Peering into the Future

June 3, 2019

Mutual Aid

Peer Support is an emerging and evolving approach to Transformational Learning (TL), in which we commit to behave with dignity and to encourage self-determination for everyone, through Support, Hope, Advocacy, Personal Responsibility and Education (SHAPE).

The simple premise of Positive Ways Peer Support – PWPS – (adopting DENT©  principles) is that people and peers are; good enough; have the resources they need; can co-operate; are sometimes in need of confidence; but together, through mutual support and encouragement, they can make things happen.

PWPS provides many pathways to contribute, participate, join and influence group matters. It is an open form system, which means all can contribute and we are clear on how we work. We are all volunteers and so transparency is paramount, which means we explain our ways of working, investing and reporting.

This is because, TL is best achieved when we commit to the long term relationship, stay willing to resolve and settle relationship tensions and collaborate with others, both inside and outside of our group. Our aim is to build, solidarity, develop alliances and feel able to welcome those who may feel marginalised, to our groups.

This is because peer education is about expanding self-awareness and understanding experiences, especially those that are not our own; that is in understanding another’s perspective. To learn, peering must be approached with humility and a willingness to accept and give feedback.

Part of that humility and acceptance includes decision making being led by consensus rather than by majority rule. This is slow, frustrating, especially when people insist that either they are not good enough or insist on being told what to do, and requires calmness. Yet with patience and tenacity, TL is facilitated, a healthier approach to choosing evolves and better-quality decisions arise.

To be effective, Positive Ways encourages Social Enterprise from within the group and through the Adept Living Foundation (ALF) which ensures that we always provide what is valued and we are not therefore reliant on others to fund or decide our priorities.

Note:

DENT© Dynamic Experiential Narrative Theory (DENT) is grounded in Social Constructivist approaches which informs leadership, organisational development and the growth of the human potential. It’s core and pragmatic proposition is that individuals are collective more successful when they have clear purpose, negotiate mutuality with their peers, integrate their personal and world view with the needs of their social world and co-operate together.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328190677_Dynamic_Experiential_Narrative_Theory_-_A_position_paper_on_leadership_organisational_development_and_human_growth


Neigbour Disputes – “She’s offside Referee!”

April 20, 2019

Neighbour Disputes

One of the key factors in mediating and resolving neighbour disputes is having lived experience that enables a liberal, objective and local approach to be agreed.

The referee or mediate can do the deal if the parties are fair minded.

A good referee or mediator brings community harmony. This is because, unresolved long running neighbour disputes can waste community resources, upset other residents and led to unnecessary and unpleasant experiences.

The Adept Living Foundation (‘ALF’) Community Interest Company is coming up to the end of its second year of providing and developing peer support services to the community.

Alongside developing peer support groups, a peer support certificate and an enterprise arm to fund its community activities, ALF has introduced a local cost ‘Neighbour Dispute Mediation Service’. Such a service under pins ALF’s members desire to live and contribute to harmonious community.

‘Lived experience’ is the term to describe how, especially those of us who are more senior (!), by virtue of existed amongst others and in the world, we will have needed to address and resolve certain challenges.

For example, having lived through a neighbour dispute and mediated, then negotiated, a confidential settlement, will provide the mediator with empathy for how challenging such matters maybe. The impact on the wider community can be unfair and distressing.

In ALF we always take a or an:

  1. Liberal Viewpoint – which is that everyone is supported until they can develop their own healthy beliefs and values, and to be responsible and accountable for their life, emotions and actions.
  2. Objective Approach – meaning that the overall aspiration is that decision making, and action taking, should be unbiased and not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, but just a proper consideration and representation of the facts.
  3. Local Focus – this means considering all the impact on the neighbourhood and residents, who may unfairly be dragged in to a dispute which is private and should be contained.

Our local politicians, administrators, police and news makers have a duty to contain the fall out. Truthful, reconciled and peaceful communities should be their aim.

ALF will do its part by offering low cost neighbour dispute mediation and fully funded family child contact meditation.

 


The Purposefulness Model

January 10, 2019

connected1

The Positive Ways approach to good Mental Health means weaving together the Medical (or Illness) Model and the Recovery Model to advocate the ‘Purposefulness Model’.

The main difference between the three models of wellbeing concerns the degree of optimism each has toward how a person can engage with their future in a positive way. For me this means having an optimistically, future orientated, purposeful and growth outlook on life. It advocates building and sustaining mutually supportive relationships and in holding personal view in which life simply ‘makes good sense’.

The Purposeful Model sets out to meet that for me by; treating people as responsible, capable, active and being able to both learn and to influence their environment, especially in co-operation with others. Purposefulness includes holding the expectation that we can a lead a rich and vibrant life, and be capable of suitably overcoming or incorporating illness, and accommodating any other limitations in order to be contented. To that extent positiveness and optimism are not ‘Pollyanna’ like attitudes but are rather about aclimatisation and Adeption in the face of challenges.

Alongside Purposefulness, the model values mutuality. People often struggle to find the balance in their relationships, with others and with organiations, which results in power struggles and conflict, which can cause illness. The Purposefulness Model places importance on mutuality for good mental health.

The Recovery Model focuses on inspiring the person to take responsibility for their goals, to become well. This is a worthy objective, but seems to isolate the person, not necessarily deliberately, but seemingly. The recovery model suggests that individuals need to find their way simply because they have been assigned ‘self-determination’. This might overly imply isolation. This appears a healthy step towards empowering individuals but may not take account of the individuals current depleted motivations and or their current developmental needs.

Because these individual aspects can exist in individuals, the medical profession has traditional taken a paternalistic approach to overcoming illness. In the Medical or Illness Model, the medical professional consults with and listens to the patient. Information is gathered, a diagnosis is made, and the expert delivers the healing advice, which the compliant patient is expected to dutifully follow.

The difficulty with the Illness model, is that it is less empathetic and fails to fully take account of the patient’s perspective, and thereby undermines the personal responsibility that the patient should take for their own recovery. The patients can become disempowered and may not be proactive in their own health. Very often patients are left feeling that they are their illness (or diagnosis) rather than a person. In some cases, the illness/diagnosis becomes a label and some people may research and even adopt the behaviour and even feelings, and symptoms described in the model. To that extent the Illness Model may become self-sustaining in that the person may feel that they are and will continue to remain helpless.

The argument for paternalism, on the other hand, just sometimes some people need to accept help, support and care of others, because they simply cannot cope for themselves. For example, very recently I suffered a series of small strokes. Because I consider myself to be independent, I initially refused to be taken into hospital. In hindsight, I now accept that was a step too far and what I needed, and eventually after I finally passed out, was to be taken into care and administered to by people who simply knew more. This suggests, that there are times when we should all ask for and receive help.

However, the Illness Model treats the disease and unwittingly can thereby exclude the individual needs, treating the person as if they were the disease. The Illness Model position then becomes ‘that the best the person can do is stabilise their situation, moods and behaviour by simply being compliant. This may sometimes mean that (in the UK it is called ‘sectioning’), some suffering persons may be subjected to custodial health care, enforced medication and imposed talking therapies.

In the process, those dispensing the ‘care’ may consider themselves superior to the person, which can lead to conflict, disempowerment and in some cases neglect and abuse. This is may be made worse if the professional carer is not well trained, lacks empathy or is unable to build appropriate rapport with the person. This is compounded when approaches relied on in the Illness Model, like diagnostic tools (such as DSMV) and the use of pharmacology (drugs), are criticized as being about ‘maintaining’ the individual ‘in the system’, that is are serving profit before recovery.

The Recovery Model, in contrast, favors a focus on the patient/client having an influence or control over their mental health, which it assumes is possible. This becomes achievable because, the person is treated with respect and is presumed to be self-determining (I say presumed, because there may be times where a person has become so instituationalised or dependent on the system that they are simply not confident in making decisions, they then need support to become self-determining).

What I appreciate about the Recovery Model is that it accepts mental health challenges, as normal and does not disempower the person or need to assign those challenges to any diagnosis or illness.

The Recovery Model advocates a process through which a person with mental health challenges can co-operate with the ‘system’ in a way which leaves them responsible for their own health. The ambitions of the Recovery Model seem to be to; remove the stigma of mental health suffering; make interventions more individually sensitive; and to enable collaboration between all stakeholders in the individuals caring process.

In the UK this became a model known as ‘Care in the Community’, which whilst professing that principle, seemed to be more like an economic cost saving approach, which simply left unprepared sufferers and their familial carers struggling to cope. This persisted for some time, but then seem to improve with the introduction of professional carers with ‘lived experience’ into the system. This means caregivers can be more empathic, because they may have had and experienced the system and their own challenges. In this sense, introducing empathetic and experienced carers into its approach, the Recovery Model starts to address elements of any unnecessary power imbalance that may have existed under the Illness Model.

For me, it seems that the Recovery Model was helpful in encouraging a sense of ‘shared decision making’. i.e. that individuals (like me and my stroke), still need interventions, but they should and could be treated as self-determining, that is in deciding what action should be taken (unless they are incapacitated). The proviso is that this is wholly dependent on the individual being discerning enough to know when they need help. Given that, I can understand and appreciate that there are times where ‘the system’ needs to behave in a paternalistic manner. None-the -less, the recovery model sets out for a degree of personalisation in the care delivered and should lead to more empowered and engaged persons.

My main concern with the Recovery Model is that it could still allow a person who had not acquired enough knowledge of, or adopted suitable attitudes towards their challenges and options, to be disenfranchised. The Purposefulness Model attempts to overcome this by arguing that care should be delivered in a manner that encourages shared responsibility and a greater sense of community and togetherness. That is through mutuality.

Even more validly in my view, more importantly, the Recovery Model encourages the bigger picture for a person’s life in that they are more than just their challenges or illness. The Purposefulness Model encourages the individual to live a life of meaning and purpose.

The Purposefulness model focusses on support, hope, accountability, personal responsibility and education as guiding principles, for a holistic approach to the client/individual recovery or healing ‘journey’. The individual is encouraged to move beyond just health and is treated as person, who can develop a sense of being able to bounce back from any setbacks on the path to recovery, which is termed hardiness (and more they can live a productive and full life in community).

The word ‘journey’ is used, because the individual may experience setbacks as they ‘travel’ move on in their lives. In the process, professionals, friends and the community collaborate to ensure that everyone’s needs are met, including to move to an even bigger and brighter future.

The ‘Purposefulness’ model encourages individuals to move even further on through their journey, focusing on their hopes, wishes and dreams, by encouraging them to develop their gifts, strengths and talents. Wellness and Purposefulness can be a voyage of self-discovery and of personal growth; whereby experiences of mental illness can provide opportunities for change, reflection and discovery of new values, skills and interests, not just alone, but in deep collaboration, or mutuality, with others termed peers. In this process the individual becomes a supportive peer.

My sense is that the three models can and should work in some form of symbiosis. This is because persons are not always competent (me with my stroke, others with the psychosis or schizophrenia), who may not understand their illness or diagnosis and want, out of fear (or in my case sheer bloody-mindedness), to escape the system. They may even refuse to accept that they are unwell. This could leave them and other stakeholders at risk.

One of the areas that I find of interest, is the consideration of medication. The Illness Model has been accused of over-prescribing and may have been attacked by some in the Recovery Model, and even if it was not attacked, may have been a necessary evil. Under the Purposefulness model, my view is that, medicine is seen as a choice and is imbued or taken with knowledge and as a welcome addition to the overall health of the person. This likely to enhance the efficacy of the drugs through placebo effect. I found this when I started to take my heart medicine, it was more effective when I knew about it and took it as part of my overall movement towards health, not as a resigned attitude of dependence.

This is even more effective under the Purposefulness Model, because those who have experienced recovery and movement towards wellness, become the peers for those still suffering and struggling through the uncertainty of healing. My sense and anecdotal evidence are, that taking responsibility for an optimistic future often needs the negotiated support from those who have travelled the journey already, like a Sherpa. They are called Peers.

 

The beauty of peering is that we all take primary care for ourselves and then equal responsibility for the care of each other.


What is Adept Living all about?

December 31, 2018

cropped-logo-11

“I believe that imagination is stronger than knowledge. That myth is more potent than history. That dreams are more powerful than facts. That hope always triumphs over experience. That laughter is the only cure for grief. And I believe that love is stronger than death”. Robert Fulghum
This quote, more than many others, encaptures and enraptures what the Adept Living Foundation (ALF) is all about, namely:

  1. That the way we use our imagination, either to empower or disempower each and everyone of us, is vital to our health and enjoyment of a full life. In ALF, we teach you how to have and use a healthy imagination.
  2. That stories and they way we tell or narrate them can lead us into or away from the enjoyment of that life. In ALF we demonstrate good story telling and lived experience in action.
  3. That an optimistic outlook leads to ongoing growth and change. In ALF we use SHAPE – Support, Hope, Accountability, Personal Responsibility & Education to create greater opportunities for successful change.
  4. That a healthy and delicate dose of humour enables us to look at what ever is disturbing and difficult from a distance that changes how we experience it. In ALF you will always find a listening ear, a cup of tea and a warm smile.
  5. That when we feel cared for, valued and able to contribute to others, we can meet our challenges with a confident smile. In ALF you will be met as an equal who shares with their friends and community in a meaningful and mutual way.

ALF offers community based peer support working from the principal that our lived experience can inspire and help others.

http://www.alfcic.org


Mutuality for Social Action – we are never absolutely free

December 28, 2018

5329871139_03cd4e8dd3_zThe human has, relatively, attained in the last 150 years that which they have often sung about, yearned for and claimed to desire above all things; freedom. Although not perfect, we, particularly, in the West are less subservient and freer from the absolutism of princes and the determination of religion than we have ever been before.

But, freed from the judgement of both, the Western Human has discovered that not having ‘moral dictatorship’ and not having to be ‘well behaved citizens’, means we must work out for ourselves what the rules are for social co-operation. We must take personal responsibility, lead ourselves and act accordingly. Praxeology is the idea that humans always act purposefully, with a goal in mind and in the process of working out what we should now do,  that is steeling our values, has caused as to fret and fracture amongst ourselves.

Without direction on how to act, we suddenly realise that the concepts of what is good or bad, fair or unfair, truth or lies,  and what we are willing to do in response, must be worked out by ourselves, which where true healing lies. In the 1980’s, we were taught that it was the price that we were willing to pay for the tangible goods and services we consumed. But it was never just that. There are a whole host of intangible, value judgements and reflexive responses we make too, before we decide and act. The fret and the fractures make it seem almost like it has become too much for us personally to deal with (before we even consider the needs and views of others, we need to socially co-operate with!)

This is because the idea of ‘absolute freedom’ is a falsehood. We must all compromise something to be effective; a parent to their children; a worker to their market; or a vulnerable person to their carer’s benevolence. This implies two things for healing the fret and fracture: 1. We need to know what the rules (or values) of exchange are 2. We should seek mutuality in all things i.e. to leave each other feeling good after each interaction.

The economic price is rarely ever the only factor that drives our decision making  (if you meet someone for whom it is, I suspect you will enjoy very few transactions with such an individual), so make sure you understand that we cannot be absolutely free, so we should work out what our values, needs and contributions are and understand the same for others. Then in all things you do, seek much local influence as possible, that is where the value of true mutuality lies. And remember, words do not matter, only action does.

 

 


Adept Living – Foundation for the Future

December 26, 2018
ground group growth hands

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The elder, having reached a place of personal sustainability, is obliged to look at the world objectively and suggest ways that the youth should focus and grow. The youth have energy and passion but are easily persuaded and misled (for example into war or overly constrictive alliances and agreements). The youth for me are the directorate at the Adept Living Foundation CIC (ALF) and the peers we work with.

As business man and leader of a community interest, it is an encumberment on me to produce a strategic plan, to set out the assumptions we will work to and to provide guidance and be transparent in doing so.

This Christmas 2018, our queen reminded me and ALF of its agenda. Treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding, so that we can build ‘bonds of affection as it promotes a common desire to live in a better, more peaceful, world’.

Our ALF peers are perplexed by the challenges facing Britain, which are not new, seem scary, but simply represent the changing, exciting opportunities of the abundant world in which we live. ALF sees that the best way we can respond to that is to focus on leading personally purposeful lives, based on mutuality; that is, to live an individually responsible life in co-creation with our community.

At the first stage of our business planning, ALF looks at the world conditions, assuming as follows:

The World Economic Lead Table (WELT) 2018 Report issued by the impartial, influential and renowned Global Construction Perspectives (GCP) and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) state that:

  • Developed world share of the economy will drop from 76% (2000) to 44% (2032).
  • Western Europe drops from 30% (2000) to 13% (2032).
  • World Trade Growth will continue to defeat protectionism.
  • Technology will take over from Globalisation in driving the economy.
  • Climate Change will impede some economic growth.
  • India takes 5th WELT place. UK loses 6th to France, early post Brexit, but recovers 2020.
  • Brazil takes 6th place in 2024.
  • Asian countries grow, Russia declines, the US continues to grow and remain in 1st WELT place
  • Mexico overtakes Spain, Italy drops out of top 10.

Disruptive technologies are taking effect such that:

  • 3D Printing will transform distribution channels.
  • Dematerialisation will reduce traded goods in favour of information & expertise.
  • The price of energy will fall, therefore resource-based economies will need to diversify
  • Air and High-Speed Rail travel are likely to be reduced

Infrastructure, Construction & Urbanisation will drive economic growth:

  • Key areas will be India, China & Africa will invest
  • These key areas will create gravity pull effect on economic growth
  • Flexible economies must respond with need reformed welfare, tax, education and labour market polices

Britain’s opportunities lie in:

  • A blend of tech & creative sectors and the creative sector which CEBR terms The Flat White Economy
  • The warm relationship with the Common Wealth
  • Renewing its relationship with the EU

ALF see this an exciting, yet challenging time ahead and firmly believe that the principles of ‘Peering Into the Future’ will be invaluable both in business and in community, and both of which we will continue to develop and promote.

ALF’s initial response to this is:

ALF will support the Flat White economy by continuing to work with those peers, migrants or otherwise, who are in employment or self-employment, being either directors or staff, to enhance their emotional and mental wellbeing and work even more creatively and productively. ALF will also continue supporting severely challenged peers to find a purposeful direction and, when the time is right, occupation.

The Common Wealth principles are like ALF’s, based on individual nation sovereignty, minimal intervention, but with mutuality as a defining value. The Common Wealth:

  • Represents a third of the world’s population, 50% of whom are young people.
  • Benefit from a common language, legal systems and institutions.
  • Reduces inter member trade costs by 19%.
  • Has an agreed strategic plan.

The Common Wealth’s principles, values and strategic plans will form a key plank of the work that ALF will do both in integrating within local communities, and internationally too. Those strategic plans will be addressed as the second phase of ALF’s strategic planning, with a focus on the Common Wealth’s ambition to ‘Accelerate Social Wellbeing’.

ALF considers that the UK and EU Governments will reach some form of relationship that will be mutually beneficial. Given that the international trend towards less Government intervention is more likely, ALF will focus on generating its own income and delivering Government funded programs where it is efficient and effective to do so.


Looking for results?

February 11, 2018

board-1805318__340

 

 

I am told that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ (Socrates, coined some long time ago!)

 

 

But what makes a well lived life? What does it mean? All of the jobs, with large pay, that you have listed on Linkedin? The number of friends or likes you have on Facebook? Or the speed with which you can Twitter and claim your share of the socially networked world?

I am then reminded of the story of the student looking to get enlightenment. She seeks out the master, living on a mountain and finds him carrying a huge burden on his back, up the path.

‘What is enlightenment like?’ she asks. Without speaking, the master sighs and puts down the pack. She gets the message immediately. ‘Wonderful!’ she exclaims ‘but what happens after enlightenment?’ she further inquired. The master sighed, silently again, picked up the burden and continued on his path.

The psychologists Panskeep (2004) and Emmons (1999) tell us that, to give meaning to and reach contentment in, our lives, we need to both seek and achieve. I add ‘and then seek again’.

Perseverance in continued growth, to coin the great philosopher, Punch ‘that’s the way to do it!’ Do you want to find the way?

 

PW

27982672_10156857060805752_3425193659166031651_o