2.2 Purpose and Rationale

As the title suggests, this Chapter will set out the purpose and rationale for the website!

I will kick off with a brief account of what motivated me.  I will then have a discussion on crime and criminality, the reduction of which is a pivotal theme of the website.

I will continue with a discussion on how central the family is in our efforts to assist hurt children.

I have said already that I will try to steer clear of being too critical of different aspects of current crime prevention efforts, but there are a few (what I call) modern trends that are worrying me a little – and that, I feel, anyone who supports people in distress need to be aware of – so I include them.

I conclude with a description of hidden children.

This Chapter is divided into five Sub-Chapters.

2.2.1 MOTIVATION

2.2.2 CRIME AND CRIMINALITY

2.2.3 WHY THE FAMILY?

2.2.4 MODERN TRENDS

2.2.5 PURPOSE AND RATIONALE – CONCLUSION

In all my time supporting families affected by imprisonment, parents have universally expressed to me that they want to see their child (or children) doing well, succeeding in school, getting a job, steering clear of drugs, being involved in healthy activities throughout their childhood and teenage years and growing up to be responsible adults.

We are all born with different talents, gifts, capacities for learning and working, and general being in the world [1].  Many people would call such talents and gifts God-given.  Some people are born into poverty and disadvantage and are endowed with the capacity of making the most of the circumstances into which they are born.  Others are born into advantaged backgrounds and they appear to outside observers to continually squander opportunities for their betterment.  This has puzzled philosophers, psychologists, scientists and educationalists (not to mention ordinary people) as long as humans have been thinking about such things.

Some argue that grace is a factor in this phenomenon.  I am sure that the saying ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ comes from this thinking.

I have been fortunate to collaborate with many workers, both in the statutory and voluntary sectors, concerned about the protection and welfare of children.  However imperfect our knowledge, experience, education, judgment etc. our concern was never in question.

I believe that protecting children and other vulnerable people, in a very hands-on, practical, warm, enthusiastic, real and genuine manner, significantly enhances feelings of morale among staff in our professions. 

Having great ideas but finding them continually stymied by policies, procedures, protocols and restrictive practices that make little sense is, on the other hand, very bad for morale.

So one major motivation behind this website is to help better utilise the scarce resources that organisations have at their disposal to support families affected by imprisonment.

I passionately believe that large amounts of money are wasted because solutions proposed and subsequently implemented do not match the needs presented.  Many of these solutions are based on beliefs held by the planners and/or proposers and/or funders rather than the realities of the families’ situations.

Other solutions are offered in desperation because something has to be done quickly. 

Still others arise from bureaucratic or political top down pressure to save people in power from embarrassment in the media, (reminiscent of the TV Series ‘Yes Minister’ [2]), or even simply because that is always the way it has been done, and no one thought to question it.

Some of the solutions may, and probably do work very well for more mainstream type families but I argue that they do not transfer well to the families that are the subject of this website – that I will call the Focus Group – this term will be described in more detail in the Chapter entitled Important Descriptions.

Another motivation is connection.  I have considerable motivation to connect, as seamlessly as possible, theoretical concepts and good work!  Generally speaking I believe that there currently is, (and historically there has been) considerable disconnect between research on social matters in academia (where most of it is done) and the work in the field.

Thus I devote an entire Chapter to Research and Evaluation in Section Five and mention it from time to time.  (I have experienced this disconnect many times over my working life and I can give a host of examples if anyone wishes to contact me).

As a scientist I feel that if a problem cannot be solved we should admit to it. Of course this would be difficult to do in the helping professions because it would attract very negative vibes.

But the opposite is also true. If there is a solution we need to describe  it – in its entirety – and the scientific basis for its promotion. A lot of my motivation is just that – to share what I have experienced, based on observations and evidence from my own work over 30+ years, and how I have integrated heart experience with head science.

And finally I have strong motivation to write this website because of the something that I observe in human behaviour.

War is waged by a small number of amoral, uncaring manipulators who control and then exploit entire populations by spreading fear and hate, armchair generals who suffer little of the consequences of the war being waged, whereas peace is built by all of us together. And true justice (and democracy) is the harvest reaped by peacemakers from seeds sown in the spirit of trust and generosity.

There are parallels here with crime and in particular so-called gangland crime, which is controlled by a small number of power and money-hungry criminals at the top.  (I will elaborate on this in Chapter Four in Section Two, Power and Control in Society in a Sub-Chapter that is entitled Interesting Parallels).

In contrast, support work that prevents the kind of activity that causes so much harm to family, community and society is a cooperative endeavour done in a spirit of generosity that brings out the best in people and affirms those parts of us that care about others. 

[1]. Being in the World is a term that I like – that I borrow from the philosopher Martin Heidegger.

[2]. A very funny and popular comedy on BBC in the 1980-90’s that poked fun at the decision making processes at work in bureaucratic – political systems in the UK Houses of Parliament.  Episodes are now on Youtube – if you haven’t seen it have a look – it can be applied in all situations where there are dominant top-down bureaucracies.

The methods by which children were prepared to be honest, trustworthy, responsible and productive adults evolved over the course of human history and are still evolving. While the methods may differ from culture to culture, discipline is seen as important in all cultures.

The regular administration of harsh (and sometimes very severe) physical punishment was widely seen as the best method of disciplining children (in what we call the Western World at least, which is the only culture that I have direct experience of) over many centuries [1].  This was as true (in different ways) for children born into privileged backgrounds as it was for the children of the poor.

The connection between consistent and enduring misbehaviour in young children and the fact that they may have experienced, or be in need of protection from trauma or traumas was not (generally) made until quite recently, though I would argue that there was always a felt awareness of the link between traumatic experiences as a small child and problematic behaviour as an older child and/or young adult among people in general.

I intuit, (and also I conclude, from talking to many people who have been to prison and who spent many years of their childhood in institutions) that at some point in time in Ireland in the mid-20^th Century the link between the two was made by those with responsibility for children’s education and development.

However, the lack of understanding of how complex a job protecting such children is, (combined with the prevailing culture of the time), led to the decision that a controlled kind of physical abuse (which, to make it appear less harmful, was known as corporal punishment) would be the dominant method by which the behaviour of children would be corrected or improved so that they would grow up to be the responsible, productive, (and indeed happy) [2], adults that I referred to above.

Nowadays, discipline is still seen as the key to healthy upbringing.  However, the methods of disciplining children have changed from dishing out beatings and shouting harsh critical put-downs to offering encouragement, praising of what is going well and reinforcing all that is positive in the child – in theory at least.

I fear, though, that sometimes harshness has been replaced by something else that is, perhaps, not as damaging as hitting and insulting children, but potentially has a very negative effect nonetheless. My fears in this regard are described in various posts throughout the blog and particularly in this post.

I will come back to this subject in the Chapter on Important Descriptions, particularly in the Sub-Chapter on Academia and Education.

[1]. I refer to this again in the Chapter on Anthropology in Section Three – in respect of raising children in hunter-gatherer societies, where, as many researchers have shown, methods of disciplining were/are far different.

[2]. I am sure that most of you would have heard the expression spare the rod and spoil the child!

Many children who end up in prison as young adults grow up in families that experience poverty, isolation and marginalisation.  Such families often perceive themselves to have been very poorly served by the State, or arms of the State, and sometimes voluntary agencies too.

I have no doubt that the principal reasons why people perceive this (through many generations) are to do with unfairness, inequality and injustice and (from their perspective) the impenetrability of institutions that constitute the system.

Very often, the child protection/criminal justice systems are entities through which they get to know the State.

Many families find such systems either punitive or coercive or both.  While they might work well for some families, the system contains many design elements that hamper progress in respect of families on the margins.

Some of these are obvious and some are far more subtle and hard to spot.

It is not by and large my intention to criticise what works well for many families who avail of existing services (i.e. mainstream-type provision).

Rather, my intention is to promote new thinking, and thus different ways of tackling age old problems that have always beset our communities and society at large.

Of course there may be examples of what I would consider to be disrespectful or wasteful practices that I may mention to act as a contrast, or emphasise, or give weight to the opposite, i.e. respectful and/or economical, cost-effective models that I believe are much better.

And I believe that any proposed new ways or methods should be grafted onto and complement, rather than replace, existing efforts that do work well.

The first proposition that I would like to make (in the context of families who perceive themselves to be neglected), and a clear motivation for writing this website, is that crime is a solvable problem in society.

This ‘core belief’ is an important jumping off point! If you believe this also, the website will make a lot of sense.  (If you do not believe it yet, you are invited to continue reading anyway and see if any of the content interests you).

When I say crime I am referring to the kind of crime that is linked to addiction, and that arises from the mixture of trauma and alienation that families who have the characteristics that are described in the next Chapter (in the Sub-Chapter on the Focus Group) experience.

And when I say solvable I mean that it is reduced to the level that would be typical in a mainstream middle-class kind of family or community.

I often think that our attitude to crime is very like our attitude to poverty.  Both are so universal in our human experience, (in space and time), that they appear impossible to solve, never ending, or infinite.  This infinite quality that crime possesses leads us to believe that we can only contain it, try and alleviate suffering caused by it, etc. and not ever solve it, as no agency or organisation would ever be able to access the extent of the resources needed to solve it fully.

And – also important – as I say at the bottom of this post, saying that crime is solvable does not mean that I am the one that will solve it – now ……..

But crucially – and this is the starting point, really – we all know that both crime and poverty (which are closely linked anyway) are caused by the behaviour of human beings.

I mentioned in the previous post that crime (like poverty) has an infinite quality to it and that it appears insolvable. There are, and have been in history, problems that appeared to be insolvable, but humans have managed to reduce them to the point of insignificance.

For example, many diseases which once struck fear into entire populations have been almost eradicated.  And owning slaves, which, up to the 19th century in the Western World, was thought to be totally acceptable, even to people who were upright and honourable, and also deemed necessary for our economy, is now outlawed.

And, how is it that we can carry out amazing feats involving mind-boggling technology costing billions such as putting a man in space and we still cannot come up with a comprehensive plan to stop young teenagers getting into trouble?

It seems, as I said already, to be beyond us.  Though the main thrust of the website will be to explore what works, from time to time – and to raise awareness – I will mention some of the reasons why it appears beyond us.

I will briefly describe three just to kick-start your thinking!

Firstly: Everyone is an ‘Expert’

The caller to the radio, the person on the street, journalists in print, radio, and TV, social media commentators, and people from all walks of life, offer their opinions freely (and usually with great authority) on what should be done about crime and criminality.

They are all experts!

And, indeed, because the word expert is rooted in the word experience, and because we have all been children, grown up in families, often had difficult challenges to overcome, in a way we are experts and have opinions to offer.

But I will argue that, almost always, our opinions are filtered through personal emotional experiences (e.g. of power, fear, anger, control, and thereby carry a multitude of assumptions, values and norms) that bias us in favour of particular courses of action to solve these and other problems that beset society.

And, actually, that’s the problem!

Continual reflection on and awareness of our prejudices and biases before we rush headlong into solution mode, and getting the balance right between closeness and distance (see ‘Secondly‘ below) is crucial to effective work in this field.  We usually find reflection and self-awareness very challenging and that’s one of the reasons why the work is a lot more complex than most people realise.  (I discuss complexity – and its implications for our work – in this Sub-Chapter). Added to this is the fact that paradox is part and parcel of humanity.

The effects of everyone being an expert might be:

1. The opinions of influential people such as funders and politicians who feel under pressure to do something are influenced by popular, sometimes knee-jerk opinion, and often what is undertaken is hastily done and only partially or shallowly thought through.

2. Continual reinforcement of the belief among the general public that the solutions to crime are simple and/or one-dimensional.

3. The belief that crime prevention work is largely done by naïve well-meaning people who are fooled up to the eyeballs by people involved in crime.

And, like I said above

4. There is nothing we can do about crime except contain it.

Secondly:  The Practitioner is Part of the Process

I mentioned getting the balance right between closeness and distance above.  Distancing oneself from the work is not possible (and is actually not desirable) when intensively supporting troubled and distressed children and very vulnerable adults.  This is because we practitioners, for a variety of reasons:

1. Are part of the growth and development that is ongoing.

2. Will have, or will develop an emotional attachment to the work.

And

3. Are affected by the work sometimes at a very deep and profound level ourselves [1].

The above three points have always been true and I believe that lack of awareness of them can lead to organisations (often unconsciously) trying to minimise them by erecting psychological barriers to keep the work at a psychological distance [2]. 

It’s well known that we’re attracted to whatever work or occupation we choose because of some process ongoing in ourselves – this is probably as true for engineers, bankers, carpenters etc. as it is for helpers of people.

Now I invite you to compare the closeness-distance factor with trying to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus, or figuring out how to leave the Earth’s orbit, where workers, while obviously having an emotional attachment to the work, (perhaps even be quite passionate about it), will work in an objective manner, (in fact, would have to) and will quite readily distance themselves from the day-to-day work should they so wish.

But the difference is that they are not, generally, part of a process of human growth, and being so brings substantial challenges as will be clear as you read the website but in particular the Sub-Chapter entitled Complex Variables (mentioned above) which is in Section Three.

Thirdly:  Mainstream Thinking

Mahatma Ghandi urged all those of us who feel that we have something to offer, or feel that we can bring some change to society, to recall the face of the poorest and the weakest person whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to them.  Will they gain anything by it?  Will it restore them to a control over their own life and destiny?  In other words, will it lead to freedom for the hungry and spiritually starving?

It is widely assumed that the same responses that work with mainstream families will work with families that are the subject of this website.  Perhaps it is acknowledged that more intensity of effort is needed and/or a higher staff ratio (for example, smaller class sizes in schools that are located in disadvantaged areas, or more social workers per head of population) but, generally, the paradigm that prevails is much the same.

It is governed by the same ethos, follows the same workplace procedures, and perpetuates the educational, medical and social systems that have not worked that well in addressing the problems in times past, and that certainly have not seen the faces of the poorest and the weakest, (as Ghandi put it, referring to his native India in the 1930’s-40’s), or the most hurt or distressed (as this website might say).

Much of the website will be, in particular, focused on encouraging us to take seriously the restoring control over life and destiny part of Ghandi’s exhortation.

[1]. The phenomenon of being affected by the work is related to transference in counselling.

[2]. This may explain why agencies will often persist with pursuing courses of action that do not work.  (See also the Sub-Chapter on Myth and Reality in the Chapter on Energy in Section Three).

I now invite you to think of the headline ‘Man Murdered in…..’ and the subsequent media attention that follows.

Let us say that the murder happens in an estate in one of our big towns or cities where there has always been a high level of anti-social behaviour and crime, where, even during so-called boom times, there is high unemployment, dependency, exclusion, [1] and where a higher than average number of families have someone belonging to them in the prison system.

Now imagine the effect on the victim’s family, (including when the man who is murdered is known to Gardaí), the perpetrators family; children involved in both the perpetrator’s and victim’s families and their extended families.

Now try and calculate the cost to the state of the investigation, the (usually long) court case and the subsequent imprisonment.  Then think of the downstream cost of other aspects of the violent act, such as:

1. The victim’s family including (possibly) children who are indescribably distressed by the loss of their loved one – such loss being evident for a very long time – or for ever.

2. Victim’s family members living with (often unresolvable) anger, fear and anxiety.

3. Children of the perpetrator, who are traumatised by the crime, emotionally distressed and acting out, referred to child protection services, perhaps being medicated, and ultimately falling into addiction themselves, and the cycle repeating itself.

4. Fear, anger and anxiety of parents and other concerned adults in the perpetrator’s family.

5. The cost to the Health Service of the physical illnesses that are so prevalent in families affected by imprisonment, linked to stress experienced over many years or decades.

6. The sadness, loss and trauma of early, untimely deaths of adults in the families which may happen due to ongoing ill health.

7. The level of dependency usually experienced within the family and the cost to the State of that.  

And many more……..

Now when I think about a person committing a serious crime, I always think of a child who was misunderstood, who became isolated, or whose normal growth and development was, for whatever reason, inhibited or delayed in some way.  This is because virtually every person that I know who is doing a long stretch in prison for a so-called headline crime was in deep distress as a child and teenager.

That is not to say that their parents were neglectful, or irresponsible or to blame.  The vast majority of young people who get involved in crime and addiction have a parent or parents – and often grandparents – who have been crying out for help for years if not decades.

However, the parents frequently experience the help offered to be inaccessible, short term, culturally unsympathetic to their situation or even punitive, or all of the above.

Now I am fairly sure that every practitioner working in this area would agree that parents of children who are struggling, and who are motivated and responsible should be invited to be involved in the solution to their children’s problems, rather than coerced.  In the case of children affected by imprisonment, one parent, (often Dad) may be in prison.

This website will spend a good bit of time describing, exploring and considering the context of our invitation to parents to be involved!

In my experience, because it usually requires great courage on behalf of the parents to be part of the solution, the invitation needs to be offered by people with whom they have a trusting relationship.

And one of the biggest challenges here for the prospective helper, (unlike the expert in the previous post who is certain that he knows what should be done) is having the courage (and confidence) to be uncertain.

[1] As an aside – I have always thought it funny that the word exclusion is used in the context of the very poor and the word exclusive is used in the context of the very wealthy.

The family seems to be the vehicle through which we wish to procreate our species and ensure that it thrives and evolves.  I’m not sure why this is, but communal ways of bringing up children don’t seem to be that popular.

The communal way was in all probability the way that prevailed ten thousand years ago or more but it must be remembered that in the vast majority of human societies we evolved into the nuclear family, which I will, from now on, simply call the family.

The vast majority of families still are of the traditional variety, that is, Mammy, Daddy and children. However there are nowadays many families who are headed by single parents, and there are also, of course, families where parents are of same sex. When I talk about families I am referring to all the above!

And the family is what, (in what it must be assumed was an environment with relative freedom), emerged as our most favourable choice for rearing children.

Now, some anthropologists argue that, for children, the communal way of nomadic tribes is superior for child-rearing in terms of growth and maturity and I will explore this in more detail in the Chapter on Anthropology later in the website.

But even though there are small populations of humans where children are reared in a communal way, the family has gained virtual total dominance all over the world.

And, as an aside, while the title of the website is The Natural World of Child Protection, it is important that we are aware that children are not always the most vulnerable people in a family!

In Ireland, a person becomes an adult at 18 years of age.  This is a totally arbitrary age – it simply reflects the reality that young people generally finish school and/or get jobs, want to be independent etc. at or around 18.  It does not mean, however, that all their vulnerabilities magically disappear on their 18^th birthday.  A family may have a 19 year old who is at high risk of, for example, self-harm, addiction or involvement in criminality, whereas his younger brother aged 17 (still a child in the eyes of the law) is happy and contented. This is why the website also focuses on protection of other vulnerable family members who are affected by imprisonment.

I have often wondered why the family gained total dominance.

The advent of farming 10,000 years ago meant that we began to own property, and as we began to own property perhaps our sense of our own importance grew. Did we begin to think of ourselves as individuals who wanted to make a lasting impression – i.e. who wanted to be remembered?

And what better way to do this in a male dominated society than to own a wife who would have our children who will carry on our traits as well as inherit the wealth/property that we have amassed and look back appreciatively at our achievements.

So I am sure that our increasing tendency to possess property and wealth, and then hand it on to someone, is one reason why the family trumped communal living.

And I’m also pretty sure that the more radical socialist-type thinking that parents shouldn’t be allowed bequeath their children property or money because it perpetuates privilege and wealth in society would not gain much support in any culture in the world!

Another plus for the family is that in a one-mate-for-life scenario, there is a higher chance that, when selecting a mate, people will not be related. This, apparently, optimises the health of children born as a result of the union.

But I believe that there were other, emotional, factors too.

All living things are programmed to pass on their best genes to optimise the thriving of their species and perhaps the mixture of logic/rationality and emotion/irrationality that characterises humans is best propagated within a closed group, i.e. the family.

What I mean is, we may need a mixture of privacy and intimacy that’s deeper than that which we experience in communal living.

Privacy and intimacy gives us permission to be ourselves, be unreasonable, irrational, etc. and behave in a manner that doesn’t require explanation.  People can say ‘sure that’s just the way he is’ – so we can do what would be unacceptable in community life or in society at large and, kind of, get away with it.  And, of course, we can also use the family to express intimate love, compassion and forgiveness that might have to be explained or rationalised in the communal world.

I’m not sure of the above – I’m only speculating. I just think that there may have been deeper reasons than the perpetuation of power, wealth and status, and production of healthy children.

The ideal family has iconic status in most countries (in the Western World anyway). All the images we see of families promote two parents, happiness, monogamy, a (nowadays small) number of children, and lifelong commitment. And we also afford a kind of special status to non-humans who mate-for-life, e.g. swans!

In our own country, the huge success of The Voyage (a song by Johnny Duhan made famous by Christy Moore) is proof that in our modern world we still idealise the qualities of patience and long-lasting relationship that is family. (One line in Johnny’s song states about the parental relationship that we’ve built it with care to last the whole trip).

Later I discuss the importance of the family in respect of what I term our emotional gravity. I believe that as our culture changed over hundreds if not thousands of years, and – in the project of raising children and passing on our values to the next generation – the status of the family became unassailable, we became more and more dependent on our family of origin for our emotional nurture.

Therefore, lasting the whole trip became more and more important to us. And if the marriage didn’t, (last the whole trip – that is) our cultural expectation that it would was so pervasive that we convinced ourselves (and often pretended to outsiders) that it did.

And so did the State!

Countries whose traditions and norms are rooted in Christianity gave high status in law, succession rights etc. to one-mate-for-life-with-children type marriage, and the ending of the arrangement (divorce) was illegal up to quite recently in some countries. In fact, an old word for marriage was wedlock – the lock implying that it was something that one cannot get out of!

Now one aspect of the family, in contrast to any institution that I’ve ever known, is that it rarely if ever becomes bland.

There is usually something stimulating, different or surprising happening and in that way the family always has a certain level of excitement. (I will devote some time to the role of excitement in our lives in the Chapter on Energy in Section Three).

The excitement in a family comes from the diversity of personalities and what they do and don’t do, and from the way (mentioned above) that the family is a place where views are often uncensored and people are free to express emotions and be themselves whereas in the outside world they may not do that to the same extent.

In the majority of families this is, most of the time, healthy excitement, though in some families in what I will describe as the Focus Group it may be unhealthy.

Healthy or unhealthy – excitement certainly keeps us interested and involved.

Now there are a few downsides to the family.

One is, of course, that people can be under pressure to conform to what the strongest member of the family thinks is right, or should be done. In this, there may be different pressures in the hothouse of family living than there are in what might be a more liberal communal living.

Also, most families are places where secrets are held.  Sometimes these are good secrets but sometimes they are bad secrets which hide abuse, harm children’s development, and inhibit democracy, fairness and justice in the family in general.

But the biggest downside of the family is that it is an ideal framework, or vehicle, to promote the notion of despotic power through blind obedience to the head of the family.

I come back to that downside again when I get to the Chapter on Power and Control in Society – because I believe it is important enough to be worthy of careful consideration.

I propose that there is a strong link between our labels of behaviours and conditions – for example, depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar etc. – (the descriptions of the behaviours that we refer to as mental illness), and our belief that the family is the entity that is responsible for our healthy growth and emotional well-being.

Perhaps a reason for the labelling is our reluctance to consider mental illness to be rooted in emotional distress. Would a connection between the two introduce the possibility of the appalling vista [1] that somehow or another our family of origin might not have done its job properly?

An aspect of the family that many of you may have noticed is that members are almost always quite open talking about physical illness but what people call mental illness is sometimes hidden, and rarely talked about openly.

We might use expressions like ‘he’s taken to the bed’ or ‘her nerves are at her’, or not talk about it at all.  This may be changing slowly in recent decades but it is still prevalent enough.

And why is mental illness, and all that goes with it, hard to talk about?

Mental illness invariably brings distress to a family, and may cause embarrassment, because people who are mentally ill often behave in ways that ordinary people are suspicious of, fearful of, look down on, or think is strange.

There are very powerful forces operating in society that compel us to conform to certain norms, and people who are deemed to be mentally ill (or even eccentric) may do things that challenge these forces.

And if we consider behaviour that causes distress to self and others to be an illness we can get someone else to diagnose what that illness is and then treat it, handing over responsibility for getting better to an expert practitioner. This, usually, avoids any examination into the dynamics of our family that might have contributed to the condition in the first place.

Perhaps, in Ireland, where, in the middle of the last century, we had a higher number of people in mental asylums per head of population than in the Soviet Union, there is particular shame attached to the topic because of the high esteem we hold the family and its status in society.

Another aspect of mental illness is that, unlike physical illness which can usually be treated and cured, mental illness seems to go on forever [2].

I don’t believe that this is confined to modern thinking.

People throughout history, (in the Western World anyway) who displayed behaviours other than those acceptable to the majority of the population were usually thought either to be mad or bad, and had to be fixed, derided as idiots, or thought to be evil and punished severely.  (If you know of societies where such people were considered by the mainstream to be in emotional pain and were offered love and understanding I’d be very interested to hear of them).

Even the slang term for psychiatrist (the person responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness), shrink, implies that the process that one undertakes to become mentally well isn’t going to be expansive, creative or nurturing!

It is probable that research has been done on the links between anti-social behaviour in youth and mental illness in adulthood.

From my own experience I would say that there is a very strong link.  I know many adults who engaged in anti-social behaviour in their youth who now, as adults, trail from doctors to health centres to psychiatric hospitals to out-patient clinics back to doctors, living lives of total dependence on either the State or their family or a mixture of both and all the time under (sometimes quite heavy) medication. Many have spent time in prison.  This cannot be a coincidence.

(And when I think of all that, I wonder what the pharmaceutical industry would do if we all suddenly started taking responsibility for healing our emotional distress into our own hands)?

Getting back to our description of acute distress, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) may come a little closer than the professionals, calling alcoholism (and addiction in general) a family disease.  Using the word disease [dis-ease], and linking it with family, implies that the members of the family might not be at ease with each other.

I consider the term family dis-ease an interesting description as I believe that the hallmark of a good enough family, through all the ups and downs and emotional roller-coaster that is family life, is that members can be, in general, at ease (i.e. forgiving, tolerant, compassionate and accessible) towards each other, and with each other.

While AA is very strong on personal responsibility, it does not imply that one member has an illness as such. And is it not also interesting that AA, imperfect as many people claim it is, has a strong belief in peer support and is largely run by ordinary people and not health professionals?

I will be mentioning the differences between our approaches to healing physical illness and healing mental illness in various parts of the website.  (And just to mention, in this website, mental illness will generally be termed emotional distress, for reasons that will become clear as you read on).

[1]. This expression was used by the late Judge Lord Denning in England during the trial of the Birmingham Six, when it was suggested that they were innocent.  If they were innocent, it threw up the appalling vista that the police had told lies.

[2]. As far as I am aware, in many countries, once a person is diagnosed with a mental illness the medical profession state that they have it for life.

As outlined in a previous post, for better or worse, we deem the family to be a corner-stone of society – and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future!

What is it about families anyway that we think that the best way of preventing crime and subsequent imprisonment (and all the trauma, powerlessness, and heartache that it brings) is to protect young children growing up in them?

While I try not to assume anything there is overwhelming evidence (in our culture at least) that a unit consisting of two prospective parents who get on well, love and respect each other, intend to stay together for a long time, and are capable and willing to take responsibility for their emotions, is a good enough environment for children to be born into and grow up in.

If these two prospective parents come from families where the tradition of fixing emotional problems rather than letting them spiral out of control has been the norm, then the chances of establishing a relatively stable foundation for children to thrive as they grow are optimised. 

Attachment Theory (described in the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics in Section Three), implies that inculcating a sense of belonging is a necessary component for building trusting and positive relationships.  I am taking it as a given that sustaining these over the long time necessary for the child to grow is also best done within the family unit.

Mostly, in the good enough family, problems are solved in real-time, or as near to real time as is practicable.  I believe that this is most important in the healthy functioning of the family.  In families that do not function that well however, problems are allowed fester, so they then bubble up at inappropriate times and places.

If the problem involves a member being angry, and it is not resolved, (for example, if the environment is not safe enough to resolve it) the anger will often be directed towards a weaker member of the family thereby causing hurt to someone who is not the person to whom the anger should be directed at all.

For example, a very controlling man might hurt his wife, but it is not safe for her to express her anger to him at how she was hurt, and solve the problem in real time.  She then takes out (or picks out, to use a common expression) her anger on one of the children.

(This is a bit stereotypical so I need to stress that it could equally be a very controlling woman who causes pain to her husband or an out-of-control teenage son or daughter who hurts his/her parent or siblings).

Many people will recognise these scenarios.  (Of course like many things that happen in the family, this is often replicated in society at large).

When we consider how problems (and particularly those that involve strong emotional expression) are solved in organisations that are set up to help people in distress, we note that it is rarely done in real time.  Rather than problems being solved at, (let us call it) a primary level, they are often solved at a secondary level.

I will explain what I mean here.

Say there is a support group offered to people in distress and the group is following a type of self-development programme.  Now let us say that a member of the group is obviously not concentrating and is constantly disruptive because she is in far too much distress to follow the programme.  What happens is that her issues bubble up every week.  In such a case facilitators have two options.

They can deal with the problem in real time, addressing the issues, using the wisdom and innate skills of the group members to encourage, feed-back, and advise the person who is often in distress.  Such an approach, in addition to addressing the problem at primary level, will raise the self-confidence of the other members of the group as they feel that their presence and opinions are valued.  The down side of it is that the formal part of the self-development programme might not be completed in the number of weeks allotted!

So another way of dealing with it is to (usually very gently but firmly) exclude the needy person from the group and refer her for one to one counselling until the problem or issue that is bubbling up is dealt with and then admit the person to the group again.  This I will call dealing with the problem at a secondary level.

At the secondary level, the facilitators and group are insulated from the suffering of the person who is needy (and the discomfort of experiencing the emotional distress) while the cognitive learning in the programme proceeds.

Now I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with the latter approach (solving the problem at the secondary level) but to be honest I’d be of the view that, while causing discomfort to facilitators, the learning may be enriched for all if we choose to deal with issues at primary level – just like we’d do in the good enough family – if that is at all possible.

And anyway, I believe that someone who dissents, or disrupts is potentially bringing us a gift!  The family is a place where eccentricity and/or irrational behaviour are allowed.  It’s the one place where people can be unreasonable, where rules can be broken, and where it’s safe to show parts of ourselves that we don’t show anywhere else.

Now if we allowed a teeny bit of that in our organisations we might be surprised at the results it would bring!

Recently I considered doing an estimate on how much time two paid staff members would have to spend offering comprehensive support that would be long lasting and effective, to one extended family involved in drugs, serious crime, imprisonment, etc. – a family in the Focus Group – with the aim of moving the family from a state of dependency to full autonomy.

You will probably gather from reading the website that I believe that to optimise success, in particular in respect of children, [1] support would need to be offered over quite a long time.  It would be very difficult to estimate this accurately as the support offered may be very intensive initially, and then after a few years may reduce in intensity, (all going well) and, as the family gained more confidence and autonomy, reduce further in time and energy.

And the end-point (that is, the point at which the family would have normalised to the extent that they would not need support anymore) would be very difficult to estimate.

Having considered all the above I formed the opinion that a very good option might be to support someone in the family, or someone in the community that was trusted by the family, that was concerned, insightful, ambitious, energetic, measured, balanced, etc. in a way that would firstly respect their journey (they would often be a responsible worrier in their family) and secondly honour their ambition to help others in their community.

(This opinion is affirmed by research which I will be referencing in a later post which found that when parents look for advice about parenting, the majority seek support from family, extended family, or friends/neighbours, rather than professional practitioners.  And it’s a similar story with children).

But apart from the research, I also formed this opinion because it has been done in Bedford Row Family Project – an organisation that I very deep knowledge of – since its very early days. Results have not been perfect, but they have been good enough to continue its development!

It is important to state that I have observed many people who have the above characteristics (concern, insight, ambition etc.) in every community that I have been in – and beyond.  They will often be those that people in the community turn to for a listening ear, for support, sympathetic counsel, perhaps even for advice on how to bail someone out of trouble.

Sometimes, however, their efforts to help people live healthier lives, and effect true change may be hampered by their perception that they are fighting an uphill battle, meeting crisis after crisis, and having unrealistic hopes dashed over many years or indeed decades.

I said in a previous post that it is good if practitioners are part of the process, and it is, but it is bad if practitioners are so much part of the process that they are immersed in it totally.  To put it simply, they are too close to the action [2].

Thus, in offering opportunities for support (and indeed training or education) cognisance needs to be taken of this fact.  (This will be covered in more depth in Section Five in the Chapter on Training).

Remember that we do not really need to encourage people to do something, as they are doing it already! Rather it is altering their response so that it not only becomes more effective but also begins the process of the multiplier effect in the community in which they live.

This is truly a win-win situation, as it builds confidence, encourages responsibility, models, is gender balanced (the concerned people are not always women), educates workers, is sustaining, has longevity, (if done properly), spreads skills, encourages others with similar ambitions, and above all frees up a wealth of creativity, intelligence, and resolve that may be buried under generations of fear, distrust, and isolation.

[1]. Aha, and what is success?  Department of Children and Youth Affairs Better Outcomes Brighter Futures, National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020 policy document identifies five outcomes for children including the aspirations that children are active and healthy; that children are achieving in all areas of learning and development; that children are safe and protected from harm; that children have economic security and opportunity and that children are connected, respected and contributing to society.  (That’s good enough for me – though if I was writing it I’d have mentioned something about having opportunities for free play – surely a fundamental characteristic of childhood)!

I might also define success as the family members being at ease with each other, members engaging in life affirming and self-fulfilling pursuits, and all children thriving and reaching their potential as they grow from childhood to their mid-twenties.

[2]. The technical term for this in Gestalt Psychotherapy is confluence where the practitioner finds it difficult to separate him/herself from the client at an emotional level.