The 'Pecking Order' Syndrome:
The Powerful Farmer, with limited resources and keen interest to maximise his production, keep his chickens (and other animals) 'cooped up' in pens and sheds, with just enough food and space to do what is required of them. This keeps most of them plump and tender, but vulnerable. In these situations, scientists observed that chickens tended to peck the chicken next to them more frequently, or, if they have opportunity to move, the chicken more dishevelled and distressed than themselves. This behaviour was much more exaggerated than the 'quick peck and flurry' of one chicken protecting its opportunity to greedily grab at a morsel of food. It was 'pathological' behaviour, resulting from distress. That same, pathological behaviour, in a more sophisticated form, is often exhibited by abusers of all kinds, including by some managers and practitioners within institutions. It is very powerful, abusive behaviour and usually 'blinkers' the abuser and 'gags' the abused. If anyone ever wanted an explanation for why most abuses and neglect, of children, elderly frail, vulnerable women (and increasingly) vulnerable men, the physically disabled, culturally isolated and other vulnerable individuals and groups, this simple model of 'behaviour under distress' would explain most of these. There are, of course, pathologically abusive people. The tendency for individual professional's failure to adequately identify and intervene, is due almost entirely to the defensive, self protective nature of the Institutions that they work for. These characteristics, that I have described, have been there all along, for anyone, taking a critical perspective, to discover and explain. The reason that this has not happened is for the very same reason that the abuses continue. Institutions are part of the 'system' of abuse. Any stand against, or critical reflection, upon the Institutions, it's managers, or its professional's general conduct, is often met with a rather 'abusive' reaction, sometimes camouflaged as 'being detached', 'impartial', 'fair' and 'following correct procedures'. Modern professional training requires that professionals should be 'reflective' upon their practice. Any professional should review their conduct and critically reflect upon the impact upon the people they supposedly care for. This is very good advice and is consistent with what has shown to produce the very best of professional outcomes. Those with a natural inclination to 'reflect' have always done so and set good examples. It is on this basis that the requirement was introduced into professional training. In fact, most good practice guidelines arise out of observing and reporting (often through research) what has worked best in skilled individual practices, often demonstrated as part of a person's natural, high level social skills. Attempts to get others, without these natural skills, to follow the same pattern of practice, often fails to get the desired results. In many ways, the professional has to have this 'natural', vocational propensity, in order for it to be 'drawn out' of them. Imposing such requirements produces very dubious results, which are then incorporated into self-delusionary 'bad practices'. One other 'natural' propensity, of any good professional practitioner, is to critically reflect upon the behaviour and practices of other professionals and the institution itself. Good practitioners do undertake these forms of 'reflecting', regularly and usually quite politely and sensitively. Unfortunately, when they then attempt to 'disclose' the more serious, or persistent failings and institutional abuses, they are often the ones 'out of line', in the Institution's chicken pecking order. Consequently, they become the targets of the pecking order behaviour. Even the innocent, or more naive members of the the institution are often precipitated into 'defending' their profession, or institution. The reasons for this can be understood and explained, as I will demonstrate. It is how 'institutionalised' social behaviour operates and is very difficult to challenge from within. Serious, novel social psychological experiments have demonstrated this graphically (Milligram). As investigative journalism, of the type (in Social Welfare) of Ann Shearer, Dispatches, Panorama, have repeatedly shown, the institutions regularly fail to recognise their own failings. These failings are quite distinct from those of incompetent, dishonest and abusive professionals, who they have employed and subsequently failed to identify. Historically, Institutions have been able to orchestrate their policy and procedures, to give the impression that all the failing are down to individual incompetence and shortfalls. My own research, the research of others, the investigations of Journalists and, more recently, my own, extended direct 'operational research' experience, have come up with a consistent picture. One of institutional managers, tying up procedures and practices, in such a way that they are able to 'project' failing onto individual staff and then restrict public access to critical information that would demonstrate their own failings. | 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 |
