by Jevon MacDonald
July 24, 2007 at 8:12 am
· Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0
This is a post I originally wrote in 2003. I am reposting it here because I think it is just as relevant today as it was back then — Jevon
The Heart of the Problem
Autistic children are not naturally able to understand, or develop, meaningful social relationships in the way most of us are used to doing. Their relationships are often transactional, and there is not enough emotional bandwidth in their interactions for any additional emotional or social payload.
I have had a chance to see this in a different situation with a client of ours who has asked us to develop a community for an internal group of disabled people. A common point we have heard from members of this group is that, as part of being generally misunderstood by the rest of the world (which I have come to acknowledge as being mostly true), they are not able to form any sort of meaningful relationship with the people they encounter. In both cases, the subject either lacks emotional intelligence, or they are unable to accurately communicate their emotional understanding of the interaction.
Usually, an autistic child is taught how they can fake their way through social interactions. They are taught scripts for common situations, and how they must make eye contact and avoid annoying habits. Essentially, they are taught to hide themselves, while still only placing a superficial value on the transactional component of the relationship.
Does our network model suffer?
It may seem like these groups are in a precarious situation. The inability to leverage any sort of emotional intelligence is completely limiting to a healthy understanding, and use, of human relationships. The truth is, however, somewhat more difficult to swallow. We are all surrounded by colleagues, friends, family and even partners who are completely unable to guage, and invest in, the value of a relationship. The implications here are that the links in our social networks can be weakened by people (nodes) who suffer from this.
We must now not only use our own emotional intelligence, but we must measure the EI of anyone we are interacting with. This is our only defense against forming a relationship with someone who simply does not have the capacity to see any real value in the relationship, beyond it’s benefit to them.
The Natural Model
As members of a network, we must learn a few rules of the game. We must pull our own weight, we must not overestimate our load-bearing ability, do not attempt to short-circuit paths which do not exists, and more. Perhaps more importantly though, we must learn that being a member of a network involves social referencing. We must learn that our actions affect the health of the entire network, and that we must exercise due diligence in deciding to act. We learn this as babies, and now we must re-learn it in a new context. The relationships that we leverage must be ones that actually mean something to use, and that we are willing to invest in.
In his model, Steven Gustein does not teach autistic children to go by scripts, or to fake their feelings. He teaches them the real value of a relationship, and they find that they truly are able to value and love those around them.
As we enter a natural network model of doing business, we are becoming babies again in so many ways, and many will struggle with the basic difficulties of interaction that so many others in the world fight in their day-to-day lives.
Permalink
So true Jevon. I wonder also as we become accultured to using scripts about caring so much at work that we risk taking this way of being home with us. We begin to act with our partners and friends in this way and, most dangerous of all, we begin to use this fakery with our children.
I ask myself why do more than 30% of boys attend school now on drugs? What is the root of ADD? For when I was a boy 50 years ago in the dark ages, there was no such thing. Might it be a desperate need to get attention of the real sort – the full engagment with the parent?
This is speculation on my part, what is now clearly proven is that the kind of bureaucratic hierarchy that is the norm makes most of us ill. If you are at the bottom of the pile, you are 4 times more likely to get ill or die early. The issue is control – people at the bottom feel that they have no say.
Sir Michael Marmot argues that having a healthier interaction inside organizations may do more than any single act to improve health outcomes. Here is some back up to this statement.
http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2004/08/blogging_is_goo.html
“The reason, Marmot argues, is that social participation — rewarding relationships, access to a community, and the respect of others — and individual autonomy are crucial determinants of health and happiness. High status usually affords more opportunities for social involvement and control of one’s conditions. Low status means that external forces — a mean-spirited boss, a company that dumps toxic waste near your neighborhood — are more likely to determine one’s fate, social support is less reliable, and insecurity is a feature of daily life. Although the meaning of full participation varies from places to place, Marmot claims that the beneficial effects of being connected are constant.
Lack of agency produces dangerous forms of stress. People who labor in dull, dead-end yet demanding jobs suffer from an imbalance between their efforts and rewards. As recent studies of coronary disease in Britain and seven Eastern European countries show, work that deprives men and women of control destroys the heart as well as the soul. Moreover, a daily onslaught of difficulties makes people less likely to focus on their long-term health. Marmot believes that the vulnerable understand their grim condition, and that they engage in dangerous but pleasurable behaviors such as smoking or overindulging in fast food because they prefer enjoying the moment to holding out for a future they might not reach.
Marmot concedes that bad jobs, wealth disparities and status hierarchies are inevitable features of modern societies. But some societies are more equal than others. Governments can, and in the most flourishing countries do, decrease the slope of the social gradient and improve public health. In England, for example, the government has been quietly redistributing income since 1997, using fiscal policies to compensate for social divisions produced by the labor market. In the United States, however, recent tax changes have steepened the gradient.
According to Marmot’s surprising conclusion, the most effective and affordable health policies do not involve the medical system but programs that reduce income and educational inequalities, protect workers and families, provide access to housing and safe environments, and promote care for children and the elderly.
There’s good evidence that skimping on these fundamental and wide-ranging social protections while spending lavishly on medical care is foolish public policy. Cross-nationally, the longevity gap tends to decrease during eras of social equalization and increase during periods of polarization. Americans have learned this the hard way. Outspending all competitor nations on health care has not helped to raise U.S. life expectancy above the level of Spain, Cyprus or Singapore, where the social gradients are more even. We’ve all heard officials say that the United States has the best medical system in the world. Whether or not that’s true, longevity is greater in France, the United Kingdom and Canada.” Washington Post reviewing marmot’s new book – The Status Syndrome
» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Additional comments powered by BackType
