3.3 Universal Theory Of Change

So far we have described Cause and Effect and Systems Theory and this Chapter will refer to both previous Chapters in exploring what a Universal Theory of Change might look like for those whose lives are on the margins, or at the extremes, of mainstream society, who we have called the Focus Group, and whose children may have experiences like those described in this post.

Now proposing a Theory of Change is a bit of a risk because, implied in proposing it, is the assumption that the theory or theories that we currently have can be improved upon.

And I truly believe that they can. Otherwise I wouldn’t be doing this website at all!

My journey, which I have found energising and stimulating in searching for the roots of change or specifically the roots of empowerment, is what this Chapter is all about.

It is divided into Six Sub-Chapters.

3.3.1                UNIVERSAL THEORY OF CHANGE – INTRODUCTION

3.3.2                UNIVERSAL THEORIES (GENERAL)

3.3.3                HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF UNIVERSAL THEORIES OF CHANGE

3.3.4                UNIVERSAL THEORIES – ROOT FOUNDATIONS

3.3.5                IDENTITY – EMOTIONAL GRAVITY

3.3.6                UNIVERSAL THEORY OF CHANGE – CONCLUSION

When considering a solution to the age old problems of crime and imprisonment the scientist part of me wanted to identify the root (or roots) of the problem, that is, reduce the problem to its basic principles, so we might build a solution.  In considering this I (obviously) tended to look towards inequality, addiction, poverty, etc. 

So my thoughts went thus:

We know that inequality is one of the root causes of crime.  What is the root of inequality?  Why do some people want enough for a hundred lifetimes while others don’t have enough for one day? 

I had no ready answer to this.

So I found myself asking, are inequality, addiction, poverty etc. merely proximate roots, (that is, roots near to the problem) and should I look for deeper roots?  Should I be looking to more fundamental matters concerned with our very existence, insecurity, power and control, the nature of humanity, philosophical or ontological, anthropological, hereditary roots rather than the more obvious proximate ones? 

Anyway after all my deliberations on roots I decided that I was only interested in them insofar as they were useful in forming a solution.

But then, gradually, over many years, I noticed something!

I noticed that it is a lot easier to support people who feel powerless on their journey of empowerment – thereby making their and their children’s lives better – than it is to encourage an unwilling system to change.

In particular, if I am going to consider energy usage, the energy used in transforming a child’s life for the better is far, far less than transforming policies, procedures, practices etc. within the Pillars so that they’d be more respectful of, empathic with and ultimately helpful to the families in the Focus Group.

So I became a lot more interested what I might call the roots of change or even, the roots of solutions than the roots of crime or even the roots of inequality.

I decided that I’d leave that to the media, academics and people who are good at campaigning.  (And, in a democracy, campaigning on these matters is very important). 

Also, I felt that identifying the roots of crime involved a lot of reductionist type thinking whereas investigating the roots of change seemed to be more exciting, more life affirming, and also had more of a systemic and holistic flavour.

In case you have not heard the term before, what I refer to as Universal Theories  are, simply, theories that apply in virtually every place in our known world, and at all times in history.  (Sometimes they are called unified theories).

Relationships between temperature, pressure, volume, between mass [1], velocity [2], and force, between electric and magnetic fields and charges, between light, brightness, darkness etc. can all be governed by universal theories.

Such theories, predicting the behaviour of all the phenomena mentioned above, have been used by humans from time immemorial to the present day.  For example, knowledge of the relationship between mass and force was used to construct levers (and other devices) to overcome gravity to lift the enormous boulders that were needed to build the Pyramids – I’ll give them a capital ‘P’ since they are so important – in Egypt over 3,000 years ago.

Relationships between electric and magnetic fields, theories of physics, electronics, optics, materials science and electrochemistry (among many others) were used building the laptop that I am using to type this page.

And the same theories that were used to build the above-mentioned Pyramids in Egypt were used by the Inca building their wonderful buildings in Peru, and by our own ancestors to build Newgrange.

We may even observe an animal having an instinctive knowledge of such relationships as it uses the well-known universal theory of gravity to (for example) topple a fruit from a tree.  It knows that it will fall down, not up.  And I saw a very entertaining Youtube video of a crow using some form of leverage with a stick to get food from behind an obstacle.

But enough of that – I’d say you know what I’m getting at by now!

All the above are examples of the use of Universal Theories in the physical world.

The remainder of this Chapter will explore their equivalents in the world of humanity – the natural world that I referred to near the start of the website.

[1]. Mass used in this context means the gravitational force that applies to anything.  On Earth we usually refer to it as weight – but mass will be different under different gravitational conditions.  For example, the mass of the same body is different on the Moon than it is on Earth because the gravitational pull of the Moon is a lot less than Earth.

[2]. Velocity is slightly different to speed. It refers to the change in position of a body in a particular period of time rather than the distance covered.

I’d like to propose that when we apply theories we do it so that something will change. 

Remembering the previous section on Systems Theory, the building of the Pyramids not only changed the physical landscape of ancient Egypt, it also changed people’s image of, and attitude to their rulers, (the Pharaohs).

The Pharaohs’ theory undoubtedly was, if we build these ostentatious buildings, the ordinary people will be in awe of us.  As a result we will be able to influence them. 

Imagine the effect of these enormous buildings, which were (to the best of my knowledge – because I watched some of those programmes about King Tut – tombs for the Pharaohs) on society at that time.  The Pyramids (like, I suppose, royal palaces like Buckingham Palace in the modern world) bolstered the image of the ruling families so that the people in their countries would perceive themselves more as subjects rather than citizens with human rights.

In this respect such buildings were (and are) symbols of power, wealth, status, and above all superiority.  It has always fascinated me how Imperial powers (I’ll give them a capital ‘I’ since they were so influential in our world) in addition to the ownership of vast amounts of space worldwide, managed to take ownership of time also, using the names of former kings, queens, emperors, dynastic families etc. to describe time intervals.

In our part of the world these names are Georgian, Elizabethan, Victorian, etc.  I don’t know enough about other parts of the world to see if they have equivalent names for eras – though I would suspect that the French might describe a certain time period as Napoleonic, and long Chinese periods are named after whatever dynasty was in power at that time. (These themes were dealt with in more detail on the Chapter on Power and Control in Society).

Getting away from Pharaohs and Kings and ostentatious buildings, consider how the humble laptop, tablet, smart-phone etc. – have all changed the world.

The initial makers of, for example, mobile phones, had a theory that if communication was made easier people would buy large quantities of their products thereby making vast profits from them – because they knew that humans seem to have an insatiable desire to communicate with each other.

And they were right!

They have brought about global connection that would have been unimaginable even a few decades ago, but they also have caused increased isolation and, indeed, unexpected marginalisation that would have been undreamed-of in previous decades.

For example, the increase in electronic type communication means that hardly anyone writes letters anymore.  Thus the viability of rural Post Offices is under threat.  With closure of rural Post Offices elderly people living in rural areas that do not drive and have no access to cars may become marginalised.  This marginalisation is indirectly caused by almost everyone owning laptops, smart phones, tablets etc.

(This is all very systemic – as I am sure you know – if you have read the Chapter on Systems Theory).

And in the early 2000’s a laptop may have been a symbol of technical knowledge or perhaps yuppie type aspirations but – like the motor car in the second half of the 20^th Century – laptops (not to mention tablets and smartphones) are so commonplace nowadays that they do not have that image anymore.

I could give numerous examples of how humans applied theories of the physical world to construct items large and small, (from the Pyramids to the smart-phone), and, in tandem, theories of human behaviour to effect change that they intended and/or desired from that which has been constructed.

Applications of theories change both how we perceive the world and live our lives, (and, indeed, our society at large) but what I think is important is that, after a while getting used to them, we don’t really think about the changes that much, we generally take them for granted – high impact-low noticeability again)!

When it came to healing, the great leap forward (to borrow a phrase from Chairman Mao – who was no slouch when it came to ostentatious buildings) was when universal theories of the natural/physical world (chemistry, biology, microbiology etc.) began to be applied in medicine.

This way of looking at the world also extended into farming, education, (which concerns the subject matter of this website) and is now applicable in almost every aspect of our lives.  (Some attention is given to the changes that brought about great advances in medicine in different parts of the website).

Because our primary concern is the healing of the mind and spirit rather than the body (though of course they are all interconnected) it is necessary to consider how applications of universal theories might cause change-for-the-better in society.

Mainstream education (from what I know anyway) in almost every country in the world adheres to universal theories of behaviour change. In this, a child’s behaviour is changed through 14 or 15 years of schooling so that they can learn enough to pass exams and go out into the world as (hopefully) mature responsible autonomous adults. 

This is our, adults’ attempt at conditioning younger members of society to be as like us as possible, to carry on our values, norms, etc.

(Though critics might say that the paradigm of schooling as we experience it is more helpful to the corporate world than the individual child – as I mentioned in the Chapter on Important Descriptions; Academia).

In mainstream mental health provision, which is concerned with healing the mind, psyche etc. there are also universal theories of behaviour change, and we will take a little time to explore them now.

In the realm of our emotional or mental health, I’d like to propose that the mental health of all of us is judged by how we behave.

It is our behaviour that attracts concerned others’ attention to us.  If our behaviour is substantially different to what is deemed by most of the population to be normal, and this behaviour causes fear, anxiety, embarrassment, shame or even anger in concerned others, then those concerned others may refer us to mental health professionals (or we may refer ourselves, if our behaviour is causing us sufficient unhappiness) with the long term aim that our behaviour is modified to what is acceptable to those closest to us, the rest of society and, of course, if we are in distress, ourselves.

On meeting the mental health professional, (in the vast majority of the types of mainstream mental health provision that I am aware of) patients are examined, or assessed, in a manner similar to how they would be assessed if they were physically ill. 

In fact, the practitioner who responds to the individual seeking help (a mental health nurse or psychiatrist) will almost always have done their basic training in the medical model.  Also, the individual in distress is usually referred to as a patient.

Following the initial assessment, (just like a physical illness) whatever is wrong with them is diagnosed, and then some form of medication, or other approved medical treatment is prescribed so that their behaviour will change to what will ultimately be normal and, (as I said above), acceptable to the majority of people in society.

The paradigm of assess – diagnose – prescribe mostly uses universal theories of change that have been tried and trusted in the realm of physical illness for healing of mental illness and the emotional distress that accompanies it.

In the next post I will discuss how this paradigm works on what we call the margins of society.

The previous post describes how mainstream mental health practitioners (usually trained in the medical/psychiatric tradition) assess people who come looking for help, diagnose what is wrong with them, and then prescribe whatever they think will bring them back to health.

Now an interesting thing about universal theories of the natural, physical world (that is, the ones that built the Pyramids and this laptop) is that they do not hold true at the natural world’s margins (i.e. its extremes, like speeds approaching that of light, or temperatures close to what scientists call absolute zero, or extremely high temperatures where gas turns to plasma.

For example, liquid helium at absolute zero becomes what is known as a super-fluid, mysteriously flowing upwards and defying gravity.  Similarly, Einstein and others proved that the mass of a body will increase greatly when it is coming close to the speed of light.

In Section Four I will state that it is interesting for us to explore phenomena in the physical, natural world and see if they are of any use, or have any application in the world of helping people.

And this is what I am doing here, in proposing that, analogous to (but, of course, not the same as) the natural physical world, universal theories of behaviour change in health and education do not hold true at what we often refer to as the margins, or extremes, of human society.

Now it doesn’t matter an awful lot to the vast majority of humanity that, (for example) gravity as we expect it, (or as the animal might expect it when he topples the fruit from the tree) does not apply at temperatures close to absolute zero, or that our mass might change at speeds approaching that of light, i.e., the margins or extremes of our physical world.  There are no humans living in places where temperatures are near absolute zero, nor is it likely that many of us will be trekking at light-speed in the foreseeable future!

However, it affects our society a lot that the universal theories of education and health do not apply at the margins or extremes of human society.

Yet, since time immemorial the universal theories that have worked with the vast majority of the population have been applied in trying to change people whose level of distress causes them to behave in a way that worry us, that we sometimes fear, that cause themselves and others great unhappiness, that is destructive towards themselves and society, in short, the behaviours that cause them to be considered to be living on the margins or extremes of society.

That is, sleeping rough, in prison, chronically ill, extremely poor, addicted to drugs, illiterate, suicidal, mentally ill, deeply emotionally distressed and very often all and/or a mixture of all the above. [1]

Once again let me borrow from the world of physics. (I know that these few lines might only make sense to those who have an interest in same – but I’ll have a go anyway).

Using the paradigm that works with the vast majority of the population to support people as described in the previous paragraph is like applying Newtonian, or classical mechanics to understand Planck’s quantum theory or Einstein’s theory of relativity, both of which – in the early decades of the 20th century – changed physics, then all related sciences, and thereafter our entire world. The traditional theories might be helpful to some degree, but the new theories require different thinking altogether.

Similarly, the majority of helping modalities assume that what works in most contexts of humanity will work on the margins also.

While the modality might be modified or adjusted in some way, the basic paradigm – particularly in respect of the logic model of diagnose – prescribe, or its educational equivalent, teach – examine, remains more or less the same.

If what is offered doesn’t work, (i.e. if a mentally ill person doesn’t change for the better, or a pupil doesn’t learn quickly enough) invariably the assumption is that there is something wrong with the patient, or pupil, i.e. the receiver of the help – not the modality or paradigm itself.

This website proposes that – like quantum theory mentioned above – completely new thinking is required to address problems that have always been challenging for society.

I will now digress slightly, and place the Chapter on Universal Theories of Change in a historical context, pertaining in particular to my native land, Ireland. This is offered in the next Sub-Chapter; 3.3.3.

[1]. Other extremes in society, where general universal theories might not apply could be wartime, famine, the aftermath of terrible natural disasters, etc. or indeed any time or circumstance where people suffer significant amounts of trauma.

Before I discuss a Universal Theory of Change in respect of those who are living on what we often refer to as the margins of society, it might be interesting to examine what I believe are two very important solutions that were in the past, and to some extent still are, promoted as having a good chance of success when helping people in deep distress, i.e. the results of theories of change that most people accepted would work in situations where people were suffering.

As I am writing this in Ireland, the solutions described are from an Irish context.  I am fairly sure that similar examples could be found in other cultures.

The two solutions are 1): One-Way Knowledge Flow Paradigm and 2): Protection of the Institution of the Family.

I will then draw both together in describing 3): Historical and Modern Parallels.

What I mean by the one-way knowledge flow paradigm is, simply, the belief that knowledge of what is good for us flows from people who have a high level of formal education, high status in society, (and maybe) long life and professional experience, etc. to those who don’t.

It is important to note that knowledge flow, in this case, as I state elsewhere, will encompass cognitive, emotional, spiritual and physical dimensions of our being.

As an aside, I believe that there is an element of two-way knowledge flow in almost every encounter. Sometimes we are aware that we are garnering knowledge from the other, sometimes we are not aware.

Now to all intents and purposes, most mainstream teaching/learning in our society is one-way.

In the educational paradigm that we are all familiar with, if we are teachers, we are not always aware that we are garnering knowledge – because the paradigm is designed so that the knowledge flow is explicitly one-way.  (If we are open to being aware, there is a better chance that knowledge flow will be two-way).

For example, when I teach my child how to tie his shoelaces I am learning something about my child and also something about myself. The something-about-myself is gleaned from my child’s response to my efforts to teach him. This knowledge is usually transferred and absorbed unconsciously.  (It could be knowledge about my child’s capacity to learn, or my own ability to be patient.  Or it could be about my abilities as a teacher or instructor).

And – this is not an anti one-way knowledge flow rant. In many situations it is of vital importance in our journey through life. The next post will describe conditions for its success.

Many years ago I had a minor operation.

During this operation, I handed over full responsibility for slicing me open and removing a badly functioning part of me to the surgeon and another person who I assumed was his assistant.  Because I was only partially anesthetised I (kind of) knew what was going on, but I had no part in the process, nor could I influence it.  I was amenable to having the operation, did precisely what I was advised to do before and after it, and recovered relatively quickly afterwards.

The medics knew a lot more than me about slicing through flesh, identifying and extracting an organ that was causing my body some problem, and then sewing it all back together.

All the expertise flowed from the surgeon and his small team to me – not only during the operation itself, but also in issuing instructions to me about how to recover afterwards.  When the operation was over I was turfed out of hospital (as one is nowadays) after the very welcome tea and toast and then the responsibility to recover fully was virtually all down to me!

The result of this minor operation was an example of great success in the one-way knowledge flow paradigm of helping and one of the reasons for the success was that I was open and receptive to all the medical advice given to me.

So, one-way knowledge flow makes one major assumption for success.

The assumption is that I, when I am told what is good for me, am receptive to hearing it, accepting it, appreciating its value, and then acting or following through on it.

That is the minimum requirement for success – but to make the most of one-way knowledge flow a further modification is assumed.

That is, that I will graft what I am learning onto other information acquired previously, in a linear or stepped manner, so that I am continually adding to my knowledge, integrating my learning, and increasing my capacity in respect of same.

This is the principal way that most of us learned in school and college, and was certainly the way I learned until my mid-thirties – when I discovered that it could be complemented by what I came to know as experiential learning – that is, learning as much from and by experience as from stepped/linear learning. (In this case, the knowledge flow is more in the emotional dimension than the cognitive).

In my life in general I always was, (and, I think, still am – as evidenced by the example I just gave of my experience in hospital) – a relatively compliant and obedient subject for both receiving knowledge and building on knowledge already known, to increase my overall level in a stepped manner as I described above.

Indeed, this website is probably a result of such receptiveness and acceptance!

Before I go on to discuss people in deep distress, I’d like to suggest that, actually, the majority of us are a bit anti when it comes to one-way knowledge flow but we probably put up with it because firstly we feel that we have no option and secondly the methods by which it has been implemented over countless generations in so many different power structures are honed to the extent that we don’t think about it that much. One-way knowledge flow has survived every type of society; imperialism, feudalism, royalism, fascism, socialism, communism, and democracy.

We probably have this anti feeling because in many cases, we don’t accept that others know better than we do about many aspects of our lives – but we are conditioned into believing that they do.

It is, like gravity and breathing, yet another high impact-low noticeability phenomenon.

The reason I maintain that people don’t embrace it fully is because of the extent of the passive-aggressive type behaviour that we all observe in society such as doing the bare minimum, constantly complaining about things but feeling powerless to do anything, making fraudulent claims, tax dodging, cheating on entitlements and the like.

Of course, not all societies are the same.  That is, there are probably countries where legitimate authority appears to be genuinely accepted, where governments and powerful interests have a social contract with the citizens and encourage citizens to have more influence in decision making about their destiny.