3.5.4 Complex Variables

Before I come to actual descriptions/critiques of modalities that I consider helpful I would like to discuss the presence of what I will describe as complex variables (things that are complex, and are continually varying, or changing), and their significance in family support work. (If you have skipped to this post it might be helpful, before you read on, to read the post on complexity in the Chapter on Systems Theory).

In addition to the real-life examples of the incidents in the last Sub-Chapter, this Sub-Chapter offers a theoretical rationale for the selection of some modalities over others.

Having studied mathematics and physics in some depth I became familiar with complex variables.

When I first learned about them (or tried to), they applied in engineering, and in electronic communications in respect of transmission of radio waves and such matters.

Because I went straight from the world of radar and radio to the world of helping people in distress I often pondered on what I carried with me – and how they could be applied, that is, if they were of any practical use.

The thing that struck me when I thought about it a bit was that the understanding and use of complex variables for the benefit of humans was primarily in the mental sphere of our being.

But in the emotional sphere, there is complexity also – though of a different kind.

Compare the heart (what we feel – complexity – fluidity – aliveness – uncertainty) to the head (what we think – complicated – separate moving parts – mechanical – certainty).

That is not to say that one doesn’t get emotional about matters of the head, i.e. mathematics – it can be an immensely exciting and at the same time frustrating discipline!  But when it’s done it’s done, and the same equations can be applied at different times and in different places and give us the same results.  And a radio wave transmitted from Ulaan Baatar will have the same properties, and will be similarly affected by different factors at both its point and path of transmission, as one transmitted from Lesotho.

As I gained more knowledge and experience of psychotherapy, social work, youth work, community work and such disciplines I learned words and phrases such as social capital, person centred work, developmental milestones, resilience, pro-social behaviour, recidivism and many more.

These terms replaced the terms that I was accustomed to using up to that time, such as communication, propagation, attenuation, amplification and complex variables!

I was often struck at how some of the terms could be applied in both fields.

The most striking one that was common to both was, of course communication. Electronic communication and personal communication are quite different, but there were other less obvious ones.

For example, the uncertainty principle (which I first came across in quantum physics) I recognised to be of particular relevance in the field of helping people. Another word propagation (which has a specific meaning for radio waves) – has a slightly different meaning in the human context.

And, having come from the Army, words like security and secure (locks, bolts, guardrooms armaments, secrecy) have completely different meanings in the military and the security forces to the meanings that they have in the world of relationships and helping people. Remember the secure base in this post?

And finally, the above mentioned complex variable, a term that I don’t remember seeing in a social work, psychotherapy or community work manual or book, is, (as I will argue in the next post) very relevant in the world of helping people in distress.

How many times will we say as parents, teachers or youth workers ‘I’d love to know what’s going on in his mind’, when we are worrying about a child or teenager?

I will use this simple and very commonly uttered sentence to describe the relevance of the complex variable in our work.

If only I, the helper, knew what was going on in the distressed person’s mind I’d be able to intervene and fix whatever was wrong.

But I don’t – and even if he tells me, I may always doubt the congruence, accuracy or truth of his description, and if I am self-aware I know that what he shares with me is filtered through my own experience or experiences. 

So I have to live, at all times, with a substantial amount of uncertainty.

Because you see, no matter how mysterious the goings-on within a space shuttle, a laptop, a jet plane, or a hydroelectric dam are to the layman, they have all been built by humans, and humans with the required knowledge, working manuals, skills and tools will know what is going on in them, and will be able to repair anything that malfunctions, by simply (well – maybe not that simply – but you know what I mean) following the logical steps described by the manufacturer.

And while an engineer will sometimes make very good use of intuition to effect positive change in the way an engine works, the engine will never withhold information about itself, either unknowingly or intentionally.

Nor will a machine try to influence the future, distort the past, or even, upon consideration, reveal something about itself next week that it did not feel like revealing this week.

(Just as an aside, the more adventurous of us scientists are open to the argument that because of some mysterious and as yet not understood human-machine connection, an engineer may effect positive change in a seemingly inanimate system by being interested in or passionate about it.  I think that I have experienced this myself — but I’m not sure)!

Getting back to humans, the physician that takes on the responsibility for fixing a physical condition, (a broken finger, a burst appendix etc.) can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt as to what is going on inside the body. And the entire world of psychiatry has, for decades, been based on the expert (a psychiatrist) trying to find out what is going on inside a patient’s brain.

However a helper that takes on responsibility for emotional healing can never be sure what is going on inside the mind!

If the ability, intention or willingness to withhold knowledge, (or even to unconsciously possess knowledge that has yet to emerge into the conscious mind) points to a higher level of complexity, then the ability to change one’s mind (and thereafter one’s behaviour) from day to day or week to week indicates a high level of variability.

And in addition to not being aware of knowledge that one possesses, there may be awareness of the knowledge but non-awareness of the reasons for the decision to withhold the knowledge.

And added to the already complex situation just described is the fact that the mood or attitude of the helper will undoubtedly produce substantially different results.

That is, those of us who enjoy our work, and offer hope, inspiration, warmth, trust and love will most probably have more positive outcomes than those who are clinical, detached, or uninvolved – I believe anyway.

It is evident from the previous post that not only is the level of complexity in the helping environment determined by the characteristics of the person being helped, it is also influenced by the characteristics (and attitude) of the helper, or practitioner.

This suggests a major challenge!

We, as practitioners, to be effective, need to be part of the process but not so immersed in it that is we are lost in it, or, to use a Gestalt Therapy expression, confluent. (This challenge was referred to already when we discussed why crime always seems to be an insolvable problem).

I describe what is known as Person Centred modality later, which suggests that we are empathic, that is, we endeavour to walk in another’s shoes, i.e. connect with the person seeking help – like the parent with the 7 year old child at the start of this Chapter – and try see the world through the eyes of the person seeking our assistance.

But we also need to be self-aware enough to continue to see the world through our own eyes, and indeed through the eyes of common sense, reason and what will work.

A major difference between the complex variables in the world of technology and the world of humanity is that while the former can be expressed mathematically (using reduction) it will usually only be possible to express the latter qualitatively (or holistically).

Another difference is the challenge (as we just described) presented by the lack of knowledge of what is going on.

In the world of technology we almost always have to know what is going on, so we can analyse it and fix it.

However in the world of helping people lack of knowledge of what is going on in someone else’s mind, body or indeed spirit should not be a major problem!

It simply means that we need to be aware of, use and trust the root foundations already referred to.

That is, trust in the powers of relationship, love, time, emergence, consciousness, affect etc. and believe that whatever materialises as an outcome will contribute to positive growth and development of the person. 

Now if I am fixing an engine and I leave it on a Friday for the weekend – I can return to the same engine on Monday morning and take up where I left off.

However if I leave a human being on a Friday and have no contact for the weekend, many changes may have taken place in the intervening period.  These changes may be due to:

1. An event or events in the person’s environment that she may have no control over.

2. The active presence of the root foundations as mentioned above.

(And, mixture of 1 and 2)

3. Intentional responses by her, to events in her environment, which, due to conscious or unconscious activity of the root foundations, may be different on Monday morning to what her response to the same event might have been on Friday evening.

But the challenge of complexity isn’t confined to the individual practitioner.

Complexity also presents challenges to organisations who are responsible for protection of vulnerable people including children as I will discuss in the next post.

Now I am going out on a bit of a limb here but I have some evidence to support it – and it has relevance in our selection of modalities!

From all the evidence that I have gathered over the years, I conclude that the Pillars in general find it hard to accept that supporting very hurt people is complex and varied.  This, I believe, is due to the effects of the dominance of left-brain thinking on the world in general and in particular how it impacts on the work of helping people.

Left-brain thinking is the typically male way of looking at the world and implies logic, certainty, reason, and focusing on measurable outcomes.

Right-brain thinking, on the other hand, is usually associated with the typically female way of viewing the world, implying intuition, creativity and focusing on relationships.

To discuss the left-brain and the right brain functions in detail would be way beyond the scope of this website.  For those who are interested, articles/books etc. are freely available from many sources. Prof. Billy O’Connor from University of Limerick has a very informative website www.inside-the-brain.com which contains much useful information on such matters.

The world has always (or certainly over the last 300 years – but probably always) apportioned lesser status to what is considered to be women’s work, i.e. work where activities, outcomes etc. are based on intuition, relationships, creativity, warmth and similar traits.

This is seen all over the working environment. And, in respect of lesser-status, despite all the progress made on women’s rights over many decades there is still no payment by the State (in Ireland anyway) to the parent – usually the woman – who decides to do, full time, the most important and complex job of all, raising children. [1].

I believe that this is partly due to the esteem of left-brain thinking in society in general, as evidenced by the expression – if something is deemed to be not that difficult – ‘it’s not rocket science, you know’!  You never hear ‘it’s not childcare, you know’! This elevates rocket science to a status that in my experience anyway, is hardly deserved – and strongly influences the attitude (and thus the decision-making) of the Pillars in their consideration of how to solve what appear to be intractable social problems.

I will digress briefly to explain why I think that way.

I believe that lay people are generally in awe of science and scientific endeavour and this sense of awe has infiltrated into the Pillars.  It has been growing steadily since the days of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, but has skyrocketed (pardon the pun) in the last 100 years or so.

However, while requiring skills in logical deduction and (usually) a high degree of competence in scientific disciplines [2], technology (including to some extent medicine and pharmacology) while being highly complicated, is a relatively straightforward activity – if one has such skills and competences and/or has the money to recruit such people and pay them.

I believe that the reason why technology is held in such high esteem rests in the sheer power of inventions that changed our lives for the better, as well as replacing uncertainty, superstition, mystery and blind faith with common sense, reason and objective knowledge.  It has, over the past 100-150 years, in most of Europe, (and over the past 60-70 years in Ireland) elbowed religion off the most powerful perch as the primary influence in our day-to-day lives.

Now I am not at all criticising science, technology or the wonders of our modern world.  In fact I am a bit of a techie myself and I usually embrace new technological advances with enthusiasm. And it must not be forgotten that over the past few centuries the average citizen generally experienced technology (in debunking superstition and blind faith) as having both an equalising and a liberating effect.

I merely mention its topmost perch because I believe that community workers and in particular community leaders need to acknowledge that doing our work effectively requires skills that, complexity wise, are a lot different in kind to technologists.

But, as I stated above, mostly those skills are not deemed by the Pillars (or indeed, society in general) to be as credible, valid or, indeed, high-status as deductive, mathematical, rational and logical type skills that science and technology requires.

The use of the expression (i.e. it’s not rocket science) reveals our attitude and ultimately our prejudice……. And my intuition (that’s the right part of my brain by the way) tells me that the expression was probably coined by a man – not a woman.

I believe that it will be a good day for humanity when people consider the status of a person who works in a crèche to be equal to that of an astronaut!

[1]. The State, by its economic choices – in particular successive Governments’ housing policies – have made it increasingly financially difficult for one parent to choose to remain in the family home to raise children over the past number of decades. Two questions jump out at me about this! 1): Have any individuals or organisations that campaign on behalf of women lobbied Government over the years to secure some sort of payment for parents – but, as I said above, overwhelmingly women – who choose to stay at home, and, 2): Have any individuals or organisations that campaign on behalf of children lobbied Government to achieve the same end?

[2]. Physics, chemistry, biology, microbiology, biochemistry, electronics, computer science, geology etc. etc.