Michael Fielding: Personalisation, education and the market
My interpretation:
This article promotes person centred learning but it opposes how the government has defined person centred. He argues that the government’s personalisation agenda is really just a masquerade for using peoples lives (the personal) to promote economic activity (the functional). A lot of his argument is transferable to guidance and can therefore be used in the ‘This house believes person centred is unethical’ debate.
Here’s some of his argument:
1. It doesn’t look at how we become the people we are. Its superficial because it ignores our past. (He calls this ‘ahistorical’).
2. It ignores the big questions and is only concerned with ‘what works’. Ethnical, social and political issues take a back seat. (He calls this ‘technicist’).
3. It focuses on individual choices and what they do for the person. There is no thought for the common good or wider social allegiance.
4. There is no personal or community narrative, nor any evidence of meaning making. It dismisses the cultures, occasions and structures which would have revealed this. (He calls this episodic).
He concludes that the functional should only exist to promote the personal. (The ‘personal’ being a vibrant and creative community).
The bit of the article that caught my attention was his phrase ‘communal nature of individuality’ as it seems to reconcile the ideas of community and the individual, instead of them being a dichotomy. In the class discussions I found it difficult to choose between them as I think it might be possible to have both. For me, person centred is the method/attitude of the counsellor and social constructivist theories are the framework. By placing person centred within postmodernist theories it means that you can recognise that everyone is unique, and has individual worth, but it also allows you to recognise the influence of external factors, barriers and networks.
{I also think it needs both because:
1. Individual choices: For example, you can have two siblings in the same family (thus the same community) but they can see things in totally different ways. It can mean they lead very different lives because of the choices they make. In this scenario it would be the individual, not the community, that was important.
2. Sometimes people will have reasons to want to leave their community, or their own community will not accept them, or they may feel very isolated and have no sense of community – letting them speak in individualistic terms might therefore be the most appropriate.}
From class 22.5.08
Person-centred theories: After the debate I decided to take a second look at the 3 conditions and put them into my own words:
1. Genuineness: just being real.
2. Unconditional positive regard: For me, I translate it into ‘respect’ because I think you can always demonstrate respect or act in a respectful manner towards another person, even when you’re expressing a difference of opinion. I would also strive to be non-judgemental. However, I’m just not sure what Roger means when he describes unconditional positive regard as, ‘a warm acceptance of each aspect of the client’s experience as being part of that client’. “Warm acceptance” seems like a step beyond being non-judgemental. I could remain professional and I could maintain a neutral stance by not displaying disapproval or approval but I’m not sure this is Roger’s ‘warm acceptance’. I think there are certain situations where unconditional positive regard could therefore be difficult.
3. Empathy: putting your self in the client’s shoes. I think this can be achieved.
