4.4 Energy

This Chapter is about energy.

It is very helpful for us as community workers to have an awareness of our energy, what gives us energy, and what drains our energy in our work assisting people in deep distress.

It is helpful because we need energy to change, or indeed, because changing uses energy!

The Chapter is divided into nine Sub-Chapters.

4.4.1                ENERGY – INTRODUCTION

4.4.2                ENERGY IN SYSTEMS

4.4.3                CONFLICT AND TENSION

4.4.4                ENTROPY AND ANARCHY

4.4.5                EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

4.4.6                THE ROLE OF EXCITEMENT

4.4.7                MYTH vs. REALITY

4.4.8                TENACITY

4.4.9                ENERGY – CONCLUSION  

A bit like the Sun in the Chapter on Cause, Effect and Nurture, we can describe our energy in two different ways.

Physical Energy

Most foods that we buy nowadays have some sort of label to let us know how many calories we will absorb if we eat or drink them.  A calorie is a measurement of energy.  (For the purposes of this description there is no need to give a scientific explanation of the calorie – anyone who is interested can look it up here).  It is enough to state (as you all probably know already) that we have to eat and drink to get calories into us.

Calories are a kind of fuel.

The energy that results from the intake of calories gives us vigour to go about our day to day living.  If we do a lot of physical exercise, we need more calories because, obviously, we need more energy.  Otherwise we will get fatigued and start losing weight.  If, on the other hand, we are eating and drinking a lot of foods that are high calorie and not exercising at all, we are not burning off the energy that we need to burn off so we start putting on weight, or our arteries get clogged etc.

As we go through life, we take in calories and burn them off every hour of every day – as does every other living thing.  And this is indeed linked to the Sun, which is the principal provider of the energy needed for plants to grow so we (and the animals that we eat) can eat them.

Spiritual Energy

Another way to describe the energy we have is to look at our energy in the context of our spirit.  Our spiritual energy gives us our will to live and our desire to be creative, to love life. The French term joie de vivre comes to mind!

It also increases when we are inspired by a fellow human, moved to action to do something altruistic or generous, or when we discover some potential in ourselves that was dormant.

We have life energy at conception and this increases and decreases throughout our life.  It increases as we are loved and nurtured, as our emotions are acknowledged as being real, as our root foundations are honoured and enabled, as we are affirmed and praised, and as we learn to put the inevitable anxieties and fears and ups and downs that we have growing up in perspective.

On the other hand, our spiritual energy decreases if we are lonely, isolated, empty inside, full of sadness or surrounded by negativity or cynicism.  If we are depressed we are usually very low in energy, no matter how much we eat or drink.

At the time of our death our energy is dissipated.  Some people would say that this energy has moved on.  Perhaps it moves on to descendants or other people who were emotionally close to the deceased.

When I was writing this website a good friend of mine died unexpectedly.  I could feel some of his energy around me and within me.  My memories of him are of wisdom and generosity and this inspires me.  That energy is a really positive energy.

Humans and Energy – General

Before I get into the nitty gritty of the Chapter I think that it would be interesting to consider the relationship that humans have with energy.

The only humans that live within what I’ll call our energy envelope (that is, use less energy than we actually have) are hunter gatherer tribes and farmers that use very primitive farming methods. The rest of us live way outside our energy envelope. We first started to do this when we got horses or other animals to do work for us, and/or identified materials that we could use either as tools or to make our lives more comfortable [1].

Take the example of wood, an early energy-saving material for humans. We can use it for fire to cook and keep ourselves warm, to build houses, furniture we need to make our lives easier, things to transport us faster than our legs e.g. boats, or carriages pulled by the aforementioned horse, etc. etc.

This is only sustainable (i.e. causes no harm) up to the point where we are using less wood than the time it takes to grow trees to replace the wood, or, as we know nowadays – in the case of fires to keep us warm – putting more carbon into the atmosphere than can be absorbed by the growth of new trees.

When it is the opposite we are interfering with the design of the natural world – and our actions become unsustainable. Of course, when we start burning turf, then coal, not to mention oil and gas, we multiply unsustainability a thousand-fold.

The harm that we then do in using more energy than we possess soon becomes virtually irreversible!

Conclusion

I would like to get back now to our physical and spiritual energies described above. For those of you who have stuck with the website this far you may have an expectation that it is spiritual energy that I am more interested in.  And you would be right.

But we need to remember that whatever we put into our body in the way of food or drink (or drugs) will determine much of our energy level too.  Both spiritual and physical energy are equally important and have a kind of mutuality.

For example, if we are very low in spiritual energy we may comfort eat to try to bring our energy level up, when it would be more advantageous for us to not eat at all and take some exercise.

And then of course, there is the false energy that we get from drinking to excess or taking drugs.  But our body trumps our brain here the next day as it demands the energy back in the form of a hangover!

So while we are alive there is a constant exchange of energy with our environment.  Much of our energy is used up adapting to changes in, or trying to change our environment.

The existentialist philosophers say that if we didn’t know we were going to die we’d never do anything meaningful with our lives.  It is the (unconscious and conscious) knowledge that death is inevitable that spurs us on. 

And more paradox – while, of course, death brings closure, our knowledge of its inevitability may give us energy, and contribute to our level of aliveness.

[1]. I mention the difference between product and process towards the end of this post. It is interesting that when we start living outside our energy envelope we usually do it to become more productive!

In this Sub-Chapter we will consider energy in systems.

By 2050 it is hoped that the motive power for all cars will be a battery, charged using power generated by solar radiation, wind turbines or similar.

But, traditionally, cars used the internal combustion engine, which is a system of cylinders, pistons, oils, fluids, electrics, coolants, etc. and the energy is provided by the fuel, (petrol or diesel).  If one of the parts is faulty, fuel (energy) is wasted because the faulty part of the engine acts as a negative force on the system.

Of course we are not engines but for the purposes of this discussion an analogy can be drawn.  If we consider our human system (like a team of workers) to be a number of individuals committed to achieving a particular goal, each, like the components of an engine, fulfilling a role that is interdependent, then, (making the assumption that we are all reasonably healthy and well fed – that is, our physical energy is taken care of), the fuel is our emotional wellness, or the level of our spiritual energy.

If we are emotionally well, the available fuel will be high quality. That is, if the majority of us are emotionally well enough [1] we will have sufficient energy to achieve our goals.  We may even have some left over for innovation and creativity!

This is a great advantage in a group of businessmen, engineers, builders, doctors, etc. but is not of vital importance.  That is to say, they can achieve their goals even if a number of them are emotionally unwell.  Profit can still be made.  Of course, profits will probably increase with high morale, but it is usually not a matter of survival or going under.

However if we are a group of family support workers in an organisation committed to supporting families in the Focus Group we need emotional wellness as much as a carpenter needs a T-square or a doctor needs a stethoscope.  High morale, positive self-esteem, and its first cousin self-confidence (there is a slight difference between the two) are tools of our trade and all are of vital importance.

People who come to our organisation looking for help will intuit whether or not we have high morale, self-esteem and self-confidence, if we are emotionally well, and have high energy.

Or not!

You might remember the description of the human tendency to be care-giving as well as care-seeking from the Sub-Chapter on Attachment.

There is an old saying that ‘God gives us the burdens that we can carry’.  I don’t know whether or not this is true but I do believe that people in distress give us practitioners the burdens that, they intuitively feel, we can carry.

Just like a child, who, (because his care-giving kicks in), will only give the parent the burden that she intuitively, or instinctively knows he will be able to carry [2], the person seeking help will intuitively know what a practitioner is able for and generally tailor requests, descriptions of distresses, etc. accordingly.

In some cases, where someone’s role in a family of origin may have been a caretaker one, they may begin to adopt the exact same caretaker role with the people that are employed (and being paid) to help them. 

(To understand this a little better, it might be interesting to think back to our own childhood and try and remember things that we didn’t tell our parents because we – often unconsciously, but sometimes in full conscious awareness – knew they would respond in a way that didn’t invite further discussion).

I believe that the emotional wellness of our group; or how much we can carry, or hold is intimately connected to how responsibility is viewed, both individually and collectively.

The principal reason for this is that our tendency towards responsibility [3] (as I stated in previous Chapters) is an existential given.

This will be further explored in the next post.

[1]. This includes being emotionally well enough to support, and not be judgmental of, a member of the group that is emotionally unwell from time to time.

[2]. Children are always giving parents their burdens to carry.  Good enough parenting involves handing back many of the burdens so that the children learn age-appropriate responsibility.  This is easier said than done, particularly when the child displays behaviour that is worrying the parent, triggering the parent’s rescue mode.

[3]. When I say that humans have a tendency towards responsibility I mean that, consciously or unconsciously, (as we grow) it is something that we yearn for, feel satisfied about, and gives meaning to our lives.

As good enough parents we model appropriate responsibility as our children grow. 

Being appropriately responsible gives us energy. Taking on too much responsibility (worrying about everyone and everything else) drains our energy.

What about taking no responsibility?

Surely if we take on no responsibility we’ll have loads of energy because we’ll have nothing to do or worry about. But actually I don’t believe that that is the case.

Being irresponsible is also an energy drainer because, ultimately, it will probably cause us trouble. Also, we may feel emotionally upset that we are not being true to ourselves – the existential guilt that I referred to in an earlier post.

Appropriate responsibility involves taking responsibility for all our successes, but also taking responsibility for things that go wrong.  And it means we take responsibility and not blame others, either explicitly or implicitly, for our own emotional state.

If we are good enough parents we judge what our child is capable of handling at a particular stage of development.  We can take on too much responsibility (i.e. cleaning our 10 year old’s room – thereby letting him off the hook), or too little responsibility (i.e. leaving our 10 year old in charge of a toddler and a baby when we go out drinking for the night) – thereby burdening him with too much too soon.

In the first instance, a child may feel the beginnings of (unconscious) existential angst or guilt (that is, the guilt that we aren’t being true to ourselves as I just mentioned) as he has an unconscious need to be responsible anyway.  In the second case, he will feel overburdened as he will have too much responsibility appropriate to his age.

As stated above, emotionally well parents will take responsibility for all their successes – and/or all their failures and it is the same in organisations.

How often have we heard people in an organisation that struggles to achieve its goals attributing blame not on themselves as individuals, but the organisation?  (A good clue as to the willingness to acknowledge responsibility is to listen to someone complaining and observe whether he uses the terms they, or we when talking about the organisation of which he is a part).

In almost all cultures of the world the fundamental system in human society is the family, and I have already explained the rationale for considering it to be an appropriate context to assist hurt children.

A popular model of therapeutic intervention with a family (which is based on Systems Theory) is known as systemic family therapy.  This is where the work with the family is done with an awareness of how each person’s behaviour affects everyone else and then the family as a whole.

A staff team in an organisation is also a system and many of the characteristics of families are transferable to staff teams.  For instance there could be a caretaker, a clown, a hero, a scapegoat, etc.  Almost always, these roles will be taken on unconsciously.

I believe that it gives us an energy boost if we become aware of, and then take responsibility for the roles we adopt.

Of course, the roles are usually not at all as pronounced as they would be in a family because a staff team will lack the privacy of a family. Also, a staff team will be governed by company rules, policies and procedures whereas a family will behave more in accordance with norms emanating from individual members’ different personalities, core beliefs, rituals, practices and responses to emotional experiences learned and handed down through many generations.

And, just like a family, the more the individuals take responsibility, the less pronounced the roles will be.

People can put energy into a team or take it out.

The amount of energy available to a team is a sum of the energies of each individual plus a mysterious group factor.

I mentioned in a previous post that an important law of physics is the Law Of Conservation Of Energy, that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. I wondered about this law when applied to groups of humans. Because – I believe anyway – while it probably holds true in respect of physical energy I’m not that sure if it’s true in respect of the spiritual energy we described earlier.

The reason that I wonder about this is that a well-functioning group of humans (such as, for example, a successful sports team) seems to have, in addition to the sum of the energies and skills of each member, a mysterious little bit extra that is indefinable. That is, once again quoting the old sage Aristotle; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They seem to be lucky, and little things that matter seem to go their way [1].

This is what we are aiming for in a team working with families in the Focus Group.

Now, in a team, obviously, on different days, different people will have different energy levels.  One could, for instance, have the ‘flu, and have very little to input.  Also, one could be suffering emotionally, (perhaps have problems at home), and need others on the team to ease his distress.  Taking account of all the ups and downs that affect individual members, I propose that in a healthy, well-functioning team the amount of energy available to do the work will go up and down but it should be relatively constant over a long time frame e.g. a year.

If a person comes into a team, i.e. a new staff member, it is expected that for a certain time they will take energy out of the system as they will be instructed, (and learn for themselves), how the team functions.

Just like a new teenager joining an already established gang, or a new baby being born into a family, there is a period of readjustment as the system gets accustomed to the new team member.

The period of time it takes for the energy to recover to its former level depends on how quickly the new member becomes a part of the team, how well trained she is for the job to be done, how empathic she is with the norms and ethos of the existing staff members, how she understands the essentials of the work, how well functioning, welcoming, generous, and open the existing staff are, and, crucially, how good she is at incidental learning.  (I will come back to incidental learning in the next post).

In a well-functioning team it is the case that this will be effected smoothly and the energy level will soon experience a net increase as the new member settles into his role and begins making a contribution.

It is sometimes difficult to break into a team – teams always have people who are close to each other and form friendships.  New members will gravitate towards those on the team they find common ground with and these can form cliques.

I propose that there is nothing wrong with close friendships unless they exclude others for mischievous or disingenuous reasons. [2]. In this, I believe that the more dysfunctional a team is the more damaging the cliques may be.

And unwelcoming cliques will certainly drain energy from a team.

[1]. I will describe the Johari Window in the Chapter on Training.  In the Johari Window the unknown pane can be considered to be the fount of great creativity, innovation, and even luck as people and organisations become more open, i.e. enabling a larger public space and more willing to accept and work on constructive criticism i.e. feedback.  The willingness to do this, is, of course, a function of the emotional wellness of the team. The Johari Window is a very useful tool for building awareness among individuals and teams – so long as members are up for it!

[2]. Though people may be excluded for operational reasons which would be different.

In respect of energy, I believe that a droplet of incidental learning in an individual joining a team is worth an ocean of induction training delivered by the organisation!

This is not because I am lazy, or do not wish to spend hours preparing induction training packages and days delivering them.  Naturally I think it is important that a new member of a team is instructed thoroughly on the essentials of the post and the organisation. 

However, I also believe that the person who is not able (or willing) to learn incidentally is probably not suitable to do the job, as mostly, our work with the Focus Group requires people to think on their feet and find out things by observation and experience, using initiative, creativity, and curiosity rather than being handed everything on a plate [1]. 

Also, it is far more powerful to learn a task by watching others and then integrating the learning than being explicitly taught. This is, after all, how the vast majority of us learned to sit up, to walk, to talk, to string together sentences (and maybe even to read), to play games, and a zillion other living skills that we take for granted.

The voyage of discovery undertaken by the new staff member will be complemented by the spirit of generosity in existing team members, who will assist her in settling in. The spirit of togetherness and camaraderie, the willingness to help others, be generous, (i.e. the morale), is the most important factor in ensuring that the energy level of a team remains high.

The necessity of induction type training, will, of course, vary from profession to profession.

For example, to allow an aircraft mechanic to learn by trial and error would be potentially catastrophic and highly irresponsible.

However, in family support work we need to remember that to err is human and while safety of vulnerable people is paramount in our work, there can be great learning for both the helper and the person being helped in the fixing of an error.

If we tie down our work too much in rules and regulations like those that would be necessary for an aircraft mechanic we stand the risk of losing spontaneity, humanity, creativity, vulnerability and many other desirable traits that contribute positively to the amount of energy in a team but that wouldn’t be much good keeping a plane from falling out of the sky.

[1]. I use this term to describe the learning done by observing others interacting.  It is vital in family support work with families in distress.  Studies show (and you may have observed yourself) that workers learn much more from watching others, trial and error, asking colleagues, etc. than from formal training.  If you are interested in these matters have a browse through articles about John Dewey, a radical thinker on education.  In common parlance incidental learning can be described as cop on!

Conflict is inevitable among a group of people living or working with each other. (There is probably no need to say that)!

Here I will consider conflict in our team and how it affects the energy available to do work.  Of course energy can come from the resolution of conflict and this can be a very positive thing.  It can thus be looked at (by a perceptive leader and/or supervisor) as an opportunity for growth and development.

However it can also be very destructive – particularly if it is not recognised for what it is.

Conflict appears to galvanise us far more than cooperation ever does.  For example, in a country going to war, every element of the state apparatus is mobilised to assist, and huge amounts of money and human resources are invested in the war effort.

This willingness of everyone to pull together can be easily understood, because the goal is to defeat an enemy which (rightly or wrongly) is thought to be a threat to our culture, livelihood, etc.

Not so easy to understand, however, is the general day-to-day attractiveness of conflict (disconnection) over cooperation (integration), which I also refer to here, and/or the reasons we find people hurting each other attractive to watch.  Whether it is serious headline crime that is reported in gory detail with great enthusiasm, through fiction in books, films, TV series, documentaries about people who are suffering, violent video games, or media that plant themselves in war zones, we appear to be almost addicted to watching people hurt each other and/or watching people suffer.

It may be because of our need for excitement (mentioned later) but I intuit that it is deeper than that.  Perhaps it is linked to our attractiveness to what is taboo and what we’d normally not encounter in our day-to-day lives; or a deep unresolved rage that we keep the lid on because to express it openly would not be in keeping with what society expects of us.

Whatever it is, I would say anyone who ever has worked as part of a team will recognise this galvanising, and sometimes destructive quality that conflict has.

It is important for leaders not to be drawn into the excitement of conflict and add to it.

That is, while conflict is an inevitable reality that needs to be acknowledged on an ongoing basis I believe that it can be given too much oxygen by leadership.

Not all conflict can be worked through, dealt with and finally resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.  Sometimes it needs to be parked.  Indeed the energy used to resolve conflict between two people who are unwilling to be reflective could often be used to further the well-being of those who seek our assistance.

The emotionally-well-enough staff member will be willing to park issues and hold difficult emotions until an appropriate forum (i.e. supervision) is available to move towards mature and responsible resolution.

It is true that the legal profession gains a lot from ongoing conflict that can sometimes be endemic in teams large and small – but much can be solved without recourse to external assistance too if a spirit of good-will is the dominant ethos in the organisation.

Now the purpose of engaging in conflict is usually to get one’s needs met.  (I refer to a previous post in the Chapter on Systems Theory in Section Three).  These needs might, of course, be unconscious and contain an element of dysfunction or even neurosis.

Underneath conflict there is often an element of suffering; the depth of which is dependent on the nature and/or intensity of the conflict, and how deeply the issues challenge our core values.  Suffering, in turn, is virtually always accompanied by a charged emotional state which is usually dominated by emotions such as anger, fear, anxiety, envy, insecurity, etc.

In our work we are in constant contact with members of families that often exhibit high levels of anger, fear, anxiety and similar emotions. How trauma finds its way into teams was discussed in a previous post and that is relevant here.

It is our responsibility to accommodate these emotions (including, very often, the chaos we spoke about in a previous Chapter), make sense of them, reframe them if appropriate, absorb some of the more irrational outbursts, and listen carefully for wisdom that might be usable as change nodes [1] which might not be that easy to spot. 

(More on this in the Chapter on Leadership in Section Five when we discuss Power).

Also, good enough leadership involves not allowing the conflict that we deal with every day among the people we are helping to be mirrored in the day to day encounters within our team.  This mirroring, or parallel process, is quite common among organisations that work with distressed families – we only have to look at how competitiveness, never ending rows, turf wars, power struggles, and a multitude of time and energy wasting issues abound in organisations, both statutory and voluntary.

[1]. Node is a term borrowed from computer and/or communications networks.  From our point of view it is a place where things happen together, or merge. So a change node can be viewed as a potential opportunity for either proposing a different view or framing a problem from a different perspective. A technical description is available here.

The sometimes unwanted (or unwelcome) tension – that can arise from unresolved conflict – that might exist between workers in our team can either paralyse us or provide a template for great creativity and innovation.

Many creative endeavours are the result of tension.  It could be tension between two personalities (for example, song-writing partnerships that produce great songs are often rife with tension) or an inner tension in an individual that precipitates a burst of energy which produces a great work of art.

Beyond art, music etc., many great inventions that changed the world resulted from an inner tension in individuals as they struggled with conflict within themselves.  On my own journey, the tension between what I was and what I wanted to be (or, the direction I wanted my life to take) gave me the energy to change my career.

Let us look at the family again to explore this further.  It is often the case in a family that while Mam and Dad will wish the same for their children they may have different priorities in respect of how they get there.

This comes from their different life experiences (i.e. the Atlantic Ocean of waves of feelings that we mentioned in the Chapter on Systems Theory).  Gender may well influence their priorities also.  The different priorities will inevitably cause some tension, the resolution of which can be either constructive or destructive, relationship-wise.

If we want the outcome to be constructive, it will be very helpful if the self-esteems of Mam and Dad are robust and healthy, so that they interpret a difference of opinion as being something that can be beneficial.  In this situation, the blend of both views will have great potential to be positive and ultimately creative in the resolution of the myriad of complex challenges that rearing children brings with it.

It is also, of course, very good modelling for the children as they observe expression of different opinions as a normal part of living, contributing to life, resolution of problems, and indeed, the norm for relationships that thrive.

It is the same in teams.  I believe that tension in a team is a good thing.

The expression of views, opinions, strong feelings arising from different personalities and life’s experiences is enriching and adds to productivity if, (like in the family) the atmosphere in our team is one that promotes and affirms diversity.

Such affirmation will increase our level of energy and, also like the family, will be very good modelling for people who come looking for help.  Much of what we explored in the Chapter on the Universal Theories of Change applies to tension in teams and agencies, and how it is dealt with when it manifests.

For example, in respect of the root foundations, it is healthy for our team to have a strong identity.  And freedom to express strong opinions leads to a distinct identity – just as it is manifest in a song-writing team, or indeed, in a sports team playing to its optimum.

It is also healthy to foster good relationships among members.  There is huge potential for emergence in every team which can arise from healthy tension between members as opinions flow.

I believe that it is a sin (a long time since I used that expression) for leaders, managers, Boards, owners etc. to ignore people’s gifts, and their desire to use their gifts, or worse, see them as a problem.  Of course, I am talking here about gifts that fit the mission of the organisation – but I have found over many years that, mostly, people’s gifts are adaptable.  It’s amazing when you think of it that people’s gifts – and even wisdom – can lead to conflict!

In many cases, I have observed organisations hiring expensive external experts while ignoring the wisdom that is right under their nose [1], and that comes absolutely free.

Wisdom is a very important gift that often comes from genuine heartfelt encounter.

In the Chapter on the Family Support Shamrock I posited creativity as a vital characteristic in an organistion that supports families in the Focus Group.   I believe that the creativity that we aim for in our work in supporting families should be also present in day-to-day encounters among our team, whether at formal team meetings or any other informal discussions.

(There is a separate Chapter devoted to Creativity in Section Five). 

[1]. Though, of course, that part of my mind that tends to be a little suspicious thinks that it suits the perpetuation of Pillars values to hire people at very high cost to perpetuate the practices I referred to when I discussed the impact on the Focus Group.  I will give some examples in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation.

Just in case you are not familiar with the word entropy, I will describe it simply as the tendency of a process (usually a chemical process) to move towards disorder.  (A fuller description can be found here).

A popular example that is often given is that of ice melting.  If we look at this from an energy point of view, we can see that in this case energy flows from a region of higher temperature (water) to a region of lower temperature (ice) in the form of heat. This reduces the state of order of the initial system, from very rigidly ordered blocks of ice, to the slightly more disordered ice and water to the totally disordered cooler water.

In this example we can see how entropy can be described as an expression of disorder or randomness in the worlds of physics and chemistry.  And while entropy is generally applied to those worlds (or, more specifically thermodynamics) it also has interesting applications in human society, and in particular energy usage. 

In the context of good design in child protection we will consider the psychological and societal applications of entropy, i.e. the efforts humans make to impose order on disorder or chaos.

Internal

In psychology entropy is concerned with the distribution of energy within us, which, over time, constantly tries to achieve balance.  Our spiritual, emotional, relationship, physical and mental dimensions, while being distinct, complement and are at-ease with each other, tending towards integration and balance, and not outright separateness.

This seeking of balance is of importance in healing.  It has been known, and used, in Oriental healing, (what we in the West commonly refer to as alternative or complementary healing) for millennia.  Imbalance in the human psyche causes dis-ease, (which we also looked at in a previous Chapter), and resultant lack of well-being.

External

In wider society entropy is applied to the structures of social systems.  It considers how the individual functions in society, how families, communities, cities, countries, and cultures (large groups of people) order themselves.  How social equilibrium, or balance, is seen as desirable and how disorder is seen as undesirable.

People who are perceived to contribute to disorder are generally excluded from society, and efforts are usually made to correct [1] their behaviour so that they can contribute to the order that is desired by the vast majority. In totalitarian regimes this order is rigid and unbending, whereas in more democratic countries the very fact that elections are held introduces a certain element of disorder.

The balance between order and disorder is important when considering how civilisations evolve, how legal systems, social/cultural norms, and religions develop, what societies choose over time as values, and, most importantly from our point of view, how people are included and excluded in society.

Human Behaviour

If we consider the energy we all use to ensure that order prevails over disorder in our lives we will get an appreciation of entropy as it applies to human behaviour.

For example it takes energy to get out of bed in the morning, to overcome inertia, (that is, our resistance to change) as we change from a sleeping state to a waking state and then to a getting-out-of-bed state and then to a getting-on-with-our-day state.

Overcoming inertia, and maintaining enough order that is necessary for us to function well requires a significant amount of physical and mental, but particularly emotional energy at all stages of our development.

Giving in to this inertia will result in disorder, unpredictability, and eventually chaos.

In this context consider the behaviour of an active, adult, addict.  He knows, cognitively, that the order that he observes around him in the majority of the population is a desirable state, (i.e. he thinks that he should have order, or routine in his life, and he knows that his disordered behaviour is not only disadvantageous to himself but also makes other people angry towards him).

However his body, the repository of his emotions, has not yet fully made this connection.

At a more macro level, I propose that when a critical mass of people in a community do not have the skills to maintain healthy routine and order in their lives then the community in general will be perceived to tend towards disorder.  Sometimes people (though not everyone) who are bothered by the general disorder in their neighbourhood leave and move elsewhere.  Others, of course, live disciplined and healthy lives in the midst of the disorder.

Still others get involved in community work and despite being very skilled and enthusiastic can sometimes feel that they are fighting an uphill battle [2].

It is also my belief that if we are an organisation that supports very vulnerable people we risk becoming mainstream unless we continually meet new challenges – and meet them with the most vulnerable as our priority. (I refer here to the Chapter in Section Three, Family Support Shamrock).

I was at a very enlightening seminar once presented by Dr. Dan Siegel, a neuroscientist.  He analogised the brain to be more like a fruit salad than a smoothie. That is to say, each element is diverse and distinct while still contributing to the whole.

Applying this to our family support organisation, and thinking again of the ice-water example that I gave above when I was describing entropy; it is a constant challenge for a staff team to stay fresh and maintain its fruit salad type nature.  That is, each member having a distinct flavour, combining to form an invigorating, distinct and stimulating taste, not being so alike that boundaries are blurred and the team melds into an indistinguishable porridgy mass.

That is probably why a family rarely becomes boring!

[1]. In most States in the USA prisons are run by a Department of Corrections.

[2]. For example, the wise and strong people in families identified in this post when I was describing the Focus Group. This website argues that some of the feeling of the work being an uphill battle arises from the paradigms of family support and/or child protection favoured by the Pillars.

Anarchy (which I also discussed in a post in the Chapter on Anthropology when describing hunter-gatherer societies) has some implications for the amount of energy available to do work in organisations.

When I was studying physics I was aware of and interested in chaos. (Of course, the fact that I was interested in it doesn’t mean I understood it fully)!

Anyway, many years later I began to be interested in how chaos is manifest in the human experience.  In this context, I began to consider the continuum of chaos in society.

My understanding of it was that the Army, in which I was at the time serving, was among the least chaotic of environments in society.  In the army, I never felt that I really had a say in my own destiny as almost all decisions were made by someone else who was of superior rank to me and then I was informed of the decision.

The most obvious parallel is of course being in prison, where one doesn’t have much of a choice about decision-making either.

In society in general, (in what we call Western society at least) we have a democracy.  We can vote for what we want.  This introduces chaos to the scene, and that chaos is managed to the extent that the vast majority of people can live reasonably ordered and structured lives.

Anarchy, however, in most people’s understanding of it, is chaos in action, and it has a bad press, conjuring up images of men lobbing no-warning bombs into establishment institutions to destabilise society.

And I remember many years ago there was a book entitled The Anarchist’s Cookbook (which nowadays would probably be dwarfed by the amount of stuff on the internet) that gave instructions in how to grow, do and make all sorts of illegal things that would get one arrested.

When I was in the Army, in a post that required more paperwork that anything else (and which I didn’t particularly like) the senior officer in charge gave me a book to read.  It was entitled Anarchism; and was written by George Woodcock.  My superior officer’s intention was (I’m pretty sure) to copper-fasten my beliefs in respect of the primacy of the well-ordered, top-down structure of society and particularly the military where everyone knew their place.

However the book had the opposite effect on me!

The images conjured up in George Woodcock’s book (and other material that I subsequently read – i.e. Kropotkin in the previous Chapter on Anthropology) were focused more on self-organisation and individual responsibility, an existential given.

Both are very interesting characteristics to study in the context of chaos and order.

In most working environments – and not only in very structured, ordered, environments such as the army, police or prison – the amount of self-organisation is minimal. Also, the amount of individual responsibility that we take for our actions can be diminished.  We follow an order, and if the order contradicts what our conscience tells us we accommodate it as we have been conditioned – often from a young and impressionable age – that we are obliged to do what we’re told [1]. Mostly, the conditioning is so pervasive and subtle that we are not really aware of its effects. (I’ll be revisiting this topic here).

Anarchy in its truest sense, on the other hand, implies not only individual responsibility for our actions but also responsibility for the impact that our actions have on others, our family, our community and society at large. I believe that if we are committed to sharing power, positive elements of anarchy – combined with good leadership where people are invited rather than coerced – will result in far higher levels of energy among staff than rigid top-down structures.

In the Table below I list organisations that are on a continuum from very structured to very anarchic.  (You may have to scroll across to see all the Table). You will note that I feel that an army is more structured than a prison or police force.  The reason for this is rooted in systems theory, i.e. an army, generally, doesn’t have day-to-day dealings with the public – so can remove itself a little more from chaos.

More Anarchic <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>> More Structured

Yes, everyone taking individual responsibility is a bit Utopian – again!  After all, most people would wonder if a hippie colony ever actually achieved anything.

Well, in the nineteen-sixties and early nineteen seventies, it could be argued that the influence of hippie-type behaviour, where peace and love was promoted over war and hate, was a causative factor in stopping the Vietnam War.  (And as I said in a previous Chapter – this was – from my point of view anyway – the pinnacle of true democracy in my lifetime).

What about the next one up – the Art/Drama Company?  Well-functioning art, music and/or drama entities can absorb all the anarchic argumentation and conflict that arises where you have a lot of creative people with (possibly) big egos.  (Remember the tension from the last Sub-Chapter).  They can manage all this anarchy, maintain order and put on wonderful shows and uplifting productions.

Utopian or not, it is of value to community workers to know something about what I might call ideal anarchy where people take responsibility for their actions.

Because in mainstream democratic society, we actually do, in that we choose those who make decisions for us, at election time.  If the decisions are against what our conscience or values ordain we can (in theory at least) choose other people more in tune with our values to govern us at the next election.

Of course in a typical modern democracy this process is distorted by many factors such as the level of honesty of those hoping to be elected and, in turn, our gullibility when we are voting, but in theory it is sound.

[1]. ‘Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do or die’ as quoted from a poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade‘, about a battle in the Crimean War in the second half of the 19^th Century.