3.3.2 Universal Theories (General)

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.