The Meandering Social Worker

wandering : wondering : learning

Archive for the category “Moralities”

Why your brain hates other people

It’s been a long time since I posted anything – been a bit too occupied with running election campaigns!  Although I try to keep my political activities separate from social work, there is so much that overlap.

Living in an area where racism is rife this one particular subject has been close to the forefront of my mind.  What a treat then to find this rather long article by entitled Why Your Brain Hates Other People, by Robert Sapolsky, on the the root causes of so many different areas of prejudice, whether we call it racism or not, whether we talk of hate crimes or bullying or something else.

Fundamentally, whether we like it or not, our brains are hard-wired to “stick to our own kind”, whether that’s race, religion, politics, or class.  It’s in the amygdala. We won’t, in our lifetimes, overcome our biology, but understanding is the first step in lessening the negative impact in our own lives.

[The article references the Implicit Association Test – a brilliant way of testing your own prejudices.  Much of what Sapolsky talks about here can also be found in the work of the Human Givens Institute.  Both easily found with Google.]

I had a conversation with a political friend the other day.  I was reminiscing about being in Africa and noticing that people kept staring at me.  And then I realised I hadn’t seen another white face in three days.  I was passing through their land, albeit slowly.  I loved Africa and I hated it.  I was travelling on a shoestring, yet by virtue of my race, my colour, I was seen as rich.  And I was rich.  I had food in my belly.  I was travelling in a car.  But I knew that sooner or later I would have to face up to the fact that my travels were being increasingly funded by debt, and I would soon have to return to work to clear those debts.  Could I explain that?  No.  I was rich. I had access to debt I could hope to work to pay off.  My European passport (soon to be lost to Brexit, don’t get me started) gave me a freedom of movement not afforded to others. White privilege.

But as I reflect on Sapolsky’s article I wonder how else ‘they’ saw ‘me’?

Advertisements

Wilful Blindness

Margaret Heffernan draws you into her book on this subject by starting right where the heart is: with our relationships. Or, as she puts it, opposites attract but they never marry. A quick look around seems to verify this view: how many teachers are married to teachers, or academics to academics, doctors to doctors, socialists to socialists, libertarians to libertarians, intellectuals to intellectuals, artists to artists? How diverse are friendship groups? Chances are, not that much. We meet friends through work, university or through other friends. Families might be a bit more diverse, but do we have much to do with that brother or sister, or cousin or uncle who is rather more different to the rest of the clan? Probably not. Ex-pats abroad inevitably congregate with other ex-pats, the familiarity of language and heritage, the alienation of being in a strange place, drawing them closer. And don’t think eclectics escape all this sticking together. It turns out that even eclectics prefer eclectics.

But why? We feel safe when we agree on certain things, we relax when we are with those who share our views. It’s a natural part of the brain’s functioning to take the easy way out, to take shortcuts. Through our brain we choose our partners, our jobs, even the neighbourhoods we live in, and find ourselves among those with familiar outlooks, familiar views, familiar lifestyles. We slide into a rut and narrow down our openness to new ideas and new experiences.

We choose our news sources according to the views we already agree with. Even the internet, for all that is said about it being such a diverse source of information, facilitates the like-minded getting together through shared-interest forums. Have you ever noticed how so many news stories come up in your news feed on Facebook that just go to prove what you already know, so you cry out in frustration, “It’s so obvious. Why can’t the politicians see this!” That’s because Facebook is adept at encouraging wilful blindness. It analyses what you read and like and just gives you more of the same. Facebook works like the brain: not only does the brain prefer familiarity, it will actively work to eliminate the distress of conflicting information. It’s genetic, it’s heritage, it’s evolutionary. It’s survival. Ancient communities survived by sticking together, not rocking the boat, maintaining the status quo.

So we are never challenged, we are never stretched, and we are encouraged to never see or access an alternative point of view. We never step outside our comfort zone. It’s the brain’s way of coping with the barrage of information coming its way. It’s the same brain function that causes addiction and makes quitting smoking so hard. And habit conforms to the familiarity so favoured by the brain.

But does it matter? Well yes, it does. Because it’s not just a neat way of increasing the chance of a long and happy marriage (as pleasant as that may be). It’s much more than that. Because wilful blindness is no excuse in law, or as we might more commonly say, ignorance is no defence in law, and wilful blindness can land you in prison. And because wilful blindness can affect us all in catastrophic ways.

Why did nobody in the banking industry see what was happening in the run up to the credit crunch in 2008/9, when it was so obvious what would happen? Why did no-one realise what was going on in Libby, Montana, when so many were dying from asbestosis (as told in the book)? Why did the executives at BP not realise the dangers of executive decision cutbacks, until after disaster occurred? Why did no-one intervene to stop the decades of child abuse in the Catholic Church, when so many people could see what was going on? Why did a whole nation follow Hitler? Why did no-one report Jimmy Saville when it seems that so many were suspicious? Why is it always the wife or husband who is the ‘last to know’ when the other is having an affair? Wasn’t it obvious? With hindsight, yes, but not at the time. Why do doctors never treat their own relatives? Because it’s a known phenomenon that they are less likely to ‘see’ the signs of serious illness in their loved ones because they don’t want to see. How did the perpetrators of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham get away with it for so long? The very crimes that have prompted David Cameron to propose making ‘wilful neglect’ a criminal offence for social workers punishable by prison sentences. But will it make any difference? Will social workers ‘see’ those child abuse rings any better? Will another banking crisis be averted in the future? Can we say there will never be another Jimmy Saville? Can we put a stop to global warming (you may not think it’s a problem, my Facebook news feed says it is)?

Probably not. Statistics show that when directly asked 85% of people are able to recognise the existence of a problem, but haven’t done anything about it. They were wilfully blind. They followed the crowd – it’s a known phenomenon that a lone person is more likely to rescue a drowning man than anyone in a crowd. We don’t want to stand out, we don’t want to be seen to be different. It may not be a conscious thought but we seem to follow the line that ‘no-one else is going to his rescue so he probably doesn’t need rescuing, I’m not going to make a fool of myself’. We became ‘blind’ to his cries, his distress, his drowning. Or we think standing up on an issue is futile, it won’t make any difference. We fear retaliation. After all whistleblowers come from the remaining 15% and we all know how much difficulty they face for ‘causing trouble’. We don’t like cognitive dissonance, it’s painful to live with. The old is invariably chosen over the new. Priests are Godly men, they can’t be abusers. Jimmy Saville did so much good he can’t be a bad man.

It takes less energy for the brain to believe than it does to doubt, and the brain takes the path of least resistance. It takes effort to go against the grain. A small few are both blessed and cursed with the ‘gift’ of seeing. For the rest of us, we have to make superhuman effort to re-train our brains to see beyond the ‘obvious’ our brain chooses to show us.  And a good start is by reading Margaret Heffernan’s book:

Wilful Blindness: why we ignore the obvious at our peril. Margaret Heffernan, 2011, Simon & Shuster, London, £7.99 paperback

Why soundbites don’t work for society

I often see Facebook images and articles about social issues and share them on my own timelinepensions image, but I don’t think I can share this one.  It’s not that I don’t agree with the sentiment behind it.

Let me start by saying that I support people of retirement age getting an appropriate pension. It’s a part of human decency in supporting society. Not least as, after forty years of working myself, my own retirement is on the near horizon.

This image came with the comment that ‘inept governments who did not invest wisely over the years shouldn’t blame the olds’. But it’s not as simple as that. Firstly we elected those inept governments and then put our trust in them to act in our best interests. At one time we genuinely believed they did, now as a society we are much less sure (NatCen’s British Social Attitudes Survey highlights just how much our trust and belief in our governments have declined over the years).

But did our governments act ineptly in this matter? Surely governments over the years (1) could never invest the money because it was always paying out this year’s pension with this year’s Tax and National Insurance income and (2) why should they because in the early days of pensions they could reasonably assume that it would always be possible to work that way. Isn’t that how the majority of us budget our own weekly or monthly income?

They didn’t have a crystal ball any more than the rest of us to see how technology and globalisation would change the world. And so for all sorts of reasons that balancing of the budget between pension income and pension outgoings became harder and so in recent years we have seen the promotion of the private pension provision and the raising of the retirement age. That doesn’t take into account the fact that there are only so many jobs in the market place and if the old are working then the young aren’t – but that’s another debate.

In the meantime there are some things for which we should still be grateful – the UK state pension has only existed for 106 years and when it was introduced in 1909 it was as a non-contributory but means tested benefit claimable only over the age of 70 when only 25% of the population lived long enough to claim it. And, due to poor working conditions and health, many of those who did reach 70 years of age would have been among the better off and so not entitled to a means-tested benefit. Before 1909 you went to the workhouse or died if your family couldn’t keep you if you couldn’t work for any reason. (for more detail see History of State Pension Age)

When the new contributory pension was introduced in 1925 this was still an era when married women did not work. Men became entitled to pension payments at the age of 65 but had to wait until their wife retired, often 4-5 years later, to receive the full couple’s entitlement, forcing them either into poverty or the wife into the impossibility of entering the workplace, some for the first time in 40 years. Fortunately in those days employability depended less on employment record, although she would still have faced the barrier of married women not being seen as needing employment. This was no doubt harder on the women of the middle classes at the time as the women of the working classes were more likely to have had to supplement the family income through domestic work, taking in laundry, ironing and mending, and could continue to do so.

Women didn’t work outside the home because that was the social norm. A young woman might begin working when she left education but when she married she was often forced to resign her job to allow that opportunity to be passed on to another young person. My own mother was forced to resign her job in a local pharmacy when she married in the mid-1950’s as she was now perceived to be the ‘responsibility’ of her husband. But her husband was a manual labourer and on low income and not earning enough to keep the two of them. One day when my mother went into the pharmacy she was talking to her old boss and said how hard it was. He offered her her old job back – on the condition that she was called Miss, used her maiden name at work and took off her wedding ring at work: he feared the disapproval and that he would lose customers if they thought he was employing a married woman. As a carryover from that time, when I married in 1981 my new aunts (all in their 70’s) were shocked and disapproving that I intended to continue working once married.

In the meantime, in this same cultural environment, when the retirement age for women was reduced to 60 in 1940 it allowed couples to receive their pension entitlement at approximately the same time, based on the average age differences between husbands and wives, reducing pensioner poverty but with the happier side effect of allowing long term marrieds to retire and spend their last few years together, particularly as men were still likely to die of old age before their wives retired before that time.

Of course the second world war (1939-1945) did a lot to change the culture then, with married women making up the backbone of the domestic workforce while so many of the men were away fighting in the war. Expectations changed and with the end of the war things were never the same again.

The continued changing nature of society and relationships, powered by technological developments and globalisation, has changed our society almost beyond recognition to those times and things like the age differential has ceased to seem quite so defensible, allowing for legislative changes for men and women’s pensionable ages to be increased and brought on a par again.

Finally, with improved health care for everybody under the NHS, far more people have been living longer not only to reach pensionable age but also to be entitled to a pension income for half as long again as they worked and contributed for, thus increasing the burden on those still working and contributing. Back to my own mother’s story: thanks to the generosity of her employer she was able to work full time for around 8 years between leaving school and giving birth to me. Thanks to a local employer who specialised in exploiting young mums in need of an extra income she was able to work part time for a further 11 years. Then she worked a further 12 years full time until she retired at the age of 60. Had she not retired at 60 she would not have been able to work for much of the next five years as she underwent two hip replacement operations, one of which took much longer to heal than normal, due to infection. On a low income or working part time for 31 years, it is questionable whether she could ever have invested enough in her working life to have funded what is already over 23 years of retirement. Why should I consider a government capable of doing that (as suggested by the commentator I quoted at the beginning of this article)? For comparison, my own pension arrangements include two private company pensions now invested in private insurances that represent 10 years of working life and a combined anticipated income of £70 per month. If that is representative of the potential investment over 50 years I would have £350 per month to look forward to – less than the rent on a one bedroom flat. The rest of my private pension entitlement is better for having been with a local government pension scheme for a number of years but since halved due to divorce and a compulsory pension sharing agreement, just one of the newer challenges faced by today’s pension investors and not anticipated by the original pension planners 100 years ago, and still, in my case, not enough to pay the rent on a one bedroom flat. Admittedly I started late, having been born into the generation that was still being told our National Insurance contributions included an investment for our pensions. For all governmental intentions, private sector pensions are never going to fill the Welfare Benefits gap.

Like most people of her age, my mum could not work if she wanted to. She may have lived well beyond the life expectancy of a woman at the beginning of the 20th century, when pensions were introduced, but like so many of her friends, it has not been in the kind of health that would have enabled her to compete in the workplace.

The fact is, when life expectancy means that retirement is going to last for as much as half as many years again as we are able to work (more if you add a long university education in to the equation), governments need to budget for an aging population that is based on more than ‘investing wisely’ what is paid in National Insurance contributions.

Public spending on Benefits in the UKIn 2011-12 pensions and pension credits amounted to £82.33b, almost double what was spent on disability benefits combined (£24.58b) and almost a third of the total welfare benefits bill; although neither figure takes into account Housing and Council Tax Benefits, which will somewhat increase both these figures and their proportion of the overall benefits bill. These are not figures that can be easily changed. Age and disability cannot be ‘undone’. And ironically a capitalist society needs a pool of unemployed people to keep wages in check and provide incentives to workers to conform.

Some things might be changing. Concerns over the impact of the rising incidence of diet related health problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart problems, and more, have raised the possibility of a lowering of the average lifespan. The very real issue of antibiotic resistance, compounded by use of antibiotics in intensive farming methods and reduced research into new antibiotics under the growth of privately funded medical research where antibiotic development is not profitable, will have the same impact.

While the mercenary view suggests this will reduce the pressure on pension provision in the future it will hardly help the wider financial picture as pressure is put on health providers and disability benefits, while reducing the pool of people available to work.

Emotive photos with captions that pensions are not a benefit but something that has been paid for over years is sound-bite propaganda. It’s not helpful in the wider debate. We are collectively a part of a wider community. Bunkering down into our own field of concern, whether it be pensions, disability benefits, child poverty, NHS, or education, will not help. The creeping privatisation of our National Health Service and Education system (through increasing academies) will not produce an answer. Just as communism fell because of the greed of a minority and the oppression of the majority, so too will capitalism eventually follow for the same reasons.

The whole system needs an overhaul. Society as a whole needs to recognise shared responsibility for the functioning of society. That includes the domination of our food industry by companies that put profit before community health (and global impact); the impact of the privatisation of research that means that essential but unprofitable research doesn’t get done; the privatisation of healthcare that will disadvantage the already disadvantaged (just look to the United States to see why the NHS should be saved); the privatisation of education and social care that means that costs and services have to meet the needs of shareholders often at the expense of service users, because that’s how capitalism works; governments that make policy decisions based on short term objectives, or what will get them voted in again next time, because that’s how democracy works, instead of on what society needs five generations into the future, as the old American Indians thought.

I have become a fan of Margaret Heffernan’s book Wilful Blindness (she’s also on TED Talks). Its human nature, it’s in the way our brains have been wired, to see only that which is easy to see. Facebook works that way: ever noticed how you always get more of what you believe, that’s because facebook works like your brain and ignores that which you will find intellectually uncomfortable. But we have to make the effort to see beyond the natural blindness, to see beyond the soundbites, if we ever want to be a part of a fully functioning society that cares for one another.

Outrospection

Outrospection is the 21st Century response to the introspection of the self-help movement of the 20th Century.  Instead of making ourselves the focus of our world let’s focus on the world around us.  Go beyond the one-on-one emotional empathy we associate with therapy and psychology and develop our cognitive empathy to help whole communities.  Hey, wait a minute: doesn’t that sound a bit like the roots of social work that pre-dated the self-help movement of the last century, with pioneers such as Octavia Hill, Joseph Rowntree, the founders of the Charities Commission and the anti-slave trade campaigners?  Could this be social work’s antidote to the managerialism that has blighted our profession for the best part of twenty years?

Check out the infographic below from Roman Krznaric, explaining his take on Outrospection, and then challenge your thoughts on empathy with philosopher and professor Paul Bloom in his article “Against Empathy”.

RSA Animate – The Power of Outrospection from The RSA on Vimeo.

She did not groom him

I am writing at the risk of adding yet more verbiage to the reporting on the latest unbelievable ignorance by a member of the judiciary.  I am of course talking about Judge Greenberg in her summing up of the trial of Stuart Kerner for having a sexual relationship with a 15/16 year old girl pupil.  Stunningly the judge admitted she did not really know if it was the right word to use as she suggested the girl had ‘groomed’ Mr Kerner.  It wasn’t the right word to use and now, fortunately, she will be subject to an inquiry.

But let’s take a step back and consider the aspects of the case that are publicly known along with what we know about child and adolescent development and normal human behaviour.

The girl was 15/16.  An adolescent.  It is normal for young people of this age to be developing their sexual identity.  It is normal for young people of this age to develop a ‘crush’ or ‘infatuation’ with one or more of the hopefully ‘safe’ adults in their lives (same or opposite sex), often at a ‘safe’ distance in the form of a pop star or football player, etc.  It is even normal for young girls to experiment with flirting with (heaven forbid) their dads, older brothers, uncles, teachers.  It’s a part of growing up.  It is not normal for those adults to respond by getting into a sexual relationship with that child/young person.

It is quite possible this schoolgirl thought she was in love with her teacher and acted in a way that let him know of her attraction towards him.  Assuming he is a normal male he would have felt flattered by the attention and sexual interest of a younger person.

But he was also a professional in a position of responsibility.  Another of those relational facts of life is that some (many?) women find men in a position of responsibility attractive.  Films such as An Officer and a Gentleman help illustrate this idea but there are plenty of everyday vicars and doctors and surgeons and police officers and therapists, as well as teachers, who have to deal with the attentions of vulnerable people who are attracted to them because of their position and role in society. That’s why these professions have codes of conduct.

Mr Kerner should not have succumbed to the flattery of the attention of a young girl.  He should have recognised his responsibility towards her as a pupil.  His own emotional vulnerability while his wife was pregnant should never have come into it. As a teacher concerned about a pupil’s behaviour and attentions he should have spoken to another, more senior, member of staff in confidence according to his school’s procedures.  He and his seniors would need to acknowledge that in a tiny percentage of cases the girl could have made a false allegation against him for denying her advances.  They should have worked together to support the girl and ensure that everyone was appropriately protected from an inappropriate relationship.  Clearly that didn’t happen.

This young woman, now 19, should be able to sit down with her friends and giggle over a glass of wine about the time she had a crush on the RE teacher, old Mr Kerner.  Instead she has to face the memory that he took her virginity in a cleaning cupboard and that some nutty old judge turned around and blamed her for it.

All heterosexual references above can equally apply to same sex relationships.

Post Navigation