No, I'm not planning to do this, but I think it's good information for me to have. I was just going to refer to this as "Phototherapy" like some of these people do, but then I realized that there is a medical treatment called that for certain illnesses.
PHOTOTHERAPY - The Fisher Turk Method - How you can make peace with your body - through the eye of the camera.
I photograph women who suffer from negative body image brought on by rape, incest, eating disorders, cancer or just plain life. Women are photographed from clothed to as nude as they are comfortable, I use black and white photography and urge them to keep a journal. Over the past six years I have seen this use of photography open a way for women to change how they see themselves and how they feel about their bodies.
Phototherapy
Let Seattle photographer & PhotoTherapist Lori DeMarre facilitate your journey of exploring, reflecting and then stepping into your full potential and power.
Phototherapy techniques in counseling and therapy
Every snapshot a person takes or keeps is also a type of self-portrait, a kind of "mirror with memory" reflecting back those moments and people that were special enough to be frozen in time forever. Collectively, these photos make visible the ongoing stories of that person's life, serving as visual footprints marking where they have been (emotionally, as well as physically) and also perhaps signaling where they might next be heading. Even their reactions to postcards, magazine pictures, and snapshots taken by others can provide illuminating clues to their own inner life and its secrets.
Children’s lives – in their own images
Giving children the opportunity to create images uses the fascination and love of photography in a way that offers a wide range of opportunities – so far largely unexplored – for psychosocial support. This article is a reflection on my recent experience in the participatory documentary survey of children’s rights, Children’s Visions and Voices: Rights and Realities in South Africa, with a view towards suggesting further possibilities for the uses of photography in providing psychosocial support.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Political Compass
Added my results to The Blogosphere Political Compass Project:
The Test
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
If that is not the score of a Centralist, then nothing is.
The Test
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38
If that is not the score of a Centralist, then nothing is.
My approach as a future therapist...
I don't have this all fully hammered out yet, but I thought I'd put down some thoughts about what will probably work for me in what areas.
My Prime Analytical Approach
First off, I will never be a true Freudian or Adlerian. I might find it necessary to draw from them occassionally if the need arises, but neither approach is my default for psychoanalysis. I am a Jungian analyst by natural ability and slant.
My Prime Experiential Approach
This is going to be a hard one, because I am an Experiential learner, so I am drawn to all three approaches listed in my text. In the depths of my heart, I am an Existentialist. With Art Therapy and other creative techniques, I am Person-centered, because that is how those techniques work the best and it allows my Jungian bent to express itself at the same time. However, in reviewing how I traditionally deal with conflicted people, I am an Contemporary Gestaltist by nature. (And if I lose my cool, I'm an old school Gestaltist.) I noticed in the office library of a local art therapist I am on familiar terms with, there is a book about using Gestalt Theory in art therapy. I think I am going to have to read that book someday soon. While this may change with time and training, at the moment my greatest personal strengths are aligned with Contemporary Gestalt theory.
My Action Approach
I like the Choice Theory and the demystifying of the Reality Therapy technique. I also agree with the concept of developing a plan of action. But that is about all I really agree with the Reality Therapy approach on. I can see where it would work with difficult people who are being forced into therapy. I just don't think I would be able to apply this approach effectively on a regular basis. I am flexible - I could fall back on it if I had to - but it would take a lot of mental energy on my part. I use WDEP approach on programs and other non-sentient objects and systems, which shouldn't be surprising since Glasser and I both started our college careers in Chemical Engineering. However, I would have a hard time applying this to human beings in such an overt manner, because people under stress are not all that capable of clear evaluation of themselves. The stress needs to be relieved before self-evaluation can be taught effectively and by then you can just as easily help the client to figure it out versus spelling it out for them. There is not enough deep self-examination in this approach. You're only paying attention to the surface and ignoring the deeper currents that guide long-term behavior. And it is too easy in this approach to let you impose your own values on the client. I consider that unethical. And finally, for an approach that carries the name "Reality", it ignores the realities of those whose culture is much different than Western world's majority.
Contemporary Behavioral therapy looks useful enough, but I personally see it as a crutch or another short-term solution to problems. Now, some problems only need the immediate resolution, but most people end up in therapy for deeper rooted issues. I will be studying this and the Cognitive Behavioral approach next week. Scanning over the chapters, though, I see many action therapies to be a "MacGyver" fix to problems - which is great for emergencies, but lacks the quality and long term dependability of the other approaches. If I were in a situation where I needed to apply a "MacGyver" fix to a client to avoid catastrophe, I would probably choose the Cognitive Behavioral approach.
My Systems Approach
This is a no brainer. I am a firm believer in Family Systems. It is an basic tenant of my faith and if I didn't believe that with all my heart, I would have changed religions a long time ago. That being said, I would probably borrow more from Adler than I would from Freud in my departures from Jung.
And my main approach as a therapist would probably be...
Looking it over, I would probably go with the Contemporary Gestalt approach as a default. If there was strong evidence that a client would relate better with another approach, then I would alter my treatment to that.
Some people probably would like to see me go into more depth about all of this and expound, but you're going to have to wait until a later date when I have more fully digested the contents of my current class.
My Prime Analytical Approach
First off, I will never be a true Freudian or Adlerian. I might find it necessary to draw from them occassionally if the need arises, but neither approach is my default for psychoanalysis. I am a Jungian analyst by natural ability and slant.
My Prime Experiential Approach
This is going to be a hard one, because I am an Experiential learner, so I am drawn to all three approaches listed in my text. In the depths of my heart, I am an Existentialist. With Art Therapy and other creative techniques, I am Person-centered, because that is how those techniques work the best and it allows my Jungian bent to express itself at the same time. However, in reviewing how I traditionally deal with conflicted people, I am an Contemporary Gestaltist by nature. (And if I lose my cool, I'm an old school Gestaltist.) I noticed in the office library of a local art therapist I am on familiar terms with, there is a book about using Gestalt Theory in art therapy. I think I am going to have to read that book someday soon. While this may change with time and training, at the moment my greatest personal strengths are aligned with Contemporary Gestalt theory.
My Action Approach
I like the Choice Theory and the demystifying of the Reality Therapy technique. I also agree with the concept of developing a plan of action. But that is about all I really agree with the Reality Therapy approach on. I can see where it would work with difficult people who are being forced into therapy. I just don't think I would be able to apply this approach effectively on a regular basis. I am flexible - I could fall back on it if I had to - but it would take a lot of mental energy on my part. I use WDEP approach on programs and other non-sentient objects and systems, which shouldn't be surprising since Glasser and I both started our college careers in Chemical Engineering. However, I would have a hard time applying this to human beings in such an overt manner, because people under stress are not all that capable of clear evaluation of themselves. The stress needs to be relieved before self-evaluation can be taught effectively and by then you can just as easily help the client to figure it out versus spelling it out for them. There is not enough deep self-examination in this approach. You're only paying attention to the surface and ignoring the deeper currents that guide long-term behavior. And it is too easy in this approach to let you impose your own values on the client. I consider that unethical. And finally, for an approach that carries the name "Reality", it ignores the realities of those whose culture is much different than Western world's majority.
Contemporary Behavioral therapy looks useful enough, but I personally see it as a crutch or another short-term solution to problems. Now, some problems only need the immediate resolution, but most people end up in therapy for deeper rooted issues. I will be studying this and the Cognitive Behavioral approach next week. Scanning over the chapters, though, I see many action therapies to be a "MacGyver" fix to problems - which is great for emergencies, but lacks the quality and long term dependability of the other approaches. If I were in a situation where I needed to apply a "MacGyver" fix to a client to avoid catastrophe, I would probably choose the Cognitive Behavioral approach.
My Systems Approach
This is a no brainer. I am a firm believer in Family Systems. It is an basic tenant of my faith and if I didn't believe that with all my heart, I would have changed religions a long time ago. That being said, I would probably borrow more from Adler than I would from Freud in my departures from Jung.
And my main approach as a therapist would probably be...
Looking it over, I would probably go with the Contemporary Gestalt approach as a default. If there was strong evidence that a client would relate better with another approach, then I would alter my treatment to that.
Some people probably would like to see me go into more depth about all of this and expound, but you're going to have to wait until a later date when I have more fully digested the contents of my current class.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The masters program I am aiming for
In addition to a bachelors, I need to have some applied art classes (18 hours worth) and at least 6 hours of psych - one 3 hour class being Abnormal Psych - to apply to the distance learning Masters of Art Therapy for St Mary's of the Woods - http://www.smwc.edu/prospective/graduate/art/
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
*SOBS!*
Am I working on a class presentation about Art Therapy as a counseling approach and found out that most of the journal articles my partner found on the subject were not written by people trained in Art Therapy.
I found this out because while I was reading an otherwise interesting article, I noticed that some of the statements didn't jive with the books I have read dealing with art therapy. I was supposed to call my mentor (a trained and certified art therapist) anyway, so I asked her to explain the few passages I was having problems with.
Silence on the line.
Then, "What are this woman's credentials? Is she a trained art therapist?"
Me, frantically flipping through to find any letters after her name: "I can't find anything."
Anyway, after trying to locate the article through the listed publisher, who no longer carries the International Journal of Psychotherapy, and getting off the phone with my mentor, I did a Google search on the author of the article and found out not only hasn't she been trained as an art therapist, she's not even a psychologist - she's a psychiatric social worker.
I looked through the other articles my partner printed out. Luckily most of them actually listed the authors' credentials - another social worker, a PhD in Education and Human Services, and one article by a professor of counseling and a licensed therapist. Outside of what I received from my mentor and the books I have, only the last article sounds like a source that I can use for a presentation on the theory of Art Therapy as a counseling approach and even that I have my doubts about, because it's more about art in therapy than art as therapy - which I have had more than my fair share of lectures about the difference between the two concepts. It's on the same magnitude of difference as between a tourist snapshot and an Ansel Adams photograph.
If all I was doing was getting some ideas, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But my assignment is specifically to present the counseling approach of Art Therapy.
I think I'm going to bang my head against my keyboard and then salvage what I can. Just because I know my sources are suspicious doesn't mean I can't give a good presentation. I will just focus on the book references and just toss in the occasional article one.
I found this out because while I was reading an otherwise interesting article, I noticed that some of the statements didn't jive with the books I have read dealing with art therapy. I was supposed to call my mentor (a trained and certified art therapist) anyway, so I asked her to explain the few passages I was having problems with.
Silence on the line.
Then, "What are this woman's credentials? Is she a trained art therapist?"
Me, frantically flipping through to find any letters after her name: "I can't find anything."
Anyway, after trying to locate the article through the listed publisher, who no longer carries the International Journal of Psychotherapy, and getting off the phone with my mentor, I did a Google search on the author of the article and found out not only hasn't she been trained as an art therapist, she's not even a psychologist - she's a psychiatric social worker.
I looked through the other articles my partner printed out. Luckily most of them actually listed the authors' credentials - another social worker, a PhD in Education and Human Services, and one article by a professor of counseling and a licensed therapist. Outside of what I received from my mentor and the books I have, only the last article sounds like a source that I can use for a presentation on the theory of Art Therapy as a counseling approach and even that I have my doubts about, because it's more about art in therapy than art as therapy - which I have had more than my fair share of lectures about the difference between the two concepts. It's on the same magnitude of difference as between a tourist snapshot and an Ansel Adams photograph.
If all I was doing was getting some ideas, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But my assignment is specifically to present the counseling approach of Art Therapy.
I think I'm going to bang my head against my keyboard and then salvage what I can. Just because I know my sources are suspicious doesn't mean I can't give a good presentation. I will just focus on the book references and just toss in the occasional article one.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Revising my view of Freud.
For years, I have held a modicrum of scorn for Dr. Freud. I have been willing to admit that without him, psychology would not be a science and that some of his theories still hold a little water. But I've always considered him someone I would not want to have dinner with.
Last week, I was introduced to a video to his early life history (The Young Dr. Freud) and I have decided that Sigmund Freud was indeed a *gasp* HUMAN!
Not only was he human, but he was a sappy romantic where his wife was concerned. Wrote some of the mushiest loveletters I've ever heard. And her letters were just as mushy. Overbearing, yes. But he did adore the woman in his own way. In fact, it was because he wanted to marry his wife and have a proper life that he gave up being a researcher at a university, studying physics and chemistry, and became a doctor, which lead to his achievements in psychology.
Just think - psychology came into being because a guy wanted to marry his sweetheart. (Yeah, yeah, I know - it wasn't the only thing that lead to it, but it was why a research scientist with a proven record ended up in the right place at the right time.)
And actually, he wasn't as sexist as some of his colleages. He at least believed the women he was treating for hysteria were actually suffering from something and not just pretending to get out of doing their duties and/or to get attention. He at least cared enough to believe they deserved his help and not his scorn on the medical front. I wonder how some of those with influence back then would have reacted to a more enlightened mindset as exists now. I suspect that anyone that "radical" to the time's mores would have been kicked into the street and blocked at every level.
Comparing him to today's standards, I agree - he's repulsive. Comparing him to some of his peers - he actually looks enlightened. You really have to see the enviroment these people lived in to really understand what type of people they really were.
And let's not forget - he pissed off enough people that a lot of what we have now was brought into being in protest of his methods. That should count for something.
So, while Freud will never be a "hero" of mine, I have decided he's not a "villian" either.
Last week, I was introduced to a video to his early life history (The Young Dr. Freud) and I have decided that Sigmund Freud was indeed a *gasp* HUMAN!
Not only was he human, but he was a sappy romantic where his wife was concerned. Wrote some of the mushiest loveletters I've ever heard. And her letters were just as mushy. Overbearing, yes. But he did adore the woman in his own way. In fact, it was because he wanted to marry his wife and have a proper life that he gave up being a researcher at a university, studying physics and chemistry, and became a doctor, which lead to his achievements in psychology.
Just think - psychology came into being because a guy wanted to marry his sweetheart. (Yeah, yeah, I know - it wasn't the only thing that lead to it, but it was why a research scientist with a proven record ended up in the right place at the right time.)
And actually, he wasn't as sexist as some of his colleages. He at least believed the women he was treating for hysteria were actually suffering from something and not just pretending to get out of doing their duties and/or to get attention. He at least cared enough to believe they deserved his help and not his scorn on the medical front. I wonder how some of those with influence back then would have reacted to a more enlightened mindset as exists now. I suspect that anyone that "radical" to the time's mores would have been kicked into the street and blocked at every level.
Comparing him to today's standards, I agree - he's repulsive. Comparing him to some of his peers - he actually looks enlightened. You really have to see the enviroment these people lived in to really understand what type of people they really were.
And let's not forget - he pissed off enough people that a lot of what we have now was brought into being in protest of his methods. That should count for something.
So, while Freud will never be a "hero" of mine, I have decided he's not a "villian" either.
Venting a little...
1) I consider mixing political activities with counseling duties to be a severe conflict of interests - even if you are lobbying for a cause that would benefit your clients. It diffuses your focus on your clients and makes it too easy to seem them as part of "the cause" and not as an individual.
Now, I do agree I have a duty to keep records of the environmental and sociological factors that affect my clients. I agree that when called upon I should bear record of wide spread effects of these factors. I even agree that if I see a pattern I should bring it to someone's attention - preferably a reseacher's who is also studying something similar.
But while I am actively treating clients, I cannot ethically be an activist and still give my clients my all.
If something is that obvious and that destructive that I have to take on the role of lobbyist/activist, then I will retire from my practice and become one. At the very least, I will find myself a position where I am not directly treating people - a program director or something similar - so I can still eat and yet not risk imposing my political impetus on my clients care.
2) I am against painting one idealogy more "educated" or "enlightened" than another, because too often some people think they can by-pass the mental work and be "smart" by just deciding to believe a set of values put together by those they see as educated, without testing them out for themselves.
You can usually spot these people because they insist on trying to embrace the whole of an idealogy and are threatened by anyone else who doesn't treat the complete idealogy as sacrosanct. Even more so, they really get their noses bent out of shape when someone with a conflicting view shows themselves to be more knowledgeable in general.
"I'm open-minded - as long as you fit the stereotypes I have placed on you. I accept everyone - except you narrow-minded troglodytes who are not of my esteemed beliefs."
This would include conservatives who had education in social sciences and liberals who enjoy studying military stratagies. Of course, these are the same types who refuse to believe that there are such things as centrists. I even had one insist I stop calling myself that. My response, boiled down to the essentials, was "Bite me."
Now, I do agree I have a duty to keep records of the environmental and sociological factors that affect my clients. I agree that when called upon I should bear record of wide spread effects of these factors. I even agree that if I see a pattern I should bring it to someone's attention - preferably a reseacher's who is also studying something similar.
But while I am actively treating clients, I cannot ethically be an activist and still give my clients my all.
If something is that obvious and that destructive that I have to take on the role of lobbyist/activist, then I will retire from my practice and become one. At the very least, I will find myself a position where I am not directly treating people - a program director or something similar - so I can still eat and yet not risk imposing my political impetus on my clients care.
2) I am against painting one idealogy more "educated" or "enlightened" than another, because too often some people think they can by-pass the mental work and be "smart" by just deciding to believe a set of values put together by those they see as educated, without testing them out for themselves.
You can usually spot these people because they insist on trying to embrace the whole of an idealogy and are threatened by anyone else who doesn't treat the complete idealogy as sacrosanct. Even more so, they really get their noses bent out of shape when someone with a conflicting view shows themselves to be more knowledgeable in general.
"I'm open-minded - as long as you fit the stereotypes I have placed on you. I accept everyone - except you narrow-minded troglodytes who are not of my esteemed beliefs."
This would include conservatives who had education in social sciences and liberals who enjoy studying military stratagies. Of course, these are the same types who refuse to believe that there are such things as centrists. I even had one insist I stop calling myself that. My response, boiled down to the essentials, was "Bite me."
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Monday, February 14, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Kohlberg and Gilligan
Even though I find the results of their theories interesting, after reading some of their base assumptions, I think both of them were/are guided by some prejudices I can't agree with. Both of them seemed to want to see themselves as very moral people.
That's not to say that they don't have some truths in their levels - I just think that they may have blinded themselves to certain things for their own sense of security.
That's not to say that they don't have some truths in their levels - I just think that they may have blinded themselves to certain things for their own sense of security.
Carol Gilligan's Levels of Moral Development in Women
Gilligan felt that Kolhberg's levels were flawed. "This was based on two things. First, he only studied privileged, white men and boys. She felt that this caused a biased opinion against women. Secondly, in his stage theory of moral development, the male view of individual rights and rules was considered a higher stage than women's point of view of development in terms of its caring effect on human relationships." (from http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html)
The main difference between herself and Kolhberg:
(from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n1/men.html)
Ironically, her own work receives critism to what she said of Kolhberg's research - "the most criticized element to her theory is that it follows the stereotype of women as nurturing, men as logical. The participants of Gilligan’s research are limited to mostly white, middle class children and adults..." (from http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Gilligan.htm
Her levels for women:
The main difference between herself and Kolhberg:
Gilligan argues that for most women, progress toward moral maturity is marked by changes in the focus of caring, not by the development of the abstract, impersonal principles that Kohlberg proposes. . .
Gilligan admits, however, that both perspectives are valid, in fact complementary. She argues that "a shift in the focus of attention from concerns about justice to concerns about care changes the definition of what constitutes a moral problem, and leads the same situation to be seen in different ways.
(from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n1/men.html)
Ironically, her own work receives critism to what she said of Kolhberg's research - "the most criticized element to her theory is that it follows the stereotype of women as nurturing, men as logical. The participants of Gilligan’s research are limited to mostly white, middle class children and adults..." (from http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Gilligan.htm
Her levels for women:
Level 1 - Orientation of individual survival. The only obligation is to one's own survival.
Transition 1 - Going from selfishness to responsibility. Realizes one is part of a group and makes decisions based on how these actions affect others.
Level 2 - Goodness as self-sacrifice. Morality is defined by meeting the expectations of others and being submissive to the norms of society. Guilt is a powerful tool here.
Transition 2 - From goodness to truth. Truth and honesty are more important than the reactions of others. She starts considering her own needs again.
Level 3 - Morality of nonviolence. The emphasis is on not hurting people, including oneself.
Kolhberg's Levels of Morality
Level 1 - Preconventional morality: Brought into place by external controls. People obey the rules to get rewards or escape punishment or act out of self-interest. This level is typical of children ages 4 to 10. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 1 - Orientation toward punishment and obedience - "What will happen to me?"
Stage 2 - Instrumental purpose and exchange - "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Level 2 - Conventional morality: People have internalized the standards of authority figures. They are concerned with being good, pleasing others and keeping the social order. Many do not grow out of this even in adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 3 - The Golden Rule - or maintaining mutual relationships
Stage 4 - Social concern and conscience - "What if everybody did it?"
Level 3 - Postconventional morality: People now recognize conflicts between moral standards and make their own judgments on the basis of principles of right fairness and justice. If reached at all, it will usually come in early adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 5 - Morality of contract, of individual rights and of democratically accepted law - valuing the will of the majority and the welfare of society.
Stage 6 - Morality of universal ethical principles - they act in accordance with internal standards, knowing that they would condemn themselves if they did not.
Kolhberg later added a seventh stage of “Why be moral?" where the person questions the existance of morals in the first place. The person starts to see morality from a meta-perspective.
Stage 1 - Orientation toward punishment and obedience - "What will happen to me?"
Stage 2 - Instrumental purpose and exchange - "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Level 2 - Conventional morality: People have internalized the standards of authority figures. They are concerned with being good, pleasing others and keeping the social order. Many do not grow out of this even in adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 3 - The Golden Rule - or maintaining mutual relationships
Stage 4 - Social concern and conscience - "What if everybody did it?"
Level 3 - Postconventional morality: People now recognize conflicts between moral standards and make their own judgments on the basis of principles of right fairness and justice. If reached at all, it will usually come in early adulthood. This level has the following stages of reasoning:
Stage 5 - Morality of contract, of individual rights and of democratically accepted law - valuing the will of the majority and the welfare of society.
Stage 6 - Morality of universal ethical principles - they act in accordance with internal standards, knowing that they would condemn themselves if they did not.
Kolhberg later added a seventh stage of “Why be moral?" where the person questions the existance of morals in the first place. The person starts to see morality from a meta-perspective.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Last chapter summary
Thank God. This book is a hard read.
THE SOCIAL SERVICES - An Introduction
H. Wayne Johnson
Human Diversity and Empowerment
Chapter Twenty Two
N. Yolanda Burwell
In “Human Diversity and Empowerment”, N. Yolanda Burwell discusses the the history of diversity in American culture and way it has been handled. She covers the forms of resistance to diversity and the backlash from them in the first half of the article. In the second, she gives the blocks and the enhancers to cross-cultural empowerment.
The four major categories of resistance to diversity are as follows. Extermination is when individuals of the diverse group is systematically killed. Expulsion is when s group of people are forced to move from the main population into an area specifically for them. Exclusion and segregation is when members of a population are denied privileges and rights based solely on being part of a certain group and forced to use separate facilities. And assimilation is when the diverse group is educated and made to fit into the social norms. (p. 389 - 390)
When this resistance to diversity becomes great enough, social movements are born. People do fight back. Some through the legal system. Others through riots and protests. No one likes being powerless. (p. 391)
There are also four specific blocks to empowerment within the society. One is “missing the consumer's view of service”. When the helper doesn't understand how their help is being view, they often can cause more harm than good. Another is “dominance thinking”, where someone thinks because they have a position of power that their way is the only way. Thirdly is “marginalizing or homogenizing groups”, when one person or trait is considered to represented the whole or lumping everyone of a certain group together. Fourth is “privilege”, where one group has unearned advantages over another. (p. 392 - 394)
There are also four things that enhance cross-cultural empowerment. “Lived experiences” is where personal stories are shared, allowing people of diverse groups to see each other as human. “Consumer and personal rights” are rights that apply to everyone. “Multiculturalism” helps to enlarge the understanding and acceptance of other cultures. And finally, “tapping into energies for change” is the active process of bringing forth change. (p. 394 - 395)
As informative as this article was, it suffered from two very distractive elements. First was the writer's implied message that all social workers should be political activists. While every social worker does have a duty to provide care and empowerment to their clients, I don't believe that having all social workers become activists is a good thing. Those who are more comfortable providing and fighting for individuals are more likely to see their clients as individuals and not a cause. The second distraction was that while she presented three of her topics in sets of four, she didn't do the same for what fights against the resistance to diversity. It left a very unbalanced presentation.
THE SOCIAL SERVICES - An Introduction
H. Wayne Johnson
Human Diversity and Empowerment
Chapter Twenty Two
N. Yolanda Burwell
In “Human Diversity and Empowerment”, N. Yolanda Burwell discusses the the history of diversity in American culture and way it has been handled. She covers the forms of resistance to diversity and the backlash from them in the first half of the article. In the second, she gives the blocks and the enhancers to cross-cultural empowerment.
The four major categories of resistance to diversity are as follows. Extermination is when individuals of the diverse group is systematically killed. Expulsion is when s group of people are forced to move from the main population into an area specifically for them. Exclusion and segregation is when members of a population are denied privileges and rights based solely on being part of a certain group and forced to use separate facilities. And assimilation is when the diverse group is educated and made to fit into the social norms. (p. 389 - 390)
When this resistance to diversity becomes great enough, social movements are born. People do fight back. Some through the legal system. Others through riots and protests. No one likes being powerless. (p. 391)
There are also four specific blocks to empowerment within the society. One is “missing the consumer's view of service”. When the helper doesn't understand how their help is being view, they often can cause more harm than good. Another is “dominance thinking”, where someone thinks because they have a position of power that their way is the only way. Thirdly is “marginalizing or homogenizing groups”, when one person or trait is considered to represented the whole or lumping everyone of a certain group together. Fourth is “privilege”, where one group has unearned advantages over another. (p. 392 - 394)
There are also four things that enhance cross-cultural empowerment. “Lived experiences” is where personal stories are shared, allowing people of diverse groups to see each other as human. “Consumer and personal rights” are rights that apply to everyone. “Multiculturalism” helps to enlarge the understanding and acceptance of other cultures. And finally, “tapping into energies for change” is the active process of bringing forth change. (p. 394 - 395)
As informative as this article was, it suffered from two very distractive elements. First was the writer's implied message that all social workers should be political activists. While every social worker does have a duty to provide care and empowerment to their clients, I don't believe that having all social workers become activists is a good thing. Those who are more comfortable providing and fighting for individuals are more likely to see their clients as individuals and not a cause. The second distraction was that while she presented three of her topics in sets of four, she didn't do the same for what fights against the resistance to diversity. It left a very unbalanced presentation.
Summary #3 from my social services text
THE SOCIAL SERVICES - An Introduction
H. Wayne Johnson
Working with Individuals and Families
Chapter Seventeen
Janet Johnson Laube
In “Working with Individuals and Families”, Janet Johnson Laube covers the multiple needs approach to family social work. She shows how today's social worker tries to focus on the strengths and not the flaws of the people involved, as was done prior to the 1960s (p 305). She also discusses the primary theoretic orientations social workers can work from.
In casework the aim of any social worker is to achieve a working balance between the conflicting needs of individuals and family units. This requires balancing the needs of self and others, aloneness and connectedness and the demands of personal expression and social survival (p. 304). To achieve this, coping must happen on many levels. The physical needs such as food, clothing, sleep, medical care, housing, etc. must be tended to first. For these needs to continue to be met, the economic needs and coping skills must be strengthen, including educational well-being. Then there is social coping skills that need to be addressed, along with the psychological coping skills. When the physical, economic, social and psychological needs are balanced, then the social worker has achieved their goal (p.306 - 308).
The theoretic orientations a social worker may take towards achieving their goal can be one or more of the following approaches. The psychodynamic approach where therapists help individuals modify their personality structures and strengthen ego functioning. The cognitive-behavioral approach where irrational thinking patterns and maladaptive behaviors are identified and altered. The interactional approach where individuals develop authentic relationships in which their self-concepts are strengthened by clear communication. The ecological systems approach which focuses on the relationships among biological, social, psychological and cultural factors that lead to the problem. The costructivist approach is an interactive relationship between social worker and client to find solutions.And lastly, the feminist approach which requires the social worker to recognize and respond to the effects of nonequal power distributions (p.310).
This article gives the reader a useful structure for dealing with the needs of those with serious problems that require the assistance of a social worker. It also gives a good matrix for the approaches a social can take to meeting some of those needs. While some people may rely heavily on one approach, it might be useful to remember all of the approaches and modify which is used based on the situation.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Erikson's 8 stages of Psychosocial Development
Basically I'm tired of picking them out of my text book and want to have them where I can look them over at a glance. I will probably go ahead and do this for a few other developmental theories too.
Stage 1: Infancy -- Age 0 to 1
Crisis: Trust vs. Mistrust
Description: In the first year of life, infants depend on others for food, warmth, and affection, and therefore must be able to blindly trust the parents (or caregivers) for providing those.
Positive outcome: If their needs are met consistently and responsively by the parents, infants not only will develop a secure attachment with the parents, but will learn to trust their environment in general as well.
Negative outcome: If not, infant will develop mistrust towards people and things in their environment, even towards themselves.
Stage 2: Toddler -- Age 1 to 2
Crisis: Autonomy (Independence) vs. Doubt (or Shame)
Description: Toddlers learn to walk, talk, use toilets, and do things for themselves. Their self-control and self-confidence begin to develop at this stage.
Positive outcome: If parents encourage their child's use of initiative and reassure her when she makes mistakes, the child will develop the confidence needed to cope with future situations that require choice, control, and independence.
Negative outcome: If parents are overprotective, or disapproving of the child's acts of independence, she may begin to feel ashamed of her behavior, or have too much doubt of her abilities.
Stage 3: Early Childhood -- Age 2 to 6
Crisis: Initiative vs. Guilt
Description: Children have newfound power at this stage as they have developed motor skills and become more and more engaged in social interaction with people around them. They now must learn to achieve a balance between eagerness for more adventure and more responsibility, and learning to control impulses and childish fantasies.
Positive outcome: If parents are encouraging, but consistent in discipline, children will learn to accept without guilt, that certain things are not allowed, but at the same time will not feel shame when using their imagination and engaging in make-believe role plays.
Negative outcome: If not, children may develop a sense of guilt and may come to believe that it is wrong to be independent.
Stage 4: Elementary and Middle School Years -- Age 6 to 12
Crisis: Competence (aka. "Industry") vs. Inferiority
Description: School is the important event at this stage. Children learn to make things, use tools, and acquire the skills to be a worker and a potential provider. And they do all these while making the transition from the world of home into the world of peers.
Positive outcome: If children can discover pleasure in intellectual stimulation, being productive, seeking success, they will develop a sense of competence.
Negative outcome: If not, they will develop a sense of inferiority.
Stage 5: Adolescence -- Age 12 to 18
Crisis: Identity vs. Role Confusion
Description: This is the time when we ask the question "Who am I?" To successfully answer this question, Erikson suggests, the adolescent must integrate the healthy resolution of all earlier conflicts. Did we develop the basic sense of trust? Do we have a strong sense of independence, competence, and feel in control of our lives? Adolescents who have successfully dealt with earlier conflicts are ready for the "Identity Crisis", which is considered by Erikson as the single most significant conflict a person must face.
Positive outcome: If the adolescent solves this conflict successfully, he will come out of this stage with a strong identity, and ready to plan for the future.
Negative outcome: If not, the adolescent will sink into confusion, unable to make decisions and choices, especially about vocation, sexual orientation, and his role in life in general.
Stage 6: Young Adulthood -- Age 19 to 40
Crisis: Intimacy vs. Isolation
Description: In this stage, the most important events are love relationships. No matter how successful you are with your work, said Erikson, you are not developmentally complete until you are capable of intimacy. An individual who has not developed a sense of identity usually will fear a committed relationship and may retreat into isolation.
Positive outcome: Adult individuals can form close relationships and share with others if they have achieved a sense of identity.
Negative outcome: If not, they will fear commitment, feel isolated and unable to depend on anybody in the world.
Stage 7: Middle Adulthood -- Age 40 to 65
Crisis: Generativity vs. Stagnation
Description: By "generativity" Erikson refers to the adult's ability to look outside oneself and care for others, through parenting, for instance. Erikson suggested that adults need children as much as children need adults, and that this stage reflects the need to create a living legacy.
Positive outcome: People can solve this crisis by having and nurturing children, or helping the next generation in other ways.
Negative outcome: If this crisis is not successfully resolved, the person will remain self-centered and experience stagnation later in life.
Stage 8: Late Adulthood -- Age 65 to death
Crisis: Integrity vs. Despair Important
Description: Old age is a time for reflecting upon one's own life and its role in the big scheme of things, and seeing it filled with pleasure and satisfaction or disappointments and failures.
Positive outcome: If the adult has achieved a sense of fulfillment about life and a sense of unity within himself and with others, he will accept death with a sense of integrity. Just as the healthy child will not fear life, said Erikson, the healthy adult will not fear death.
Negative outcome: If not, the individual will despair and fear death.
Copied from About.Com.
Stage 1: Infancy -- Age 0 to 1
Crisis: Trust vs. Mistrust
Description: In the first year of life, infants depend on others for food, warmth, and affection, and therefore must be able to blindly trust the parents (or caregivers) for providing those.
Positive outcome: If their needs are met consistently and responsively by the parents, infants not only will develop a secure attachment with the parents, but will learn to trust their environment in general as well.
Negative outcome: If not, infant will develop mistrust towards people and things in their environment, even towards themselves.
Stage 2: Toddler -- Age 1 to 2
Crisis: Autonomy (Independence) vs. Doubt (or Shame)
Description: Toddlers learn to walk, talk, use toilets, and do things for themselves. Their self-control and self-confidence begin to develop at this stage.
Positive outcome: If parents encourage their child's use of initiative and reassure her when she makes mistakes, the child will develop the confidence needed to cope with future situations that require choice, control, and independence.
Negative outcome: If parents are overprotective, or disapproving of the child's acts of independence, she may begin to feel ashamed of her behavior, or have too much doubt of her abilities.
Stage 3: Early Childhood -- Age 2 to 6
Crisis: Initiative vs. Guilt
Description: Children have newfound power at this stage as they have developed motor skills and become more and more engaged in social interaction with people around them. They now must learn to achieve a balance between eagerness for more adventure and more responsibility, and learning to control impulses and childish fantasies.
Positive outcome: If parents are encouraging, but consistent in discipline, children will learn to accept without guilt, that certain things are not allowed, but at the same time will not feel shame when using their imagination and engaging in make-believe role plays.
Negative outcome: If not, children may develop a sense of guilt and may come to believe that it is wrong to be independent.
Stage 4: Elementary and Middle School Years -- Age 6 to 12
Crisis: Competence (aka. "Industry") vs. Inferiority
Description: School is the important event at this stage. Children learn to make things, use tools, and acquire the skills to be a worker and a potential provider. And they do all these while making the transition from the world of home into the world of peers.
Positive outcome: If children can discover pleasure in intellectual stimulation, being productive, seeking success, they will develop a sense of competence.
Negative outcome: If not, they will develop a sense of inferiority.
Stage 5: Adolescence -- Age 12 to 18
Crisis: Identity vs. Role Confusion
Description: This is the time when we ask the question "Who am I?" To successfully answer this question, Erikson suggests, the adolescent must integrate the healthy resolution of all earlier conflicts. Did we develop the basic sense of trust? Do we have a strong sense of independence, competence, and feel in control of our lives? Adolescents who have successfully dealt with earlier conflicts are ready for the "Identity Crisis", which is considered by Erikson as the single most significant conflict a person must face.
Positive outcome: If the adolescent solves this conflict successfully, he will come out of this stage with a strong identity, and ready to plan for the future.
Negative outcome: If not, the adolescent will sink into confusion, unable to make decisions and choices, especially about vocation, sexual orientation, and his role in life in general.
Stage 6: Young Adulthood -- Age 19 to 40
Crisis: Intimacy vs. Isolation
Description: In this stage, the most important events are love relationships. No matter how successful you are with your work, said Erikson, you are not developmentally complete until you are capable of intimacy. An individual who has not developed a sense of identity usually will fear a committed relationship and may retreat into isolation.
Positive outcome: Adult individuals can form close relationships and share with others if they have achieved a sense of identity.
Negative outcome: If not, they will fear commitment, feel isolated and unable to depend on anybody in the world.
Stage 7: Middle Adulthood -- Age 40 to 65
Crisis: Generativity vs. Stagnation
Description: By "generativity" Erikson refers to the adult's ability to look outside oneself and care for others, through parenting, for instance. Erikson suggested that adults need children as much as children need adults, and that this stage reflects the need to create a living legacy.
Positive outcome: People can solve this crisis by having and nurturing children, or helping the next generation in other ways.
Negative outcome: If this crisis is not successfully resolved, the person will remain self-centered and experience stagnation later in life.
Stage 8: Late Adulthood -- Age 65 to death
Crisis: Integrity vs. Despair Important
Description: Old age is a time for reflecting upon one's own life and its role in the big scheme of things, and seeing it filled with pleasure and satisfaction or disappointments and failures.
Positive outcome: If the adult has achieved a sense of fulfillment about life and a sense of unity within himself and with others, he will accept death with a sense of integrity. Just as the healthy child will not fear life, said Erikson, the healthy adult will not fear death.
Negative outcome: If not, the individual will despair and fear death.
Copied from About.Com.
Another chapter summary from my social services text.
THE SOCIAL SERVICES - An Introduction
H. Wayne Johnson
Mental Health and Social Work
Chapter Nine
Verne R. Kelley
In Mental Health and Social Work, Verne R. Kelley gives a brief history of the treatment of mental disorders and current role of social health today. From the earliest of recorded history, through several major turning points in mental health treatment, he points out what worked and what didn't. Then he describes the challenges currently facing mental health social work today, as well as the trends in the field of mental health.
From the very start, Kelley tackles the very definitions of “mental disorder” (p. 157) and “mental health” (p. 158). He explains that because of the complexity of emotional disturbances, the term “mental disorder”is not defined. In fact, he notes that the DSM-IV says there is no definition that can adequately specify the boundaries of mental disorders (p. 157). Instead the DSM-IV deals with the classifications of disorders people can have. Rather than labeling a person a “schizophrenic”, it uses the more accurate term “person with Schizophrenia” (p. 171). For “mental health”, Kelley draws on Robert White's definition of an “organism's capacity to interact effectively with its environment“ and ”one's confidence of being able, when necessary, to have desired effects“ (p.158).
Summarizing the history of mental health, Kelley focuses on the ambivalence of Western society in its diametric approaches of compassion and intolerance (p. 159). The first hospital exclusively for the mentally ill was created in A.D. 490 (ibid.), based on the concept of compassion. It was not until the Middle Ages that mental illness was linked to witchcraft by two Dominican monks (ibid.). As mental health facilities where introduced in the New World, the concept of “moral treatment” was a strong one versus the old treatment of just locking these people away in places like “Bedam” in London and Bicôtre in Paris. With “moral treatment” recovery rates as high as 72 percent, it is no wonder it is still practiced today in concert with other treatments (ibid).
Yet, history has shown a cycle of humane versus inhuman treatments for the mentally ill. Some of that can be attributed to the success of the earlier hospitals, causing them to be over-utilized and leading to the “snake pit” conditions in the early twentieth century (p. 160 - 161). Funding, skilled staff and available facilities limit the amount of people that can be helped and in what capacity. Many institutions have found alternate ways over the years to overcome these obstacles (p. 162).
Other turning points in mental health history are the works of Sigmund Freud and the concept of community mental health care. Freud proved that there were systems and patterns to mental disorders and the National Mental Health Act of 1946 helped states to create a network of community services, as well as fund the research and education of mental health professionals (ibid). In addition to community mental health centers, this also led to the development and increase of: university training and research facilities; military social work; private practices; and alcoholism and drug abuse services (p. 164-165).
Somewhere along the line, the idea of preventing emotional disorders came into being. Prevention “assumes that the best way to ward off maladaptive problems is to equip people with the personal and environmental resources for successful coping“ (p. 166). An offshoot of this belief has lead to the development of many early childhood programs and is currently behind the idea of giving training and support to parents to be (p. 167). Still, some traumas cannot be foreseen. This fact has lead to the increase of emergency and short-term assistance programs like telephone and walk-in crisis centers (p. 167).
The roles of social work in mental health ranges from client advocacy between organizations and family to coordinating community services for the client. The demands of funding and need, as well as overseeing agencies and “care for profit” management present many challenges to today's clinical social worker and other mental health professionals and many are resorting to creative ways to meet these demands(p 173).
This insightful chapter gives a very good overview of successful mental health care. It is sad that many policymakers are unaware of the successful trends or choose to ignore them based on the mind set of intolerance towards those with these difficulties. Still, this challenges those working in this field to work harder to find better solutions.
H. Wayne Johnson
Mental Health and Social Work
Chapter Nine
Verne R. Kelley
In Mental Health and Social Work, Verne R. Kelley gives a brief history of the treatment of mental disorders and current role of social health today. From the earliest of recorded history, through several major turning points in mental health treatment, he points out what worked and what didn't. Then he describes the challenges currently facing mental health social work today, as well as the trends in the field of mental health.
From the very start, Kelley tackles the very definitions of “mental disorder” (p. 157) and “mental health” (p. 158). He explains that because of the complexity of emotional disturbances, the term “mental disorder”is not defined. In fact, he notes that the DSM-IV says there is no definition that can adequately specify the boundaries of mental disorders (p. 157). Instead the DSM-IV deals with the classifications of disorders people can have. Rather than labeling a person a “schizophrenic”, it uses the more accurate term “person with Schizophrenia” (p. 171). For “mental health”, Kelley draws on Robert White's definition of an “organism's capacity to interact effectively with its environment“ and ”one's confidence of being able, when necessary, to have desired effects“ (p.158).
Summarizing the history of mental health, Kelley focuses on the ambivalence of Western society in its diametric approaches of compassion and intolerance (p. 159). The first hospital exclusively for the mentally ill was created in A.D. 490 (ibid.), based on the concept of compassion. It was not until the Middle Ages that mental illness was linked to witchcraft by two Dominican monks (ibid.). As mental health facilities where introduced in the New World, the concept of “moral treatment” was a strong one versus the old treatment of just locking these people away in places like “Bedam” in London and Bicôtre in Paris. With “moral treatment” recovery rates as high as 72 percent, it is no wonder it is still practiced today in concert with other treatments (ibid).
Yet, history has shown a cycle of humane versus inhuman treatments for the mentally ill. Some of that can be attributed to the success of the earlier hospitals, causing them to be over-utilized and leading to the “snake pit” conditions in the early twentieth century (p. 160 - 161). Funding, skilled staff and available facilities limit the amount of people that can be helped and in what capacity. Many institutions have found alternate ways over the years to overcome these obstacles (p. 162).
Other turning points in mental health history are the works of Sigmund Freud and the concept of community mental health care. Freud proved that there were systems and patterns to mental disorders and the National Mental Health Act of 1946 helped states to create a network of community services, as well as fund the research and education of mental health professionals (ibid). In addition to community mental health centers, this also led to the development and increase of: university training and research facilities; military social work; private practices; and alcoholism and drug abuse services (p. 164-165).
Somewhere along the line, the idea of preventing emotional disorders came into being. Prevention “assumes that the best way to ward off maladaptive problems is to equip people with the personal and environmental resources for successful coping“ (p. 166). An offshoot of this belief has lead to the development of many early childhood programs and is currently behind the idea of giving training and support to parents to be (p. 167). Still, some traumas cannot be foreseen. This fact has lead to the increase of emergency and short-term assistance programs like telephone and walk-in crisis centers (p. 167).
The roles of social work in mental health ranges from client advocacy between organizations and family to coordinating community services for the client. The demands of funding and need, as well as overseeing agencies and “care for profit” management present many challenges to today's clinical social worker and other mental health professionals and many are resorting to creative ways to meet these demands(p 173).
This insightful chapter gives a very good overview of successful mental health care. It is sad that many policymakers are unaware of the successful trends or choose to ignore them based on the mind set of intolerance towards those with these difficulties. Still, this challenges those working in this field to work harder to find better solutions.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)