"Dysfunction": Client's fault, or the system that makes it so?

Before I start, let me tell you of the discomfort I have of the term dysfunction, and how we use it to loosely describe the families we work with. Dysfunction to me denotes problems inherent in the family structures within a pathological framework, and as how I belief language effects our beliefs, this term probably does disservice to our clients from a strengths focused perspective. 

The term dysfunction makes clear delineations between the us and the them, and puts us in the high and mighty expert position to identify client problems and prescribe the best solution for their problems. 

We talk about how client's financial, unemployment problems are usually reflections of their underlying intrinsic pathologies that pervades the family system. We are then given the role to work through these underlying issues to resolve the difficulties these families have in responding to their environment and obtain basic needs for themselves. Hence we cite marital issues, anachronistic family values and belief systems, structural disorder, etc, as factors that we need to work on within the family unit. Hence the family becomes the main unit of intervention for most of us. 

But, what if we are wrong? What if the problems are inherent in the structure of society itself, and we, as so called controllers, are just maintaining this status quo by please the oppressed, so that the majority can further prosper? As social workers, do we continue to proselytize the ill effects of unstructured family systems or do we advocate for our clients at a more societal level? 

For the moment (whilst I try to seek further answers to this conundrum), I'm just raising some questions. Perhaps some of you guys could proffer a comment. I happened to chance into this video from one of my favourite websites TED.com, which raises similar issues pertaining to this discussion:

Good men can turn evil in different scenarios and situations, especially when the factors described by Prof Zimbardo is present. How can we analyse our clients' problems within such contexts, especially in how we (and members of society not considered "dysfunctional") may even traumatise and marginalise our client's strengths and experiences. How can we also function as the heroes described by Prof Zimbardo, not the ones imbued with supernatural strength (though most of us would either like to fly or be invisible; the latter would help us in our assessment process of clients' situations) nor exeptional matyrs, but instead ordinary people who can perform heroic deeds at the right situation.

After all, at some levels, we are all dysfunctional people. Conversely, we are functional at other instances. And we too can be heroic at some points of our lives. 

Comments

[authentic louis vuitton sale]

ojcaydkaw ogewuij maxhjwuttlf bljcnzy "Dysfunction": Client's fault, or the system that makes it so? - DO NO HARM vuqqtxo pkvyvb zzlnhhawa ijsfarqke lteiaynrlz mashuhm