Human Rights, Institutions and Professionals. The More Technical Arguments (Bare with me): Society, especially in the form of its institutions, seems only able to cope with these problems in intellectually manageable 'bits', where there is incontrovertible evidence & demonstrated professional credibility. This is because of the underlying 'bullying' character of our culture. Professionals are made to feel 'isolated', if they do not 'tow the line' and go with the prevailing, fashionable, 'institutional' view. If they operate ethically and thereby appear to risk 'being wrong', by taking a more 'critical' & human perspective, they are often chastised. This then sets the expectations for everyone. There appears to be difficulty in critically interpreting any evidence disclosed and greater difficulty in understanding the 'natural' consequences of the perpetration of these abuses (or identifying the shams/scams; which indicate serious problems of their own). This tendency is partly explained by individual feelings of guilt (people do exhibit and observe these more minor abusive tendencies daily, in their own lives) and partly due to institutional resistance to acknowledging the problems; because of possible 'blame' (culpability) in recognising and acknowledging the failures to meet these complex needs, risks, neglects and failures. There are well established theories of individual and social 'psychology', which explain many of the 'enigmas' of individual behaviour and group, social, or institutional reactions. These mostly justify following the 'status quo' (caricatures of good practice), usually with flawed logic and frequent prejudiced interpretation of the more 'obvious' evidence. Unfortunately there is very strong resistance to changes in attitudes, even in the light of this modern evidence. This more considered approach requires more time and can be inconclusive, if not skilfully undertaken. Institutions currently require definitive answers, whether accurate, or not. Like modern courts, they are interested in summary justice, achieved by the most economic means. In the case of the modern forms of 'summary' court justice, there is strong pressure, from many defence solicitors, to get clients to plead guilty, if the evidence, a person's character and social status, is likely to lead to a guilty verdict. The argument being that the sentence would otherwise be more severe. These judgments are not made explicit, but there is no doubt of the implications, if one observers the legal process. There are few incentives (other than ethics) to ensure a client provides a truthful, just and completely credible answer, which can be supported by competent legal argument. Legal aide is limited and real justice is now very costly. In addition, frustrated expressions of innocence and contentious challenges of justice, (often having been provided inadequate support), is usually identified (unjustly) as evidence of guilt. This is an example of discriminatory and abusive justice. It arises out of institutional prejudice, the same form that was identified in terms of institutional racism. The same prejudice and injustice can be seen in respect of many institutional dealings with people exhibiting mild learning difficulties, mental health, or alcohol and drug problems. Untutored and over simplistic interpretation of behaviour and lack of appreciation of the differing motives and expression, affect the judgments made about individuals. This can even affect vulnerable people who (perhaps inappropriately) respond to inappropriate, indifferent, unjust and humiliating responses to their distress, created by these indifferent and dispassionate forms of service provision. There is clearly a professional deficit in identifying the difference between belligerently antagonistic behaviour and the 'reactive' distressed behaviour, of those who have been abusively dealt with, or who are felt to be unjustly treated. The idea that all people are equally culpable, based upon their assumed intimidating behaviour, whatever the abusive, or discriminatory level of treatment, or the evident mental capacity, is incompetent and an institutionally 'blind' form of prejudice. This institutional prejudice and abuses are more evident now than I have observed in past, more intuitive forms of professional practice . This can be partially accounted for by my previous lack of awareness, but there is also no doubt, as evidence in my operational research, that this character of institutional and professional attitude is both more prevalent and a more generalising, discriminatory feature of modern professional attitudes (at least in terms of manager's regressive, prevailing attitudes). And so it is in the 'social policing' areas of Child Protection and Mental Health. We have to live with this for now, prepare and present evidence best we can, then fight our case at every opportunity, convincing institutions (and individual professionals) of their errors of judgment. Unfortunately, the various institution's modern objectives are to come to the most convincing, credible conclusion, efficiently and at minimal cost in time and effort (mostly because of limited resources). To this end, institutions lay down very specific and often quite inflexible processes, meant to be 'catch alls' for potential problems and risks. Unfortunately, this (along with work pressures) also blinkers the professionals perceptions, causing them to miss important evidence that does not 'fit' the chosen criteria. This evidence would have had them seeking a different resolution. The tendency is understandable, but does not ensure the most just and reasonable outcomes, required by our various ethics. The consequences can be shown to be more costly and producing more entrenched problems for the future. We see the more dramatic results of these inadequate 'processes' in the media coverage of 'failures' of duty & of care. Most injustices and errors do not get the media attention, especially if they do not result in a death, or more serious physical abuse. Even less the case, if the abusive incidents, errors of judgment, or neglect of service, are perpetrated against individuals and groups that do not conger up such natural sympathies. This includes those who refuse to present as 'pathetic' victims, that is; caricatures of what an abused person should look like and behave like. Some Rape 'Victims' sometimes have difficulties with institutions, for not responding in the usual way people are lead to expect. The same is true for all forms of abuse, disability, and delayed recognition of bullying and neglect. So, where are thing at now:
Domestic violence towards children and women has been more successfully addressed in recent years. It has provided some relief, of course, but much physical and serious psychological & emotional abuse still remains, undiscovered for years. Abuse towards men is grossly underestimated and very poorly addressed, including the effects upon their children. Why? We will explain. Racism is a particular form of abuse. Its most obvious forms (relating to colour) have been challenged and the Law now protects the most public forms of abuse. There still remains subtle prejudice and substantial institutional prejudice, especially towards those who are 'less credible witnesses' to it; expressing themselves with anger, exhibiting mental ill health, or with limited social insight for any reason.Similarly, Sexual Discrimination towards Women has been challenged in areas of most popular interest; politics, employment rights and family. There has been some success for the more 'vocal' and those which generate the most public sympathy (news worthy). These compensations have sometimes made women's social reactions more like those of abusive men. Others, who are less vocal and generate less 'sympathy', continue to suffer prejudice, discrimination and actual abuse, in all areas of social experience, including their dealings with institutions. Institutions are prejudiced against the less vocally competent and less 'sympathetic' presentations of abuse. Political correctness often used as a weak excuse. Discrimination and associated abuses, towards people with 'disabilities' has significantly improved, particularly those with physical and sensory problems. I remember times in the 1960's where the discrimination of professionals was so bad that people with severe physical disabilities were 'stopped' from having normal emotional and sexual opportunities and experiences. They were often institutionalised in 'homes'. By the 1970's the beginnings of 'normal' expectations were established for people with 'Learning Difficulties'; following their discharge from 'long stay special hospitals'. I was involved in the incredible struggle to get their basic human entitlements met. The struggle goes on, some still fall through the gaps with tragic consequences and little social or media sympathy. In recent years there has been an increased awareness of 'Bullying' at school and still more recently, in the workplace. Bullying had long been seen as a natural part of childhood development, by many professionals and some parents. This is the result of a confusion between natural childhood tendency towards 'horse play' (establishing relative dominance - hopefully adequately supervised by adults) and their more inappropriate 'learned' attitudes and behaviours, generated by significant 'abusive' adult behaviours, in their presence. These contributions includes parents, teachers, other professionals and celebrities of various kinds. Need I say more - e.g.: Alcohol & other 'acquisitive' adverts do work, why pay for them otherwise. Sadly, modern academic understandings fall short of the insightful recognition of the causes, management and (at least partial) elimination of bullying. Attempts to contain bullying at schools is often curtailed by misguided belief that the abused and the bully must confront each other, almost on equal terms. Some initiatives are excellent but there is substantial variation in concern. Much as it is important that the abused need to have the opportunity to confront bullying and the bully needs to be confronted by their effects; how, when, where and why this is done is very dependent upon the character & confidence of the abused and abuser. The priority is to supervise and contain bullying of all kinds and at all levels (including by professionals - they can and do set the bad examples). The same is true of bullying in the workplace. This is far more prevalent than may first be assumed. Much 'aggressive' management is, in fact, bullying in character. It undermines and reduces productivity & quality of output. It has been the subject of Dickens and others, in more recent history of fictional depictions of realities and caricatures of behaviour. Even Documentaries illustrate these failing styles and they are also the butt of comedy, often a key indicator of 'the ridiculous', exemplified by 'The Office'. This 'style' is now popularly portrayed as TV 'entertainment'; with programmes like ''Big Brother', 'Hell's Kitchen', 'The Apprentice', giving the impression that to get results it is necessary to beat the least able into failure, or to play one lot of 'competitors' against the other. Depicted as clever, advanced social skills, all for young people's amusement and advancement. The programmes illustrate how being busy competing with each other, they all fall behind in the general employment race. The most successful organisations have very fair and positive management attitudes (while they remain open to new ideas, development, advancement and 'no nonsense' attitudes). They have good employee selection criteria, adaptive & 'inclusive' forms of employee induction and motivational and reward based methods of management. They are not simply meritocratic in academic terms but appreciate demonstrated skills, initiatives and creative problem solving, on an on-going basis. These are often the most successful companies. Many have better quality health care and safety practices than local health services and local authorities (who usually spend more unproductive time on these duties). They also have clear, unambiguous processes of discipline, which they are usually less required to use. Companies like Microsoft, Intel, HP and Virgin are some top examples who value skills and are not 'risk averse', but risk managers'. Others organisations have quite neutral, or ineffectual styles, adequate for their purpose, but are therefore prone to bullying within the workforce &/or management, examples evidenced in my experience are; the Postal Service, some Social Care Agencies and many Residential & Nursing Care institutions (and their Service Purchasers). Still others (far to many, including important Health Social Service, Housing and Policing institutions) have very poor selection criteria for the jobs in hand, miss-fit between mission statements, objectives and policy, unstable organisational structures, inflexible & inadequate employee induction and aggressive, institutionalised, punitive, or 'micro managed' managements styles. These organisations produce some of the most inefficiently organised services and some of the most stressed staff, with the highest rates of poor employee / manager health, high absentee rates, with some of the highest levels of early retirement on health grounds. In commerce and industry these organisations tend to fail and eventually get replaced by new blood. In social institutions and the long established commercial organisations, that have become 'our institutions', they tend to prevail and persevere at the expense of their staff and managers. High staff turnover , frozen posts and poor professional replacement rates, perpetuating the institutions persistent failure (in service user terms), while meeting 'statistical' requirements, as a Government and policy priority. The cost to the individual's health, families, communities and social resources, is substantial and yet fear and prejudice, instilled into these rather 'Neanderthal' style organisations and institutions, means that each employee and manager fears to be seen as weak, a winger, or not up to the job, etc. The attitudes and behaviours could be forgivable, in the short term, if they could be shown to be effective in the longer term, or shown to result in consistently improved services. The opposite is clearly evident, time after time. After countless reorganisations and consolidations; The same dedicated types, meeting the same misguided institutional requirements, in expertly defined terms, neglecting the basic institutional objectives. I have long term direct observations of this repeated, cyclic process and more recently; direct personal experience of these disabling and unhealthy institutional effects. The same effects that result from any other 'abusive' situations: Reduced self esteem; conflict with ethical & moral practices; anger; frustration; emotional distress; disruption of family life; reduced positive effect in critical areas of life / work; poor physical health; reduced care and attention; increased accident rates and errors; reduction of competence; collapse of health; increased criticism for personal failures; further reduction of self esteem, reduced psychological, emotional and physical health, reduced work efficiency. Burn out & Break Down. OR; Take the advice of abusers, those resigned to the current order of things, and/or intimidated friends & more cautious colleagues: Face the fact that these issues are not winnable; they are bigger than us, no one will believe you, or take any notice; no one really cares anyway; you are just being too idealistic; just let the 'abusers' get what they want & repair/recover best you can; keep your head down, let go the issues; protect your position (however sad and degraded); your first obligation is to yourself and your family; protect your mental & physical health best you can; try and make it be someone else's problem (pass it on). And so we often do, if we loose focus on the real issues and vocational purpose. Eventual, in taking this approach, there is resignation to the circumstances: loss of hope for improvement; accommodation to the practical, pragmatic realities; justification for short term fixes and making do; fear of speaking up, or standing against the unjust, neglectful and abusive practise; shying away from any outspoken criticism; avoiding being associated with anyone pointing the finger. Bring the newcomers 'into line' before they rock the boat and put them (and us) in the spotlight, we will then all pay for it in the 'abusive' reactions. Eventual, with the loss of original vocational and institutional purpose, we are then associated with the neglect & failures, through the neglect of the duty of care (as is frequently seen to happen). Many of these characteristics of abusive management styles and employee 'spanner in the works' type reactions, were identified when research was more independently funded, by committed individuals, within Universities and relatively independent Research Institutions. Professor Elliott Jacques and his research team at BIOSS (Brunel University) sensitively undertook quite challenging 'Institutional' research, with the cooperation of all forms of Social Institution, Commerce & Industry, Armed Forces and Trade Unions, etc. Even then they required the tacit cooperation of the institutions that were being researched. When these were genuinely interested in the outcome of unbiased, 'open' research there were fewer problems. These days, commissioned research is 'managed'; concerned with media image rather than substance. Most institutional research, these days, relies upon the research brief being determined by the institution, or interested government agency. Unfortunately, modern research funding is usually through the very institutions that are being researched and the research brief is effectively determined by the research funders, including the Government initiatives. Funding by drugs companies fairs little better. There is little independent, 'open' research possible by 'high profile' agencies and funders. The more independently minded and more 'searching' researches often have to rely upon less well resourced and credible funding options. It is for this reason that I have followed Professor Elliott Jacques example, undertaking 'operational research' while working in some real capacity, within the institutions, or in close association with them. Personal Experiences of Abuse and Institutional Ineptness: My own serious physical abuse and sexual molestation as a child, along with my enforced observations of the serious physical abuse of my Mother and my Brothers and Sisters (I was the eldest of 11), had a very strong influence on me. For some reason, probably because of my belief that this experience was somehow 'normal' and a determination to understand why this could happen, I found myself asking quite serious questions, even from as early an age as 6 years (yes - find this quite incredible now). During the next few years, including periods of time I spent in 'Care', I also spoke with and consoled, other children who had experienced distress in their family lives and during their periods in care. I and they, met Care Workers who showed great sensitivity and insight, often managed by those with less sensitivity and frequently psychologically & emotionally (and sometimes physically) neglectful attitudes. Sadly, my own and others, experience of professional interventions were often inadequate, uninformed and frequently inept. Sometime they were ignorantly, or blatantly abusive. This has been my experience in personal life and my work, ever since. There is something about the evolution of 'institutions' that tends to dehumanise people, even the best of them. There is a strong institutional pressure who 'hide' the shortfalls in service (mainly maintained by inadequately informed and poorly trained middle managers). The tendency is to manipulate resources and assessments, in order to give the impression of meeting needs of the clients, patients, service consumers, etc.. Keeping waiting list short and efficiently meeting the needs of those who 'qualify' by the nature of their vocal competence and their, critical, or crisis level of need, belays the neglect of the needs of clients, patients, citizen, customer, consumer and who seek help prior to reaching critical state. Further more, we are meeting these belated needs, using administrative systems that require as much as 50% and often as high as 80% of allocated professional time. This actually reduces the effective input to clients, patients and other service consumers. It has been evident in my personal experience, my professional experience and in discussing and researching these issues, throughout my adult life. Where the meeting of physical needs has advanced well, in most areas except those disadvantaged by poverty and other deprivations, the full appreciation of the affects of neglect and psychological abuse of life careers is poor. My overall experience and research concludes that there is generally, poor professional and institutional insight into the psychological and emotional needs of 'vulnerable people'. That established professional theories (mostly of mental health) are 'disabling' to obtaining a truer perspective on social distress and any resulting mental ill health. There is a wealth of social theory, research evidence, established good practices & methods and clear positive, initiatives in social work and social care. There are good, evidenced based practices, model examples of good professional practice and sound legislations, arising out Human Rights Conventions. These established knowledge and skills base are available through basic Professional Training, Post Qualifying Training and through regular Government Guidelines. Many of these legal, ethical and professional requirements and guidelines, are largely ignored, undermined, or displaced by other priorities, in health and social care practice. Copycat failures of 'good initiatives' make things worse. Lack of insight and appropriate perspectives and attitudes, disable these initiative and 'invalidate' them temporarily in those instances where they are inappropriately applied. Persistent requirements for change often result in cosmetic changes and restructuring which has more to do with saving money and reducing litigation, than improved professional practice. The changes of attitudes, within the core, controlling groups of Professional Bodies is far more crucial to improvement, than the continued pressure of the user interface of health and social care work. It is my extensive experience that professional newcomers to health & social care often have the right attitudes and skills to substantially improve services, even with the restricted resources. Their energy and initiatives are often stilted by institutional lethargy which, far from protecting established knowledge and values, now stagnates and disables the best practices that we are superficially proposing. The latest publicised failure of institutions to protect children, the vulnerable adults and elderly are, as we know as professionals, the tip of a distressing health & social care iceberg. The professional infighting, fragmented services and protectionist practices, leave gaping holes in the fabric of social care. The same kinds of institutional failures that I experienced as a child, as an adult and as a professional are still there. Some of this is due to individual professional failures, of course. We are all fallible. But the fact that services remain so denuded and ineffectual, except for when problems reach an unavoidable crisis (where most of the damage has already been done), is a sad testament to competence and insight of the Managers of these institutions. There has been too much covering up, or masking of failures. Delaying positive interventions, in hope that problems will sort themselves out naturally. Justifying delays on the basis of inadequate resources. Assessing needs by the criteria of the funds and resources available. Seeking physical evidence at the expense of recognising the psychological, emotional an social impacts of abuse and neglect. Little has change in these important respects, since my first early personal experiences. The availability of early, positive intervention, in family and personal crisis, has seemed to have worsened, since my earliest days in Social Work and Mental Health practices. Fear, prejudice ignorance would seem to play a large part in this It seems almost incredulous that this is the case, in spite of improved assessments, treatments, intervention styles, skills, knowledge and very substantial increases in funding. The only explanations are the poor management of these valuable resources and the dependency creating and restrictive style of the intransigent, institutional practices. The Survivors of Abuse and Institutional Neglect: Such experiences as ours are more extensive than most people recognise, even those who have been abused in some way. We will show that the usual professional assumptions about the nature and circumstances of 'abuse' are inadequate, time after time. The character of abuse has been institutionalised, it is part of our culture and we are 'educated' to tolerate some level of 'abusive behaviour' and to believe that this is not challengeable. It is, in Law, but institutional prejudices and ignorance of the nature of abuse, often disables effective action. Our cultures and communities play a significant part in creating and perpetuating neglectful and abusive situations and personalities. This misunderstanding is often because of fundamental prejudices, perpetuated by 'relative', professional ignorance, sometimes produced by ill conceived, but more often by completely misunderstood interpretations of 'good ideas' and what are often called 'model' practices. Society establishes 'stereotypes' of abusers and victims. Unless either, or both, fit the 'stereotypes', the abuse often has little credibility in the public, or professional eye. Professional understanding has slowly improved over the last 30 years, but these is still a fundamental misunderstanding of, and refusal to acknowledge, the cause and effect of abuse. As many of you will know, the consequences of abuse often remain unresolved for many years and the professional responses are often inadequate, condescending and often 'disabling'. It is impossible to obtain the insights and knowledge by formal training alone. The supposed 'irrational' and 'emotional' accounts are quite credible, some of the 'rational' ones flawed, or false. There will be others who, like myself, have discovered the more fundamental causes and effects of neglect and abuse, and have further developed a more insightful perspective on our cultures and communities. Undoing the damage is difficult but is achievable. This has been demonstrated by 'good' community projects (often initiated by those who have had problems themselves). These projects are sometimes 'copied' by well meaning professionals, some succeed because of the insight they gain, others fail (with consequence for us all) because they were poor copies. Intellectual and academic insight can be valuable in helping understanding, especially for those who have gladly not had these experiences. Especially where they help towards a greater understanding of the nature of 'cause & effect' and the means of overcoming, or resolving the consequences in 'constructive', life enhancing ways. This requires a more 'open' understanding than is currently the norm. We seek to remedy this situation. There is, however, substantial professional and institutional resistance to this, for reasons we explain. There has never been a better time than now, to ensure that these perspectives are heard and for professionals to take 'service user' initiatives as the basis for their future provision of service, fully including the services users of all types and backgrounds, who have the energy and motivation to become 'actively' involved in the design and implementations of services. | 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 |
