In medical
situations, particularly in the area of mental health, ‘cares’ are required to
have, need to have, productive and healing relationships with their patients /clients/ charges.
This was once left to intuition and as something a ‘good care’ would innately
know about and put into practice largely as an outcome of experience. Largely
it is still the case.
Carers cannot ”love” their charges albeit that in some caring relationships it might be said that
they do in a kind of way. Not romantic, erotic or spiritual love but something
else.
What else?
Increasingly ‘caring practices’ while regarding such emotional attachments
between the cared-for and the carer as inappropriate/ unprofessional/ improper/ unhealthy,
there was still a need to ‘theorise’ the ‘ideal relationship’ in a contemporary
and professional context.
Thus “UnconditionalPositive Regard” (UPR), was the term
that had some resonance, and that won some currency, in the increasingly
intellectualised world of mental healthcare and other branches of healthcare.
The humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers is
said to have coined the term to describe the basic acceptance and support of a
person regardless of what the person says or does. Supposed a less complex and
more easily applied concept than ”love” with all the baggage that idea carries.
By extension, UPR might
well have some currency in regard to the world’s of governance and management. It’d be not only unrealistic but also totality
inappropriate to require politician to love their constituents. Nonetheless, in
an ideal world both politician and constituent might well be expected to hold
each other in ‘high regard’ and quite possibly in UPR.
Arguably when we
vote, what we’re aiming to do is divine this UPR kind of relationship and vote
accordingly. Largely it’s probably done intuitively and subconsciously. When we
vote it might be useful, when looking for ‘accountability’, to look for the UPR
factor, or its potential at least, when ranking the candidates.
In local government,
a Council that had collective and mutual UPR for the constituency and visa
versa would be utopian. It might be unlikely but it is worth shooting for!
And
then there is “RANKISM”. The author and citizen diplomat Robert W. Fuller says “rankism
is an assertion of superiority. It typically takes the form of putting others
down. It's what "Somebodies" do to "nobodies." Or, more
precisely, it is what people who think they're Somebodies do to people they
take for nobodies… It turns out that rankism is the source of most man-made
suffering.“
The prospect of
governance unblighted by rankism and in a community where there is mutual UPR
between governance and constituents is perhaps too utopian to count on but it is
worth aspiring towards.
No comments:
Post a Comment