The Night Shift is a play which been reworked by its author Mark Murphy between stagings and changes in the male character. There have been other Night Shifts, a Stephen King collection of short stories, a 1982 film and a song by the Commodores. I did not enjoy the play because it did not reveal new insights about the human condition and relationships, not did I feel sympathy with its two central characters, yet their performances attracted thirty mins of intense questioning in the subsequent opportunity to meet with the author and actors.
It is possible to explain the basics of the story without ruining dramatic moments and revelations. An ordinary man is living with a woman, who sleeps walks because of something which remains in her subconscious. Such moments are signalled with the use of banks of red lights.
The man cooperates and colludes with the game playing requirements of his partner, and gives the impression of a well meaning person, out of his depths.
The interactions between this couples switches back and forth with the visit of a social worker/counsellor/ therapist figure to a man in a closed psychiatric unit, alleged to have brutally killed his wife in a rage. There is also game playing collusion in this relationship where the "professional" breaks all the rules, compromising her position and the welfare of her client. The story line concerns whether there is a relationship between the event which troubles the woman, the helper and the incarcerated man. There is one explanation given for the behaviour of both women played by the same actor.
My benchmark for drama where someone has the role of a professional doctor/psychiatrist, helper is T S Elliot's Cocktail party, in which the benign father/godlike doctor advises that he can help the woman to get to where she is not but warns it will be different from what she anticipates. He does not disclose what he can see and predict what is likely to happen to her. She will experience a form of salvation. There is no conflict between his professional role and his relationship with the woman. He shows understanding, empathy, compassion for her predicament, but he gets on with his 'normal,' life. This is not to suggest that he does not care about his patient or when what he predicts for her, happens, he not affected.
Most of the audience and those who stayed behind were in their early twenties, but I had noticed two women of a similar age to me and in expert fashion she drew attention that the 'help' figure in the work was a travesty of the role of the average professional, adding that she had some forty years of experience. She reminded me of the woman who headed my professional child care training course, a strict Freudian who discounted behavioural psychology and sociology and with one look into you, penetrated whatever defences you tried to put up, took out your core which she dissected with a clinical effectiveness which made the creations of most sci fi and vampire writers appear cartoons.
During my professional and managerial life I worked closely with a number of psychiatrists including one who used a form of LSD to take patients on a regressive bad trip as a means of freeing them from their devil, an experience which I understood was as horrendous as any exorcism. There was also one psychiatrist who insisted on having a detailed social history from me which was then written up in appropriate terminology including whatever conclusions I had suggested. This reflected her lack of confidence in her assessment as much as confidence in my work, although in fairness I did come across individuals whose reports to courts struck me as having only a limited relevance to the individual and their families whose future was under consideration. I soon learnt that simply because an individual successfully completed a course and passed examinations did not mean that any kind of standard or common performance level could be expected. All my subsequent experience confirmed this impression applied across the range of professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, educators and professionals in social welfare work. Try explaining the difference between a psycho analyst, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychotherapist, a counsellor or social worker to someone threatening suicide.
This is not to suggest that I ever set myself up as an equal or an effective practitioner, having undertaken only a term of psychology tutorials with a behaviourist among his rats at the Oxford Institute of Experimental Psychology and where most of the time was used to try and get me to abandon going into social work and attempt a Philosophy and Psychology degree at the University. I did buy and read Bertrand's Russell's History of Western Philosophy and understood a little, but John-Paul Sartre’s "Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, Being and Nothingness", which defeated then, and a quick look now confirms that it is still beyond my grasp without a prolonged preparatory study. Fortunately I have had the ability to know what I do not know, although this has never prevented me from doing, or saying what I wanted, such as defining what contemporary art means at this moment and in this dimension. I continues with my studies which including some knowledge of psychiatry, psychology and sociology, passed examination to my amazement and my practical work was assessed as being of a standard sufficient to gain the certificate of approval to function.
Previously I did once stand on a Trafalgar Square platform alongside Lord Bertrand Russell having become a member of his Committee 100, and according to his wife upset him greatly when I wrote to warn that his main lieutenant appeared to have no understanding of Aldous Huxley's work on Ends and Means, forecasting that the project would end in disaster, resigning from the committee, and therefore avoided the round up which sent him and a number of his confederates to varying periods of imprisonment. However performing the role of the boy, or girl, who declares in public that the King or Queen is wearing no clothes, is not to be recommended if you hanker for a normal existence.
It is possible to explain the basics of the story without ruining dramatic moments and revelations. An ordinary man is living with a woman, who sleeps walks because of something which remains in her subconscious. Such moments are signalled with the use of banks of red lights.
The man cooperates and colludes with the game playing requirements of his partner, and gives the impression of a well meaning person, out of his depths.
The interactions between this couples switches back and forth with the visit of a social worker/counsellor/ therapist figure to a man in a closed psychiatric unit, alleged to have brutally killed his wife in a rage. There is also game playing collusion in this relationship where the "professional" breaks all the rules, compromising her position and the welfare of her client. The story line concerns whether there is a relationship between the event which troubles the woman, the helper and the incarcerated man. There is one explanation given for the behaviour of both women played by the same actor.
My benchmark for drama where someone has the role of a professional doctor/psychiatrist, helper is T S Elliot's Cocktail party, in which the benign father/godlike doctor advises that he can help the woman to get to where she is not but warns it will be different from what she anticipates. He does not disclose what he can see and predict what is likely to happen to her. She will experience a form of salvation. There is no conflict between his professional role and his relationship with the woman. He shows understanding, empathy, compassion for her predicament, but he gets on with his 'normal,' life. This is not to suggest that he does not care about his patient or when what he predicts for her, happens, he not affected.
Most of the audience and those who stayed behind were in their early twenties, but I had noticed two women of a similar age to me and in expert fashion she drew attention that the 'help' figure in the work was a travesty of the role of the average professional, adding that she had some forty years of experience. She reminded me of the woman who headed my professional child care training course, a strict Freudian who discounted behavioural psychology and sociology and with one look into you, penetrated whatever defences you tried to put up, took out your core which she dissected with a clinical effectiveness which made the creations of most sci fi and vampire writers appear cartoons.
During my professional and managerial life I worked closely with a number of psychiatrists including one who used a form of LSD to take patients on a regressive bad trip as a means of freeing them from their devil, an experience which I understood was as horrendous as any exorcism. There was also one psychiatrist who insisted on having a detailed social history from me which was then written up in appropriate terminology including whatever conclusions I had suggested. This reflected her lack of confidence in her assessment as much as confidence in my work, although in fairness I did come across individuals whose reports to courts struck me as having only a limited relevance to the individual and their families whose future was under consideration. I soon learnt that simply because an individual successfully completed a course and passed examinations did not mean that any kind of standard or common performance level could be expected. All my subsequent experience confirmed this impression applied across the range of professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, educators and professionals in social welfare work. Try explaining the difference between a psycho analyst, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychotherapist, a counsellor or social worker to someone threatening suicide.
This is not to suggest that I ever set myself up as an equal or an effective practitioner, having undertaken only a term of psychology tutorials with a behaviourist among his rats at the Oxford Institute of Experimental Psychology and where most of the time was used to try and get me to abandon going into social work and attempt a Philosophy and Psychology degree at the University. I did buy and read Bertrand's Russell's History of Western Philosophy and understood a little, but John-Paul Sartre’s "Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, Being and Nothingness", which defeated then, and a quick look now confirms that it is still beyond my grasp without a prolonged preparatory study. Fortunately I have had the ability to know what I do not know, although this has never prevented me from doing, or saying what I wanted, such as defining what contemporary art means at this moment and in this dimension. I continues with my studies which including some knowledge of psychiatry, psychology and sociology, passed examination to my amazement and my practical work was assessed as being of a standard sufficient to gain the certificate of approval to function.
Previously I did once stand on a Trafalgar Square platform alongside Lord Bertrand Russell having become a member of his Committee 100, and according to his wife upset him greatly when I wrote to warn that his main lieutenant appeared to have no understanding of Aldous Huxley's work on Ends and Means, forecasting that the project would end in disaster, resigning from the committee, and therefore avoided the round up which sent him and a number of his confederates to varying periods of imprisonment. However performing the role of the boy, or girl, who declares in public that the King or Queen is wearing no clothes, is not to be recommended if you hanker for a normal existence.
I was reminded of my one communication failure with Lord Russell because his posthumous site on MySpace has the except of an interview with him about the nature of fanaticism in which he warns of the dangers of becoming such an enthusiast for or against something that you hate and will do anything to destroy those with opposing positions. He then explains that this is bad enough when restricted to one or a few individuals but becomes dangerous and harmful when adopted by large groups, such political parties, and religions. He points out that it was only when Rome converted to Christianity did the empire become anti Semitic and that the behaviour of the fanatic should be regarded as madness, albeit madness of a collective and possible temporary nature. Even more striking is his argument against action which is illegal. It is Ok to campaign to change a law but in a democracy it is generally wrong to set out to break the law in order to make a point.
Given this extract from an interview (undated) it is understandable that his consistency in argument and ethical integrity was questioned when he gave his name to the Committee of 100 and was successfully prosecuted by the state for his part in promoting mass civil disobedience against the democratically elected government. He answered his critics in the final chapter of an enlarged polemic pamphlet, "Common Sense and Nuclear War," George Allen and Unwin 1959 in which he pointed out that it is not wrong to amend or change policies and approaches according to changing circumstances. He gives the example of someone on a train which breaks down at a station and where there is no prospect of reaching the destination by the required time, and that the sensible action is to get off the train and seek another means of getting to your destination. He argued that the situation had significantly changed once more than one nation possessed a weapon of mass destruction and where the likelihood was that possession of the weapon would spread and would eventually come under the control of lunatics who could come to take power in government, reminding that this had been the situation in Nazi Germany and what would have happened if Hitler had been able to develop an atomic weapon.
It may be considered that Russell was a serious intellectual, a man apart who in a one sense is so but he was also 'normal.' One of his great essays is "In Praise of Idleness," in which he confessed that he was brought up on the basis that Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do, and that having been a virtuous child he developed a conscience which kept him working hard until old age but although his conscience controlled his actions, his opinions had undergone a revolution and there was far too much work done in the world and that immense harm was caused because of the belief that work is virtuous regardless of what that work involves. Another highly recommended work is the Conquest of Happiness which while accepting that everyone is dependent on external factors, he argues that we can achieve a state of wellbeing by having sufficient food, shelter, health, love, and companionship, satisfying work and social respect. However it is also possible to be happy without a balance of normal ingredients but it takes an exceptional person to do so. His argument in favour of seeking happiness is because happy people tend to have a happy outlook, support happy lifestyles and going in for politics, religions and beliefs which breed happiness, and vice versa. However as he points out at the beginning of "The Problems of Philosophy", is there knowledge in the world which is so certain than no reasonable person can doubt it? And of course being a philosopher he has to answer that this is one of the most difficult questions to answer.
I have tonight used as much time reflecting on aspects of my experience of the life and work of Bertrand Russell, (I also have the Ronald Clark biography), as I spent watching Night Shift although I regret neither because I had a good time in both instances. It is also why I frequently use time watching rubbish, watching others work or watching them just being. Nor did I feel incensed at the portrayal of the professional helper, although I did contemplate attempting to contact the individual to remind that the character in the play was a counsellor, that is someone who supports others and whose role is not to treat or change, and that from my experience the individual who can show caring, however badly trained and lacking in professionalism is a hundredth fold more likely to be help than one who maintains clinical detachment.
My first ever visit to a family, was arranged as a student undertaking my first practical work assignment with a Family Service Unit. The woman was established in the region as heading a problem family of three generations and was one of the first to appear on television in this role. The local authority had knocked two houses together such had been the size of her family who had since grown up, although a few would return later in the afternoon from school. She sat at one end of a double lounge with her husband next to her, and I sat before her with another family member and her offspring, and for two hours I listened as she went through the legion of social workers, students and officials who she had known over two and a half decades, telling me of their good points, their failing and it was as effective a course in human behaviour as you can ever get from a textbook. I grasped the fundamental truth that not only if you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you, but the abyss will see as much or more of you that you can see of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment