12 Sep article reflection in 1 hour
ing clients, hanisms of ty, the set- of skill and Inderstand- Iselves pain g, routines, rfections of iman suffer- that human innot inad- ient, warts,
rives up her the possible
thority and e dge reality; )f the com- ble shifts in rations with skillful and cer ever gets ) n of social Staff super- on this goal ssistance to ‘ client need. both of the
Shv 0~ I s i A L )DJO4 SEEING THE TRUNK OF THE
PRACTICE-THEORY TREE
Keeping up with the latest individual treatment theories, a responsibility incumbent on any professional, has burgeoned into a task of overwhelming proportions in recent years. The pro- liferation of theory on personality development and functioning and on the multitude of interventive strategies boggles the mind. At times, the formulations appear to stem from varying convic- tions as to the intrinsic nature of humankind, the meaning of life, and our innate potential for mastering our own destinies. While our professional practice can draw on a more pragmatic empirical base than such philosophical positions, new practice prophets regularly mount the podium, and they never lack for milling throngs of well-travelled seekers of Truth.
Restlessness and innovation are characteristic of a relatively young profession, although the creative surge from the social and behavioral sciences has sorely tried our capacity to test and integrate new knowledge. Then, too, ‘the social ferment of recent years has lent a heightened urgency to discarding the old in favor of the new. While the reaction to outmoded traditions did pro- mote independence from social controls and rediscovered a com- mitment to humanism, the pace of change precluded the delibera- tion and selectivity essential to any aspiring scientific endeavor.
Ego Psychology as Theory Base
JOHN MATUSHIMA, D.S.W. *
In harvesting the best from a cornucopia of notions and con- structs, social work is in the fortunate position of being young enough for receptivity, yet old enough to exercise some selectivity. In our view, personality theory rooted in ego psychology con- tinues to provide an enduring and growing foundation for practice, sustaining the branching applications of theoreticians such as Gordon Hamilton (1951), Helen Harris Perlman (1957), Florence Hollis (1964), and other enduring contributors to casework theory. While differences among these branches can readily be identified, there is reason to view them as deriving from a common trunk and comprising parts of a single system. Recognition of a unifying trunk may be useful, as in its absence we fall prey to the polarized passions and artificial dichotomies of the new versus the old, the
*Dr. Matushima is Associate Professor, School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Visiting Associate Professor (Research), Smith College School for Social Work.
. ma+ (J
c.,”
C., 1 `
PRAC
be an Becaus free as circum the de,
mental with a notorv
Pragm The
the ru It is n cognit tion o quests point effects ing th~ ago in Bond, Case parem advan machi
Wh from weigh areas. consc currei fused focus be gu
The ment taneo our f they nouri
182 JOHN MATUSHIMA, D.S.W.
faddist versus the hidebound, and the progressive versus the conservative.
Similarities Outweigh Differences In an effort to identify substantive differences and to set aside
long-standing “straw men,” surveyors of treatment theory such as Turner (1974) and Simon (1970) found much common ground among contributors to practice knowledge. According to Turner, the commonalities in practice based on avowedly divergent theories included emphases on man in his present reality, his capacity for growth, his health and strength, his ability to reason, to take responsibility, to change as well as adjust, to reflectively plan his present and future life and to be accountable for his functioning. The weighting of these components vary, but there is more consensus than disagreement on their importance and admixture (1974, 497).
There are differences in treatment focus, but no category is the exclusive province of a single orientation, nor do others deny the pertinence of one or another factor. It is futile as well as naive, for example, to identify long-term contacts with id psychol- ogy when ego psychology has long been the undergirding of prac- tice. What social worker focuses on the unconscious and intra- psychic phenomena to the exclusion of the problem situation, family interaction, or societal distortions that affect present social functioning? Who dwells on past social history as indispensable to helping clients in any and all current circumstances?
Over and over again, (it is) evident that emphasis is on the present … of understanding the current life situation of the client, of the client using his reasoning capacities to learn new patterns of behavior, of involving the client in the total process…. No one suggests that (long-term treatment) is the mode of all treatment … the more general assumption was that treatment is not extensive in length … the preva- lent theme throughout is that the focus of treatment must be on the client and his psychosocial situation and not exclusively on inner psychic functioning. Not that the instinctual and the inner life of man are overlooked, but that this component is only a part of man (Turner, 1974, 497).
One old bone of contention equates the psychoanalytic theory of personality development with psychoanalysis as treatment method, so that a student of the personality theory must therefore
:es and to set aside Lt ment theory such -h common ground ;cording to Turner, ivowedly divergent present reality, his is ability to reason, djust, to reflectively accountable for his : nts vary, but there -ir importance and
but no category is nor do others deny is futile as well as acts with id psychol- ndergirding of prac- : onscious and intra-
problem situation, affect present social )ry as indispensable nstances?
nphasis is on the ‘e situation of the ipacities to learn client in the total -rin treatment) is neral assumption
;th . . . the preva- f treatment must ituation and not g. Not that the
overlooked, but in (Turner, 1974,
‘ USHIMA, D.S.W.
;ressive versus the
i sychoanalytic theory ialysis as treatment teory must therefore
PRACTICE-THEORY TREE 183
be an advocate of psychoanalysis as the only “real” treatment. Because the parameters for psychoanalytic treatment, such as free association, interpretation of dreams, are inappropriate to the circumstances of clinical social work practice, by implication, the developmental theory must also be inappropriate. The funda- mental misconception that this personality theory is synonymous with a specific treatment mode regularly arises as one of the most notorious of misinformed arguments.
Pragmatics as Priorities The position that similarities in treatment approaches are more
the rule than the exception is supported by practice experience. It is most sensible to prefer interventions that are brief, rely on cognitive techniques, and result in reasonably prompt modifica- tion of the presenting problem. Certainly not everyone who re- quests help needs self-scrutiny or personality change! And the point that concrete assistance sometimes has dramatic long-range effects on individual and family functioning-in addition to reliev- ing the immediate situation-should have been encompassed long ago in even the most esoteric of treatment settings. Dr. Douglas Bond, psychoanalyst and former Dean of the Medical School, Case Western Reserve University, often noted (in his lectures on parent-child interaction in toilet training) that the greatest single advance in mental health was the invention of the washing machine!
Where it becomes evident that conflict, relationships, learning from the past significantly handicaps social functioning, then one weighs the advisability of directing the client’s attention to those areas. And it is at this level of treatment-where past and present, conscious and unconscious, emotional and rational aspects hinder current functioning-that the worker can become most easily con- fused and thereby disillusioned. Keeping paramount the steady focus on strengthening the coping capacity of the ego, one can be guided by some fundamental principles.
These principles are reiterated here because they typify treat- ment commonalities based on ego psychology, and they simul- taneously embrace issues of contention and misunderstanding in our field. These points do not comprise a complete listing, but they do illustrate the practice theory trunk that provides potential nourishment to variations and outgrowths.
184
The Past and the Present Together
JOHN MATUSHIMA, D.S.W.
Principle: Continuing problems may be repetitious of past conflicts in new circumstances and with substitute persons.
The primary usefulness of this principle is that the personality as well as the situation is recognized as integral to problem assess- ment. While this is a basic law in practice, emphasis in recent years has been placed on the situation-dichotomizing past and present, person and situation. While intervention may be ad- dressed only to the specifics of the situation, the rationale under- lying the worker’s intervention stems from the broad perspective of personality dynamics as well.
Early developmental conflicts, ingrained by later experiences, may be reenacted in the present problem. Thus, even though the episode per se seems modifiable, the client repetitively continues to be enmeshed in the same or similar circumstances. In such instances, explanations, advice, and exhortation directed only to situational change rarely brings positive results.
The persistence, tenaciousness, and power of the past in sometimes preventing logical change cannot help but be observed in practice. This does not mean that the presenting problem is shunted aside, or that every client has the inner resiliency to be able to tolerate more than a situational contact. The client’s ex- pressed discomfort as well as his commitmeUt-tnself-evaluative content provides a beginning index as to its advisability. The point is that a principle providing for dynamic understanding does not automatically stipulate “insight therapy.” The inter- vention per se depends instead on the client’s capacity to put up with the anxiety attendant to change, the reasons for his having sought help, and other determinants specific to the case-not the worker’s recognition or denial as to the pertinence of the past in understanding current social functioning.
The presenting problem, the client’s stated goals, the ingrained nature of his attitudes, or the agency purpose may well indicate short-term contacts. Time-limited contacts, too, are an alternative, or any of a range of treatment options, as the past-in-present principle is only one determinant of interventive appropriateness. If the worker truly understands the validity of the principle, how- ever, realistic goal-setting is enhanced-and unnecessary frus- tration allayed-because the treatment effort is not directed- to personality dynamics that cannot be modified under the cir- cumstances.
PRACTICE-
Resistance as Principle: In 1 not prohibit c may be signf
The pertine tention amon€ individual’s c, some theoreti, scious as an ii must conceive conscious or “straw man.” can work most multiply-deters
One clear phenomenon c why would a ( same time? T, lateness, and g apparent are r affect, for exai the model of looking the an) the worker m plunge ahead only to be disn Then, perhaps the worker ins causes of the because the cl: mains serenely
The bases fo the client, alth fortable and h indeed, is quite there is no anx: protection from by an equal or perceive conflict
A vital point imperative inhe the client’s anx
D.S.W.
,onflicts
iality as i assess-
recent rast and
be ad- under-
rspective
eriences, Hugh the : ontinues In such
. only to
past in observed oblem is icy to be ient’s ex- , valuative i lity. The rstanding ‘he inter- L o put up its having -not the ie past in
ingrained 11 indicate lternative, -in-present priateness. iple, how- sary frus- lirected to r the cir-
PRACTICE-THEORY TREE
Resistance as a Treatment Reality
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.