‘Defacing the Currency?’: A Group-Analytic Appreciation of Homelessness, Dangerousness, Disorder and Other Inarticulate Speech of the Heart
‘Defacing the Currency?’: A Group-Analytic Appreciation of Homelessness, Dangerousness, Disorder and Other Inarticulate Speech of the Heart
复制标题
“玷污货币？”：对无家可归、危险、混乱和其他难以言喻的内心言语的群体分析欣赏
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Adlam
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Scanlon;J. Adlam
在帮助无家可归者、危险者和精神失常者的工作中，帮助机构及其部署的工作人员每天都面临着一项任务，即让那些基本上持反社会立场的人参与进来，或者被认为是拒绝参与进来的人。我们讨论的前提是，尽管近年来显然对被社会排斥者的问题给予了相当大的关注，但仍然有一群人拒绝参与，而且很可能永远会有。我们的论点是，即使我们最有经验的工人尽最大努力去解决这些问题（根据我们的经验，实际上很少有这种情况），总会有一群人拒绝玩游戏，抵制一切使他们“免受冷落”的努力。我们认为，心理健康和社会政策的指示，乐观地，或玩世不恭地，设想未来，当所有这些人都将“社会包括”涉及同样顽固和危险的社会拒绝面对这些问题的现实：否认他们的基本复杂性和社会本身的一部分，他们寻求缓解永久化的问题。我们认为，这种系统性的拒绝是危险的，因为无论政策多么“政治正确”，或者需求评估工具多么复杂，这种信仰体系都会使被社会排斥的人以及试图接触他们的工作人员失败。然后，我们将分享我们的观点，这种失败的经验如何加剧了被排斥者的排斥感，并增加了，有时到了临界点，工人中普遍存在的不满和士气低落的感觉。因此，我们面临的中心问题是如何与这些困难的核心拒绝联系起来如何与冒犯联系起来而不被冒犯如何做到这一点而不使平等主义的“我们”迅速崩溃为我们和他们。在阐述我们的观点时，我们还想建议，我们需要放弃对一个或另一个特定思想或实践流派的“老式”忠诚，这些流派或实践基于教条或偏见而包括/排除他人的贡献，并与其他人一起敢于说实话，必要时，污损我们这个时代错误的歧视性货币。
In their work with the homeless, the dangerous and the disordered, helping agencies and the workers they deploy are faced, on a daily basis, with the task of engaging people whose essentially anti-social stance is, or is construed to be, one of a refusal to join in. The premise of our discussion is that, despite considerable attention over recent years having apparently being addressed to the problems of the socially excluded, there remains, and will most likely always be, a group of people who refuse to be engaged. It is our contention that even if the best efforts of our most experienced workers were channelled into addressing these problems—and this, in our experience, is rarely actually the case—there would always remain a group of people who refuse to play the game and resist all efforts to bring them ‘in from the cold’. We argue that mental health and social policy directives that optimistically, or cynically, envisage a future when all such people will be ‘socially included’ involve an equally stubborn and dangerous societal refusal to face up to the reality of these problems: a denial of their essential complexity and the part that society itself plays in perpetuating the very problems they seek to alleviate. We will contend that this systemic refusal is dangerous because, no matter how ‘politically correct’ the policy, or how sophisticated the needs assessment tools, such belief systems are setting up socially excluded people, and the workers charged with trying to reach out to them, to fail. We will then share our perspectives on how this experience of failure exacerbates a sense of exclusion in the excluded and increases, sometimes to breaking point, a pervasive sense of disaffection and demoralization in the workers. The central problem which we therefore face is how to relate to the refusal that is at the heart of these difficulties—how to relate to offensiveness without becoming offended—and how to do this without the egalitarian ‘we’ quickly collapsing into an us and a them. In making our case we would like also to suggest that we need to side-step ‘old-fashioned’ allegiances to one or another particular school of thought or practice that includes/excludes others’ contributions on the basis of dogma or prejudice and to join with others to dare to tell the truth and if necessary, to deface the falsely discriminating currency of our times.