G'day again.
This post has been flicking in and out of my consciousness for a while now.
Part of me likes it whilst the other part says no.
The part of me that it raised negative impacts with are those parts of me
that does not like "rescuing" behaviour. Something in this post and other
related ones, raised the concept for me that we are (excuse the sexism)
knights in shining armor, come to rescue the people in distress. It raised
the old rescuer- tormentor - victim triangle for me. When the rescuer comes
riding in the usual outcome is that the rescuer ends up as the victim - and
the game continues.
. If we are to be advocates we can only be advocates with people's
permission. Advocacy is not something that comes with the job description.
To assume the right to be an advocate is to replace the critical parent (
which abuses power by fear) with the nuturing parent (which abuses power by
benevolence). The model of parent used here is the Transactional Amnalysis
one propounded by Eric Berne.
I think the answer may lie in finding out if people actually want it to be
different and then helping them build strategies to make the change.
The analogy I use with people is that even in a situation where someone is
being abused phsically (particularly in family relationships) the person who
is being abused has to take the first step (reporting the situation, running
away from home etc.) I think people own their own lives and it is our role
to work with them if and only if they want us to.
regards
denis
denis cowan , brisbane , australia. fax ** 61 7 32681869
email: cowandp@gil.com.au,
http://www.gil.com.au/comm/profcounsel/dcowan.htm
--Denis Cowan <cowandp@gil.ipswichcity.qld.gov.au>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>