance to prove themselves:
If you demonstrate to a Classical Psychiatrist (through effective social intervention) that the person no longer has the symptoms of a serious mental illness, they will then often agree that it was a 'misdiagnosis'. If you successfully challenge the basis of assumptions (in a particular case), they will revert to the classification of 'personality disorder' in order to avoid being found to have inadequate skills to resolve that particular problem (Personality Disorders are deemed by them to be not mental disorders and therefore untreatable).
You obviously have to be knowledgeable and skilled to do this, but having a 'Psychiatric' thinking strategy is not an advantage in defeating flawed Psychiatric logic. Logic like 'There is a genetic weakness which make the person susceptible to serious mental illness and we will find the gene one day'. This is simply not true. The gene was never there. It is now a modern fact, demonstrated by the Genome Project.
Secondly, when you start patiently listening to many people who have been 'diagnosed' and have experienced serious mental distress (including the serious, classifiable forms of mental illness, like psychoses) and you do so with an open mind and an active listening ear, you can observe two startling facts. Through the confusion of distress, anger and inadequate language (which has been induced, by poor practice, prejudice and skills-less misunderstanding), you begin so see why things went so badly wrong.
The answers are there in the minds eye of the person and largely in their own terms. Then; as one listens, understands and reflect back to the person, that understanding; The person gains confidence in their own understanding. As they do so, the 'symptoms' which lead to their classification subside and the person regains enough confidence to get on with their lives (and make the same mistakes, if that is what they choose).
The Real Danger are from those who Know What They Are Doing and Have Rational Intentions:
Classical Psychiatry has a very small part to play in modern 'mental health' and is unable to clinically deal with the most extreme, most dangerous behaviours in our society; Psychopathic and Sociopathic disorders, (the real 'Personality Disorders') other than to diagnose and contain, sometimes at 'Her Majesties Pleasure'.
Basically, the proportion of people under necessary 'treatment', by psychiatry, within formal institutions, because of 'real' dangers to others, is actually very small. Many other people in psychiatric hospitals are institutionally dependent, because of poor treatment. They are often agitated, de-skilled and angry as a result. We created those problems and have a duty to undo the damage. Psychiatry is not well positioned to do this, but we are. Pass them our way and provide the resources.
The biggest dangers to all of us are from people who 'mask' their dubious intentions very well, often within institutions. They do not have labels like Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Psychosis, or Obsessive Compulsive. There are few symptoms, only consequences. They are the real abusers in our society and are 'normal' by psychiatric definitions.
They are also holding down every kind of job, from sales & marketing, through entertainment, to business executives, teachers, police officers, social workers, nurses and even psychiatrists. These 'personalities' are prone to all the same conditions as the rest of us and it is those individuals who, in exhibiting their 'normal' behaviour and intentions, are identified with 'psychiatric conditions'. They even use these as a means of avoiding 'Justice' and Psychiatry is often keen to
Psychiatry has, in the main, tended to focus upon those less able to express their distress and who are more easy to manage by the imposition of restrictions; restrictions that would be resisted by those with the motivation & resources to challenge the intrusion. It is the case of following the cannel of least resistance and proving 'a value'. Hence the over estimated value of the Psychiatrists classical role.
In doing so, they have been too keen to look upon the conditions as a consequence of genetic and organic failures and weaknesses, rather than a the direct result of inter-personal abuse and subsequent, institutional neglect and abuse. Cases keep coming to light and yet the penny has not dropped for many. Even convincing evidence from genetics and social research has failed to stem the arrogance and ignorance.
There are 'degrees of Institutional Abuse and Institutions consequentially seek to protect themselves:
Concepts like 'Delusion', 'Rationalisation', 'Intellectualisation', 'Paranoia', 'Projection' and 'Psychosis' are useful for explaining the features of people's distress, even without a pretence at understanding the mechanisms of causality. They are equally useful for explaining 'cultural' and 'institutional' corruptions Cultures, nations and institutions take on the same kinds of characteristics of some of the most distasteful people and the most distressed people.
This is what we are just beginning to understand as 'Institutional Prejudice'. The usual excuse for institutions continuing in this way; "It is human nature - you will never change that". I sometimes wish someone would convince me of some nice tidy body of knowledge, with clear rules and convincing arguments, so I can make a good income out of making the well better.
Supposedly 'normal', everyday people manage to convince themselves (as recently as yesterday) that physical, social, moral, spiritual, racial and gender characteristic are indicators of some variation in fundamental human status, intelligence, criminality, personality and a whole range of other 'invented' human 'flaws'.
Any number of newly invented 'normalisms' then pop up and become legitimised; by the great mass of the intellectually unwashed, often supported by the sound logic of learned academics. 'Sound Logic and Rationales are built around the fundamental errors of judgment and underlying, prevailing, communally irrational prejudices' (although, often understandable 'fear of difference'). The 'normal curve' (used in human statistics), is fine until we use the artificial 'percentile' criteria for 'abnormality'.
You can not learn what is needed from university, only build on what is already there. Colleges have to be more 'open' to the variety of styles of conceptualising and learning and incorporate those who are not natural, classically 'academic' types, but are demonstrably highly competent intellectual types.
Scripted Language, Formal Logic and Mathematics are not the only academically viable channels of conveying sophisticated, more representative concepts. Sometimes a model, metaphor, or a demonstration, conveys information that is not accessible by these other channels alone.
These can be formalised to a point where they have serious academic validity, especially with the fast developing Information Technology and Computer processing. This initiative has begun. Imitator will not do the job. Now make space for us.
Law Change: Make it a Criminal Offense to Physically, Psychologically, or Emotionally Abuse and Neglect; Socially Bully, Intimidate, Disable, or undermine another's Personal Security and Personal, or Social Wellbeing, by way prejudiced action, or intellectual or emotional abuse. Difficult? Yes. Possible? Yes. Likely?- Not while abusive and arrogant people have opportunity to have significant control over the critical institutions providing for our welfare.
Still under development . . . .
