The last three posts have argued that what society generally regards as hard-problems-to-solve (like rocket science, space travel etc.) are actually a lot easier to solve than problems that we haven’t managed to solve (like young people getting involved in crime).
Now using the word solve in the context of an emotional problem is not the same as using it in the world of technology. That is because in our general meaning of the word, solving a problem in the world of the emotions involves growth, and growth involves the root foundations. It is a dynamic, circular process rather than a stepped, linear process. Outcomes are uncertain and unpredictable. It is facilitated by hope, inspiration, connection, love, self-belief and similar human characteristics.
So most of us (I imagine) would find it easier to solve a technical problem than an emotional problem. And most parents who are grappling with an acute emotional problem would give their right arm (as we say) to be able to solve it technically – and permanently!
Of course, society is just a collection of many individuals. So is it any wonder that society in general has the same attitude?
The Pillars think that fixed, time-limited solutions are good for people because they seem to work in mainstream health and education, but they do not really benefit our Focus Group that much.
In short, the kind of thinking that promotes such solutions is based on fundamental belief systems of our reductive, cognitive behavioural oriented institutions where problems can usually be solved, rather than the needs of children and families that are carrying a lot of pain and hurt.
Supporting children in their growth, whether it is through teaching, mainstream youth work, or in sports or adventure type clubs etc. who fall within normal development is relatively complex in itself, and involves utilising human relationship skills, that, being well-adjusted adults, most of us have naturally.
(I am making this assumption firstly on my own observations over my lifetime and also on the basis that we have evolved over thousands of generations to what we are today).
When we support children who are suffering, angry, traumatised, fearful, distrustful, and/or have special, sometimes acute emotional needs our rational, objective, logical techno-fix type reductive skills will need to be augmented by emotional skills such as intuition, love, inspiration and creativity.
These, of course, are the same emotional skills that we would use as a good enough parent.
Therefore, one of the central arguments of the website is that we include some of the characteristics of good enough parent (and good enough family) in our work.
And is parenting hard or easy? Well, as all parents know, sometimes it’s hard, and sometimes it’s easy.
I’d say that most parents would agree that the most difficult aspects of parenting are around the so-called terrible twos-threes and the teenage years. Both developmental stages are characterised by oppositional behaviour, temper tantrums, boundary-pushing, (and in the teenager) secrecy, furtiveness, and the ‘I wish I knew what was going on in his mind‘ thinking by parents.
I’d also say that most parents would agree that overcoming these challenges is hard and parents can often be exhausted and worn out when their children are going through these stages.
Anyone who has worked in family support or child protection will be aware that getting the balance between the norms of an organisation and family is not easy. Many of the challenges will be addressed in the Chapters on Person Centred Modality and the Family Support Shamrock which are following shortly.
However we do it, I’d like you to try and imagine the pride of a community, (even a nation) if, for example, criminality and imprisonment were substantially reduced by helping vulnerable parents in disadvantaged communities promote pro-social and positive traits in their at-risk teenage children.
This is something that a wide cross section of people in society could be involved in rather than an elite cadre of scientists, engineers and astronauts.
Yet in most countries (that I know anyway) work helping the most vulnerable is characterised by poor pay, insecurity in employment and generally not-very-high status. (I gave an example of this at the bottom of this post when I compared the status, pay etc. of people who work in crèches with that of other educators).
And I expand this theme in Section Five in the Chapter on Organisational Matters – Sub-Chapter on Security.
The substantial differences in status, job security, remuneration and indeed usefulness to society bear no relation, in terms of complexity, to the differences between working in technology and helping people in distress.