2.3.8 Effects Of The Dominance Of Pillars Thinking In Society

The four previous Sub-Chapters (2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7) described the individual Pillars. I will now explore the effects of their dominance in society in general but in particular as it pertains to the Focus Group.

To begin, this brief example will illustrate how each of the Pillars feeds the others’ needs in the area of families affected by imprisonment and involved in serious crime.

Let us say that there is a large housing estate where there is a lot of criminal gang activity including murders over a period of some years.  The media report this activity (including the methods by which criminals operate, the precise and sometimes gruesome details of the ways people die in murders, the personalities involved, the danger to children, and the operations and investigations of the Gardaí, court proceedings etc.) with great enthusiasm.  The more lurid the descriptions the higher the sales!

The experts called in to analyse (mostly in the media) why the situation in a particular estate got to the stage where there are gangs fighting each other and/or how children drop out of school and get sucked into drug addiction and crime, are probably senior Garda officers, criminologists, or sociologists.

Opinions on what should be done to protect such children are offered by psychologists, social workers and community workers guided usually by academic training.  These opinions are offered to the public in articles, comments, critiques, sound-bites etc.  The ‘who-what-where-when-why’ is debated endlessly, and sometimes research is funded to consult with people as to what should be done.

Concerned professionals may buy in intervention or diversion programmes for youth, single mothers, young men, addiction, anger management etc. – almost always developed in academia or private educational offshoots of academia.

Opposition politicians get publicity criticising Government politicians who might have, (say) closed a Garda station in the area, and similarly Government politicians defend all the great work that they have done in preventing crime and, through the media again, promise new initiatives for the future.

But through it all – it is highly unlikely that the potential of the people to come up with a solution themselves is ever seriously considered.

The people themselves are actually a community of mutual support that the Pillars, almost always, totally discount.  If we practitioners don’t or won’t recognise the extent to which people care for each other, and the value of that, we’ll always be functionaries, maybe very nice functionaries, but functionaries nonetheless.

(I have already mentioned, and will mention again a research publication from 2010, entitled How Are Our Kids at the end of this Chapter that pointed to the extent of that caring).

If we retreat to a fearful place on encountering what we might label as dysfunction, we’ll miss out on discovery – to our own loss!

If, however, we are alert to, and curious about such matters, and are prepared to put aside the sense of superiority that might come from formal education and status in society (that, in fairness, we may be unaware of) we have a great opportunity to do better work and perhaps discover new potential in ourselves too – hitherto unrecognised and untapped. 

In decision-making in society the Pillars are very influential.  Their thinking tends to dominate to the extent that those who do not agree with their thinking, and promote different views or beliefs, can be marginalised, isolated, considered out of touch, or even subversive.

There are many examples of this of which Galileo Galilei, in Italy in the early 1600’s, is probably one of the most famous.  He proved that the Earth went around the Sun, whereas it had been assumed for many hundreds of years that the Sun went around the Earth.  The Catholic Church at that time was a major Pillar in Italy, and Galileo was derided, vilified, placed under house arrest and ultimately excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.

A less famous, but just as interesting example is that of the Hungarian obstetrician Dr. Semmelweiss who discovered that, just by midwives and doctors washing their hands in chlorine, infant mortality (and that of young mothers) reduced significantly.  When he tried to bring this discovery to the wider world, he was laughed at (and even discredited) by medical academics and learned physicians all over Europe.

On the other hand, when a trend or practice becomes accepted by the Pillars, it becomes (almost) beyond criticism and then fashionable.  For instance, nowadays, to say that Sun goes around the Earth, or that babies should be delivered with no regard to basic hygiene, would be the stuff of heresy and be immediately rubbished.

At a local, Irish level, consider, for example breast-feeding, cycling, thatched cottages, and Gaeilge, the Irish language.  Once upon a time all four were associated with poor and uneducated people.  Now, because they have Pillars’ approval, they are more associated with the middle and educated classes.  Think about it!

And, as an aside, consider one of the above. The top prize, in Ireland, as an example of disastrous-Pillars-design must go to the revival of Gaeilge – a stated aim of every Government since 1922.  In this project, the State (with the support of the body politic, academia and the public service – the media are mostly disinterested) teaches children a language for 12 or 13 years, three or four times per week, and ends up with the average school leaver not being able to speak it.  This is truly a remarkable achievement! The method of teaching that is used has been failing to revive the language for almost a hundred years and no Pillars entity sees any problem with it. [1]

Getting back to the Focus Group, families (and individuals) are often deemed by staff working within the Pillars to be virtually impossible to reach [2].

Such families often grow to distrust, and be cynical of services.  They frequently play a game, giving false information to secure some advantage, justifying what the system would label as their dishonesty, or wrongdoing by focusing on what the system has not delivered for them – and to which they feel they are entitled like the rest of the population [3].

Now from my long life experience I can say with a fair degree of confidence that what we call milking the system is widespread at every level of society.  If we don’t have a sense of belonging but we do have a conscience we will, kind of, force ourselves not to milk the system.  And if we have a sense of belonging, the idea of milking the system will not really enter our heads because we will be robbing ourselves (and fooling ourselves too).

So, obviously, the amount of milking speaks volumes about whether or not we have a sense of belonging in the society that we are all part of!

The perceived dishonesty of the Focus Group induces a punitive reaction amongst the Pillars.  The punitive reaction may take the form of withdrawal of rights, discrimination, exclusion from mainstream services, financial sanctions, prejudicial comment, medication (when a more holistic solution is available), poor housing leading to family fragmentation and isolation, even imprisonment, heaping more disadvantage on people who are undergoing significant suffering already.

And talking about punishment, a light punishment for people who break the law, in order to avoid a custodial sentence is community service.  It’s amazing – if we think about it – that helping out in one’s community is deemed to be something that one does as punishment – to avoid prison [4].

[1]. I have often considered the possibility that the Pillars are unconsciously embarrassed by, or even fearful of Gaeilge, which has more of an anarchic and disrespectful-to-authority feel to it than English. Some modern commentary – for example Machán Magan in his book 32 Words For Field – would also support that. Those of influence in Irish society (in particular the Catholic Church) at and from the foundation of our state, would have been very wary of such influence. The modern Pillars may be fearful for similar reasons. Perhaps a more enlightened and less fearful generation will have more success in reviving our native tongue!

[2]. I was at a seminar organised by the HSE some years ago which described such families as impenetrable families.  A term such as impenetrable has implications for the type of service design aimed to assist them as will be explored in Section Five of the blog.  I thought it was an interesting term to use, as many people in the Focus Group would find services set up to help them so difficult to reach that the services could be termed impenetrable too.

[3]. This, of course, mirrors behaviour that is commonplace in society in general – and in particular among the upper echelons in the Pillars, who ensure that through their connections, many going back to childhood and schooldays, their advantaged and privileged status is maintained and perpetuated.  This is probably the same in all societies.  I just wish to point it out here.  A long discussion on white collar milking the system in society is not really that relevant in this website.

[4]. I’m not against community service at all – I’m just mentioning it to provoke deeper thought on punishment in general.

It is not uncommon for elements within the Pillars to portray the Focus Group as a section of society that costs the state a fortune – for which the state gets no return.

As I said in the Sub-Chapter on Media (and just to recap) the more sensational media portrayals of the poor are accompanied by insulting terminology that vilifies the people who are suffering in a very subtle way, and mockery.  In the so called quality media, the portrayal is often patronising and belittling.

Children who are growing up and observing the game-playing that I described in the previous post (which really is a survival strategy) in their families will obviously learn the skills of this game playing from a very young age.  The structure of the society that is held up by the Pillars ensures that this often perpetuates throughout the life course and largely determines responses by statutory services.  Many voluntary services, often unwittingly, follow suit.

On a more positive note, some people who work in the Pillars in departments that are concerned with the disadvantaged began their careers in voluntary agencies supporting families. Because of that they often have deep knowledge of and concern about people in the Focus Group. In addition to these, there are many compassionate people who have genuine concern for society working at different layers within the Pillars.

However, banality, inefficiency, duplicity and sometimes even corruption seem to affect a lot of the work, contaminating initiatives new and old that would make a difference.  I mentioned the bullying power of mediocrity [1] and the comedy series ‘Yes Minister’ already!

Shows like ‘Yes Minister’ are hilarious (and I enjoy them immensely) but outside the laughs, in the real world, people actually suffer because of the torpor, apathy and obfuscation of the uncaring bureaucracy which is lampooned.

And there’s a very unjust and even cruel side to all the tomfoolery in high up echelons of State, that is, how we prioritise image and falseness over people’s lives.

Another factor pertaining to the Pillars is the relative transience of staff.  Almost all research, in every context, posits relationship as the most important element in change, and the more distressed the individual – the more this applies.  Social Workers, Gardaí, Prison Officers, Probation Officers, Care Staff in Care Homes will move jobs due to changing circumstances (e.g. promotion, transfer, moving house, marriage etc.). 

Now there is nothing wrong with this; I mention it merely to illustrate further the difficulties that the Focus Group face that many people might not think of!

One thread that seems to run through all Pillars thinking is that they often don’t know how to solve the problem but they don’t know that they don’t know – or if they do know that they don’t know they won’t admit to not knowing.

Indeed, we spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money trying to find out what works, so it can be replicated, expanded, (rolled out, as is said) and seen to be effective in achieving the objectives that it set out to achieve – and yet, it still doesn’t reach those who are most vulnerable.

As is often said, when all you have is a hammer, every problem takes on the appearance of a nail!

This, of course, makes the situation worse as the same things are tried over and over again with no perceived benefit to those who need change most. 

[1]. I often feel that mediocrity is a characteristic that is far more prevalent in large organisations than in family life, which, generally, seems to resist it!

We can assess the extent to which the Pillars care for vulnerable people in our society by observing where they allocate money. Yes …… where they allocate money!

Of all highly educated and necessary public servants in Ireland, nurses are arguably the most overworked and underpaid.  I believe that the reason for this is that young people (the majority of whom are women – but increasingly, and thankfully, men) who choose nursing as a career are very often caring people whose desire to help people is greater than their desire to make money and/or have power.

Like all such people, their natural goodness is taken for granted and when funding is being cut the Pillars know they will not let anyone die.

And if we ever wondered how little the Pillars care about protecting vulnerable people including children we now, after the 2008-2011 recession, know with certainty – when vulnerable children were among the first to suffer when funding was cut from various services. Hopefully things will be a little different if we have to tighten our belts post-Covid.

I could come up with many examples (in housing, health, education etc.) that show how the Pillars, (who hugely influence day-to-day decision making in respect of practice) don’t really have the best interests of vulnerable people at heart.

If they really cared, their decisions would be different because their priorities would be different.

Follow the money!

They will argue, of course, that they do care.  And they may point to the fact that they spend a considerable amount of money improving the lot of vulnerable children.

For example, in 2012 we held a referendum to enshrine children’s rights into our Constitution.  We were informed that, for the first time, the Constitution will take a child-centred approach to the protection of all children and will allow the State to better support families that are struggling, rather than wait for a situation to reach crisis point [1].  While I voted yes in the referendum I seriously wondered if we really needed a national plebiscite to choose to protect vulnerable children. I also wondered what a child that is suffering would think about the state spending lots of money on a referendum to protect him.

It was interesting that the Pillars were 100% for the referendum.  This was truly, bureaucracy in its purest form at work.

Also at considerable expense, the Agency to protect children in Ireland underwent restructuring from being a division of the Health Service Executive to being an autonomous organisation (TÚSLA) some years ago.  Did any child or vulnerable family notice? Is it leading to better outcomes for children growing up in families in the Focus Group?

(Please see Sub-Chapter 10, Conclusion – in this Chapter – to glean my opinions on this).

Our Government has put a lot of time, effort and money into making reporting of child abuse mandatory.  This is significantly undermined by the actions of the State itself.

What I mean is, if a mother who is struggling with poverty, low self-esteem, a legacy of family violence and abuse, and homelessness is seen to be neglecting her children, the State’s response will be (to at least try) to put a stop to it.  However, if I, a child protection practitioner, observe the State, (because of its economic, educational or social policies), to be causing harm to children, I am powerless to do anything about it.

Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a referendum, a stand-alone body to protect children, or mandatory reporting; I just believe that what is needed to protect children is a major cultural change – not really constitutional, structural or legal changes.

And I don’t really see how autonomy (i.e. by setting up of TÚSLA) can make that big a difference if everyone working within the organisation has the best interests of vulnerable children at heart!

So it’s not that they don’t care; it’s just that their caring priorities, and/or the way they care are different to what children and vulnerable families need.

Before I finish this post and discuss cultural change, I’d like to repeat that there are many, many individuals working within the Pillars who passionately and sincerely voice concerns about injustice, inequality, lack of common sense etc.  Such people, to my mind, are like gold dust – because they both care for vulnerable people and they have influence among statutory services.

[1]. This phrase is taken from a document issued by the Children’s Rights Alliance.

What do I mean by cultural change that I mentioned towards the end of the last post?

I was greatly influenced when I started streetwork in 1990 by observing what happens when young people grow up with seemingly little or no – what most people would generally regard as – positive adult influence.  Oftentimes the result is that they lack a secure base and have little stake in where they come from, or in society in general. This I believe is a result of their and their families’ exclusion over many generations. Heaped upon that is their own level of anger towards school that excluded them, Gardaí who they feel constantly harass them, and their general apparent apathy and indifference in respect of their own future. And I say apparent because, deep down, all were concerned.

Inclusion requires some empathy with the culture of the young people – in other words walk in their shoes a little.  This is not easy because there are many aspects of the young people’s culture that is destructive.

I will deal with this in far more detail in the Chapters in a later Section, where I devote a full Chapter to Cultural Matching.  I will, however, mention two elements of culture here that I consider to be important.  They are anger and language.

Anger.  I have often observed a deep anger in leaders who were of, grew up in, and became an integral part of the community, towards practitioners – including myself.  I’m absolutely sure that this was (and still is) because of the fact that many hard-working and courageous grassroots community people are often side-lined by practitioners within the Pillars. On sensing the anger, I sometimes noticed practitioners, in turn, getting angry with the grassroots leaders, overlooking those who they perceived to be a bit, as we say, anti and favouring those who were compliant towards Pillars thinking.

I also observed practitioners, colleagues, who understood the anger and gave it space and time to express itself – often with good results.  (I hope that I was perceived to be one of the latter).  But there were enough practitioners who would get angry, all HR-y, or (a favourite one) say that people are not ready, to cause me a little concern.

That is, instead of understanding the anger (and taking it on board) they’d try and dismiss it, make a commodity out of it, go on the attack themselves and/or try to get the person to rationalise it, pressurise them to explain it, avoid it, apply logic to it, misinterpret it, or play games – but not healthy games.

This differed to the others for whom the anger was simply the community showing part of its real self.

Now, in communities, like in the world at large, anger is often expressed in a passive-aggressive manner because it is the only way that people know.  Many practitioners treat that anger with an attitude like ‘well if that’s the way ye want it’, we’ll withdraw support. This, of course, is a very uncreative, lazy, bureaucratic, put-people-in-their-place, way of dealing with anger.

Perhaps this is a personal kind of statement but I don’t really mind people being angry with me.  In fact, I’d much prefer it to the passive-aggressive – and I try to make it safe for people to speak their minds.  I believe that it is, actually, a rare privilege to hear people’s uncensored views – even if they contain anger directed at me because of something that I did or neglected to do.

I feel privileged because someone is safe to be themselves and they are confident that they won’t be punished because of that.  (Punished in this context almost always means being excluded, or funding being withdrawn, or plans changed without consultation etc.).

Community activists may sometimes be hurt by life, and this is motivation to get involved in the first place.  Punishment because expression of strong emotions that might be – from the formally-educated-middle-class point of view – a little incoherent, or forceful, reinforces all sorts of negative messages about being heard and about anger itself. 

I’m very proud of that part of me though it might get in the way of mainstream management practice sometimes.

So my encouragement to practitioners is to let the anger flow, listen, answer honestly and don’t rationalise.  Perhaps we will learn something.  And there are always opportunities to explore options and seek middle ground!

Language: It’s easy to disempower people who have left school early by using language that they cannot understand.  I have noticed myself doing this when I have been under a bit of pressure.  In fact it can a real challenge for me to keep it simple.

Another way of taking away people’s power is summing up.  This displays superiority and the ability to analyse, evaluate and place a topic in a kind of educated, distant generalising context. Yet another way is adding extra, unasked for knowledge to what someone says or a point someone makes.

Now, once again, I stress that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with using words that are precise or big, or even jargon – if that is what is needed.  Nor indeed, am I saying that there is anything wrong with analysing, summing up or bringing new knowledge to someone’s attention.  But I believe that it is very important to be aware of the possible depowering effect of doing so.

Being aware will mean that we can choose when to do it and when not to.

I believe that all this starts in school, because those pupils who stay in school and learn big words are more naturally academically inclined. Such pupils will probably feel more favoured by teachers (perhaps unintentionally) and do better in exams then those who are not academically inclined.  This continues into adulthood as the pupils who are better at understanding big words, and analysing things, do better at interviews (that are predominantly verbal) and thereafter get better jobs. (I cover this in greater detail in this post).

This is actually very little to do with how intelligent people are, or how hardworking they are, or what capacity they have for learning, or how creative they are, it’s just a measure of what type of language – and vocabulary – they have been exposed to.

On the other hand people who leave school early get jobs that, in the eyes of the Pillars, are of lesser status – or, in the case of the Focus Group, often get no jobs at all.  Naturally enough those who have no jobs will feel less powerful than those who do, and language (and the command of it) is associated with success.

I mentioned cultural change already, and as is usual, I suppose I’d better give some examples!  I will firstly give a general example and then a more specific one.

The ‘Survey’.  Ah yes, the survey – sometimes called the consultation. The culture of surveying, researching or consulting is deeply embedded in the Pillars.

Let us compare the consultation, or the survey to a scientist in the world of technology doing research so that something new might be developed. The scientist researches from the perspective of what is already known – but the aim is to find something that is unknown. It is discovery of what is unknown that makes the difference to the development that results from the research.

Contrast this with the typical consultation that goes on in a community. It is very rarely that something that is truly unknown emerges. And if it does, it may not be accepted because what is discovered threatens the established order. Thinking about it, it is much easier to study things that don’t have opinions or feelings!

I have experienced many, many surveys, research, consultations, reviews, etc. of residents in disadvantaged areas, families visiting prisons, young men, young women, drug misuse, the lot of poor children and similar matters.  These surveys are intended to glean knowledge that is, almost always, already known – even sometimes obvious. Most people who have even basic knowledge of the issues would know what the findings will be, and would have a fair shot at what might work as solutions.  Many of the surveys are replicas of what has been done before. (If anyone wishes to contact me I can give examples).

The harmful thing about the survey culture is that the surveys or consultations raise people’s hopes that something different will be done to alleviate their pain or distress. Mostly, however, whatever is put in place (if anything) is much the same as what went before. Usually they are very expensive, are often done by academia, are funded by the civil service, have the approval of the body politic, and are often reported in the media.

(See also the Chapter on Research and Evaluation for a far more detailed critique of this topic).

Child Protection:  I referred to mandatory reporting in a previous post.  Here is an example of an experience that I once had.  This one is at the more serious end – but not the most serious that I could have given.

Many years ago (before mandatory reporting – actually) I reported, to the HSE, the precursor of TÚSLA, information on a situation where there was a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that a Dad was harming his children. The evidence came from a member of his extended family who, to my mind, was sincere, genuine and concerned, as well as some on the street knowledge.

After a while I got a one-liner from HSE to state to me that the case was closed following an investigation.  Now I am not going to judge the man who was causing me to worry about the well-being of his children – but the one-liner was, I felt, based on ‘fear that someone would get into trouble’ rather than ‘concern for children’s well-being’.

This is an example of classic Pillars culture – to my mind anyway.  The latter (i.e. concern for children) would have involved HSE practitioners sitting down with someone like me (and the concerned person in the community who made me aware of it) acknowledging that whatever investigation that had been carried out had yielded no hard evidence, but acknowledging also that there was a possibility that the children’s well-being, or even safety, was at risk.  The next step would have been to explore creative ways of supporting the children – including Dad if he was interested – and involving potential allies within the family or extended family.

I’m not sure where it would have gone – but to put a lid on it like was done at the time ensured that it would go down the no risk no gain route.

As I already stated, democracies, by their nature, are inefficient.

In fact, inefficiency could be said to be protect democracy, to some extent.  Without it we may be too quick to jump to conclusions and waste money on something that has not been properly thought out or fully considered, or, in my second example above, apportion blame too quickly.

But that is not to say that we shouldn’t challenge 1): that which we see as waste or duplication and that is clearly a repetition of something that has gone before – or 2): that which is obviously fulfilling the letter of the law but not the spirit of protection of children.

And on that note, the fact that a particular entity is set up by the Pillars to have statutory responsibility for protecting very vulnerable children doesn’t mean that they are the best to do it.  The reason that I say this is that I often wonder what happens to social work theory [1] – in particular the overwhelming research findings about how relationship is so important, when it is applied in very challenging and chaotic circumstances.

And does closing a case really serve vulnerable children?

Finally, when I talk about culture it is obvious from the above that I am not talking about art, music and literature (though they could, indeed, have some relevance).  The culture that I describe involves long practiced habits, ritual, core values, dress, language and behavioural norms.  I picked the the two major cultural elements of anger and language (see previous post) because they are of such importance in community work.

Cultural change is not easy – but we can do an awful lot if we keep it simple and take the time to understand anger ……..

[1]. As stated already, I will be revisiting this in Section Five in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation.

As the Pillars together constitute the system as most people recognise it, I argued above that significant cultural change is needed before any meaningful change will be perceived by the Focus Group.

It can also be said without fear of too much contradiction that the culture of the Pillars seeps into many ventures that are set up initially as initiatives to include very distressed and isolated people and families.

This is mostly true for statutory ventures, which, due to the fact that they are a component part of a Pillar, are that way anyway, but it also affects voluntary organisations quite a lot.  I have many examples of this.  Other people may have too. 

It is worth spending a little time exploring this influence further and how it manifests.

Most community initiatives that aim to help troubled families are started by people who are concerned enough, and are living within communities most affected by whatever issue that they are concerned about in the first place [1].  However, in order to be successful in whatever venture that they embark upon they need to get the Pillars (i.e. statutory agencies, academic researchers, and/or political interests etc.) on board to assist them.  They may sometimes think that the media would be of assistance also. 

Very often the community is not as coherent or clear as the Pillars but it needs them or parts of them, to get funding, guidance, credibility, status, etc.  The community has enthusiasm and that is a great start.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us consider the Community and the Pillars to be two intersecting circles (like the mathematical Venn Diagram) with the space occupied by both circles as the place where the system and the community interact, depicted in the diagrams below.

In other words, what each is willing to disclose to the other so that the venture upon which the Community wishes to embark gets off the ground, and ultimately becomes successful, and those elements of the Pillars that are supporting it are satisfied with the result of their investment.

It is usual that in the beginning this space is occupied by the interests representing the community.  After all, the Community invites the Pillars because they need assistance in getting whatever it is up and running.  However, in the beginning, the Community will usually only show the Pillars what they want to see.  If it puts too much of itself into the space it intuitively knows that the more cautious elements within the Pillars will be frightened off.  Those who wish to do something are aware of the characteristics of the Pillars i.e. what they really want, so they present a coherent and organised front even though they know that this might not represent the entirety of what their interest or concern is.

Over time, the space occupied jointly by the Community and the system becomes dominated by the system.  This is represented in the Figures 1 to 4.  Initially, (as in Fig 1), there is equal sharing.  (After all, the Pillars might also need the community to do work that is too messy for them to take on).  However, (like all long-term relationships), after some time the realities of the Community become apparent to the Pillars and vice versa, as in Fig 2.

When this happens the system almost always imposes its values and norms on the activities, ventures, initiatives, etc. that the Community proposes.  Gradually, the Pillars begin to assert themselves.  (This is represented in Fig 2 – but we can see that the community is still visible to an outside observer).

Fig 3 can come about after something negative happens due to a decision made by a community person, or a proposal that a community person brings that is too far out, or maybe someone says something that is politically incorrect.  Or – more commonly – it can happen in a gradual way over many years as quick-thinking professionals who want to get-things-done dominate the inevitable debates and arguments that accompany growth and development. Over time, the community becomes less visible.  Eventually the entire venture becomes dominated by the Pillars (like Fig 4) as they take over and instruct the community as to what it can – but mostly what it cannot – do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes people who might have competence in particular areas are prevented from benefiting from opportunities that might arise within their community because they do not comply with the demands made by the Pillars. These could be educational, financial, even historical. What I mean by historical is someone who might have been to prison, or where so-called soft information is known about them which tarnishes their reputation in the eyes of the Pillars.

It is likely that frustration and/or anger will arise from such sidelining because many people in the community perceive those working in the Pillars (some in the most prestigious and highly rewarded professions in the country [2]) to be entitled to many advantages and/or short cuts that are not available to those who are less advantaged.

I personally have experienced children and young people not being protected because elements within the Pillars would not allow the community to be creative and felt that a proposed course of action was too risky whereas all it needed was a little common-sense monitoring and encouragement.

[1]. This is why they get involved – it affects them personally.  What better motivation is that? 

[2]. Professions which, from the perspective of the average community person, have always been unattainable anyway.

I will digress here to consider what the essence of being radical is.

Some would define radicalism as promoting a view that the current order (them) has to be overthrown and replaced by something completely different (us), with little or no connection to that which preceded it.

Whenever or wherever this has happened in the world the result has been much the same as what went before!  (Please see this post in the Chapter on Power and Control in Society). 

Of course there are some people in influential positions within the Pillars that are unwise, obsessed with power, narcissistic and grandiose – who will never get it and will oppose change.

But it must be remembered that there are far more practitioners who are dedicated, experienced and wise and whose intelligence, compassion and insight, as well as, of course, know-how and education will be lost if we simply overthrow the establishment.

Generally, if people perceive something to be a threat they will close ranks – thereby excluding that which they perceive to be threatening them.

I find it very helpful, when I come across closing ranks, and I perceive it to be getting in the way of good work, to think of the most vulnerable child who needs protection and assess what would be most helpful to him, right here, right now!

(This is what I take from Gandhi’s well-known words: the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members).

Invariably I conclude that my time and energy would be better spent supporting the vulnerable and empowering the family of the child so that they and he will have better outcomes rather than taking on the closed ranks, that I know will never be cooperative, in endless battles where I’ll never win anyway.

I believe that the real radical approach is to eschew the never-ending fight and focus on relationships, and do it in a low profile manner.  In my experience this approach will always be appreciated by the people who matter most.

And in terms of being radical, and doing things that make a difference while resisting the urge to be a mirror image of that which we feel is not working, there are people who are working in the voluntary sector who don’t get it, and people working in the statutory sector who do.

I have often experienced people working within the much maligned system, i.e. those people I described above, moving mountains to achieve a positive result despite the norms that constrain and restrain work within the Pillars.

And it is good to dismount from our high horse of harsh judgement. There are also very good people who don’t get it – just like I don’t get the world of high finance, or how to think like a politician. 

Such people are not harsh, or cruel, or uncaring.  It’s just that they can’t understand how people don’t learn from their mistakes [1].

In almost all societies that I have had experience or knowledge of, the general method of dealing with people who can’t seem to learn from their mistakes has been, (and still is) punitive.  This is so prevalent that it is very hard to think outside it – so chapeau to those within the system who do.  (The largely misunderstood phenomenon of people who don’t learn from their mistakes will be explored in Section Three throughout the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics).

Really the most radical thing, if we want to change the way things are done, is to include people who we know will meet us as equals, break free of the competitive territorial stuff, and recognise allies that are positively disposed towards our point of view.

There are always unconvincables.  These are people who may be so engrossed with their own sense of importance and ego, and have so little willingness to reflect, that the only way to get them to see a point of view other than their own is to defeat them with superior force.  (In the day-to-day world of the statutory agency, this is usually translated as going over their heads).

Even then, when they have to give in, they are still convinced that they are right and may try to get their needs met by dishonest passive-aggressive means.

In Section Six there is a Chapter entitled Getting the Pillars to Believe.  This explores how to bring bureaucratic organisations on board while still maintaining a truly radical ethos.

A lot of people (who consider themselves to be radical) don’t actually know how to bring bureaucracies on side, will continually complain to, or about the Pillars, or else sell out their radical souls, being too compliant.

I argue that this is in fact the most difficult and most important bit, and challenges us community workers to be leaders, getting the big bureaucracy to be a partner, and even invite people within it to be sceptical believers. (Actually; being anti everything runs the risk of feeding into the endless competition which can be a feature of the day-to-day work within the Pillars).

Once I did a brainstorm exercise with a group on the Bedford Row Family Support Course on culture, including the above topic of being radical, and here is a list of the words that came up:

Community:  Enthusiasm, chaos, creativity, desperation, fear, incoherence, tolerance of wrongdoing, poverty, lack of formal education, anger, hunger, integrity, concern, motivation, knowledge of community, anarchy, desperation, diversity, frustration, distrust, alienation, crime, irreverence, violence, patience, imperfection, idealism, excitement, self-organisation, amateur, volunteering, emotional, ‘heart’

The Pillars:  Formal education, access to finance, hypocrisy, bureaucracy, structure, status, hierarchy, fear, image, policies, protocols, political pressure, status, procedures, low morale, integrity, knowledge of finance, politics, punctuality, reverence, law abiding, order, work ethic, incongruence, dishonesty, get things done quickly, dutiful, boring, accountability, ‘head’.

And integrating the heart and the head is the most important process in respect of healing people who are hurting deeply.

[1]. If we think about it, all the wars that have been fought throughout history prove that, generally, we don’t learn from our mistakes anyway.